Right Payment Programme


T

The Weary Wizard

My mother, who is in receipt of DLA due to Rheumatoid Arthritis, has
just been required to submit a completed questionnaire in connection
with the Right Payment Programme. This all smells very insidious.
She is very disabled and in receipt of the benefit for some 14 years.
Her condition is progressive and certainly will not get better, so
being required to do this does make me very wary.

Should she be be worried?
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mike

The said:
My mother, who is in receipt of DLA due to Rheumatoid Arthritis, has
just been required to submit a completed questionnaire in connection
with the Right Payment Programme. This all smells very insidious.
She is very disabled and in receipt of the benefit for some 14 years.
Her condition is progressive and certainly will not get better, so
being required to do this does make me very wary.

Should she be be worried?
Probably not unless she has understated her care/mobility needs as this
might result in a change in her entitlement. There's probably no opt
out, if she refuses to complete one they will probably visit her and if
that doesn't get one completed they may ultimately be able to stop her
DLA. Completing is a lot less hassle than not completing.

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/f8.htm

Sounds a bit like the reviews undertaken by some other parts of the DWP
which are used as a measure of fraud and error in the caseload. They
take the results from the review sample and using increasingly complex
statistical weighting turn those into figures which in theory show how
accurate the DLA/AA payments are.

Mike
 
M

mart2306

Probably not unless she has understated her care/mobility needs as this
might result in a change in her entitlement. There's probably no opt
out, if she refuses to complete one they will probably visit her and if
that doesn't get one completed they may ultimately be able to stop her
DLA.  Completing is a lot less hassle than not completing.

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/f8.htm

Sounds a bit like the reviews undertaken by some other parts of the DWP
which are used as a measure of fraud and error in the caseload.  They
take the results from the review sample and using increasingly complex
statistical weighting turn those into figures which in theory show how
accurate the DLA/AA payments are.

Mike
A tad cheaper method than doing it for every single claimant. Just a
bit less accurate.

Martin <><
 
R

Robbie

Mike said:
Probably not unless she has understated her care/mobility needs as this
might result in a change in her entitlement. There's probably no opt
out, if she refuses to complete one they will probably visit her and if
that doesn't get one completed they may ultimately be able to stop her
DLA. Completing is a lot less hassle than not completing.

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/f8.htm

Sounds a bit like the reviews undertaken by some other parts of the DWP
which are used as a measure of fraud and error in the caseload. They
take the results from the review sample and using increasingly complex
statistical weighting turn those into figures which in theory show how
accurate the DLA/AA payments are.

Mike
It sounds like an updated version of the Benefit Integrity Programme
from a decade ago which was then ditched for the Periodic Enquiry Review
project which was then ditched too. The BIP led to a national outcry
about the way it was implemented (benefits suspended without warning
which led to a massive parliamentary backlash and BIP itself being
suspended and then dropped) and Periodic Enquiry Reviews were dropped as
too many people were getting increases in DLA. From one extreme to the
other.

For the original poster there's something about the Right Payment
Programme at this page:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits/dcs/news.asp

it's near the bottom of the page

Plus this too:

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/f8.htm
 
G

ghostwhistler

It sounds like an updated version of the Benefit Integrity Programme
from a decade ago which was then ditched for the Periodic Enquiry Review
project which was then ditched too. The BIP led to a national outcry
about the way it was implemented (benefits suspended without warning
which led to a massive parliamentary
How is that different from now?
 
R

Robbie

How is that different from now?
From what I've read it seems like the DLA people will contact someone
before they adjust benefit downwards. Under that BIP they were literally
just stopping DLA without warning, based on the replies people were
giving. That was totally wrong.

It's still a scheme to worry people unnecessarily - people know they
have to contact the DLA unit if circumstances change. A short form
asking if they have any changes to report, computer produced to address
the specific reasons that person is getting DLA would be sufficient, but
its not about case control, it's about harassing people who are often
very vulnerable. The figures produced from the exercise are then usually
used to justify extending the project, to investigate more claims.
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

ghostwhistler

 From what I've read it seems like the DLA people will contact someone
before they adjust benefit downwards. Under that BIP they were literally
just stopping DLA without warning, based on the replies people were
giving. That was totally wrong.

It's still a scheme to worry people unnecessarily - people know they
have to contact the DLA unit if circumstances change. A short form
asking if they have any changes to report, computer produced to address
the specific reasons that person is getting DLA would be sufficient, but
its not about case control, it's about harassing people who are often
very vulnerable. The figures produced from the exercise are then usually
used to justify extending the project, to investigate more claims.
I absolutely agree.
 
M

Mike

Robbie said:
From what I've read it seems like the DLA people will contact someone
before they adjust benefit downwards. Under that BIP they were literally
just stopping DLA without warning, based on the replies people were
giving. That was totally wrong.

It's still a scheme to worry people unnecessarily - people know they
have to contact the DLA unit if circumstances change. A short form
asking if they have any changes to report, computer produced to address
the specific reasons that person is getting DLA would be sufficient, but
its not about case control, it's about harassing people who are often
very vulnerable. The figures produced from the exercise are then usually
used to justify extending the project, to investigate more claims.
The problem is people don't report changes. Many never get better and
so their AA/DLA will stay at max or increase over time to the max but
some peoples condition do improve.

Recently DCS reviewed a lot of Special Rules cases as people had been
terminally ill for approaching 10 years. I understand many of the
diagnosis had changed from terminally ill due to treatment and they
hadn't told us. Many no longer needed the same level of care as they
had done when they claimed. I certainly don't envy the officers
reviewing the claims but it is essential work to protect the public purse.

Mike
 
G

ghostwhistler

but it is essential work to protect the public purse.

Mike
The problem is this attitude always leads to an approach that's akin
to taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Why the assumption that, because someone who has been very ill's
circumstances might have improved enough, everyone's on the take? It's
this attitude that I don't care for and it's prevalent thanks to the
politicians and the tabloids.
 
M

mart2306

The problem is this attitude always leads to an approach that's akin
to taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Why the assumption that, because someone who has been very ill's
circumstances might have improved enough, everyone's on the take? It's
this attitude that I don't care for and it's prevalent thanks to the
politicians and the tabloids.
Its also something that, taken to extremes, bankrupts the country.
Either its fraud and should be stamped on. Or its all right and taxes
go up to pay for it.
Government doesn't make money. It gets it from us.

The sledgehammer can be useful - properly applied you can crack the
nut. Improperly applied you splatter it.

Martin <><
 
G

ghostwhistler

Its also something that, taken to extremes, bankrupts the country.

There is no logic to this attitude. I think the citizens wage is a
good idea, but it's like the argument people present to counter the
idea that says that as a result no one would ever go out to work. It's
just not true.

If you're arguing from the perspective of an extreme, then you've
already lost the plot. The welfare state isn't assailed nor is it
about to crumble. At the moment JSA costs you less than the amount of
money you pay to the royal family - and they don't attract anywhere
near the same kind of ire.
Either its fraud and should be stamped on. Or its all right and taxes
go up to pay for it.
Welfare isn't fraud. The basic premise of a society is that it looks
after everyone within. I wouldn't want to live in any other kind of
community. Unfortunately beause of the prevalence of scarcity
thinking, propagated by those whose interests lie in hoarding the
wealth and keeping it for themselves, and their media agents, people
now believe there isn't enough to go around, or that people who claim
benefits aren't entitled to a decent standard of living. Since when
did human society revolve around entitlement? Noone asked me to fill
out a form when I was gestating, so why do we let the world work this
way?

But as I've said before - actual benefit fraud is nowhere near a big
enough issue to worry about let alone base policies and thinking
around. Do we ban banking because of the poor practise of bankers who
scam the system - no we bail them out.
Do we complain in the same way about the super rich who don't pay the
same share of tax as those who are very quick to bemoan their taxes
going to the poor? Nope.
Government doesn't make money. It gets it from us.
INdeed. But the money in the treasury is not your money anymore. No
more than the money you pay tescoes for your meat and potatoes is
still yours. Can you imagine the reaction at the local supermarket if
you went around and had a pop at the manager for buying in stock you
didn't approve of (if you do, then congratulations, you're Jamie
Oliver!)
The sledgehammer can be useful - properly applied you can crack the
nut. Improperly applied you splatter it.
That's kinda the point of the analogy.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

There is no logic to this attitude. I think the citizens wage is a
good idea, but it's like the argument people present to counter the
idea that says that as a result no one would ever go out to work. It's
just not true.

If you're arguing from the perspective of an extreme, then you've
already lost the plot. The welfare state isn't assailed nor is it
about to crumble.
Its not about to crumble. It does however attract some people who
willingly fiddle it to get extra money.


At the moment JSA costs you less than the amount of
money you pay to the royal family - and they don't attract anywhere
near the same kind of ire.
That much difference eh?
Or do you mean the amount of known fraud on JSA?
Welfare isn't fraud.
I never said it was.
However, not reporting a change when its extra money for you if you
don't report it, is that fraud or should that be paid?

The basic premise of a society is that it looks
after everyone within. I wouldn't want to live in any other kind of
community.
Ah, a socialist ideal. Not that its necessarily bad, just not always
great in practice.

Unfortunately beause of the prevalence of scarcity
thinking, propagated by those whose interests lie in hoarding the
wealth and keeping it for themselves, and their media agents, people
now believe there isn't enough to go around,
Conspiracy theory now?

or that people who claim
benefits aren't entitled to a decent standard of living.
They aren't. The benefits levels are set so low.


Since when
did human society revolve around entitlement?
Since government started giving money rather than people relying on
family.
Before the welfare state you didn't worry about entitlement, you
worked or you didn't. Family helped, as did some organisations but it
was mostly down to you.

Noone asked me to fill
out a form when I was gestating, so why do we let the world work this
way?
Someone invented administration.

But as I've said before - actual benefit fraud is nowhere near a big
enough issue to worry about let alone base policies and thinking
around.
You haven't talked to many fraud officers then?
Policies that ignore fraud are just daft, ones that take it into
account and try and minimise it will at least keep some costs down.
We are talking fraud though - not people getting what they are
entitled to, which is a different thing.

Do we ban banking because of the poor practise of bankers who
scam the system - no we bail them out.
Not just bankers.
And is the alternitive to bailing them out better?
Do we complain in the same way about the super rich who don't pay the
same share of tax as those who are very quick to bemoan their taxes
going to the poor? Nope.


INdeed. But the money in the treasury is not your money anymore. No
more than the money you pay tescoes for your meat and potatoes is
still yours.
Actually it is. I own some shares in Tesco so get some of my money
back. :)
But I do get some goods and services for my money - has value to me.

Can you imagine the reaction at the local supermarket if
you went around and had a pop at the manager for buying in stock you
didn't approve of (if you do, then congratulations, you're Jamie
Oliver!)
I simply don't buy stock I don't approve of. Including organic, low
salt and sweeteners.

That's kinda the point of the analogy.
Martin <><
 
G

ghostwhistler

Its not about to crumble. It does however attract some people who
willingly fiddle it to get extra money.
So does anything. Shops attract thieves, should we ban shops?
That much difference eh?
Or do you mean the amount of known fraud on JSA?
No i mean the JSA bill itself. You as a taxpayer 'spend' (by you i
mean the government, it's not your money that gets spent it's the
government's) more supporting the House of Windsor than you do the
dole.

And 'known'?

Is that where you get to say that there are so many people claiming
benefits of one ind or another that there must be a lot more people on
the fiddle by virtue of sheer weight of numbers? That's like saying
that aliens must be real because of the sheer weight of numbers of
people who claim ot have seen them.
However, not reporting a change when its extra money for you if you
don't report it, is that fraud or should that be paid?
Not reporting a change is just that. People are not machines and
sometimes forget things. Sadly these days that means that they must be
treated with suspicion and an intent to do wrong, as that's how our
society now operates. Guilty till proven innocent is how the benefits
system works.
Ah, a socialist ideal. Not that its necessarily bad, just not always
great in practice.
That's because we don't practise it and because we are governed by a
capitalist mindset which, as we can see, doesn't ultiamtely work.
Conspiracy theory now?
Hardly. The richest 2 per cent of people in the world own more than
half of all household wealth, while the poorer half of the global
population control just 1 per cent.

That isn't a conspiracy theory.
 or that people who claim


They aren't. The benefits levels are set so low.
You honestly believe that people aren't entiteled to a decent standard
of living? Do you value human life in monetary terms? Human life and
society existed long before money and industrialism.
Since government started giving money rather than people relying on
family.
What does family have to do with anything?
Before the welfare state you didn't worry about entitlement, you
worked or you didn't. Family helped, as did some organisations but it
was mostly down to you.
Before the welfare state peopel starved on the streets, existed in
poorhouses and kids were sent up chimneys.
You haven't talked to many fraud officers then?
If you talk to a fraud officer you will get a skewed perspective since
they will be dealing with benefit claimants who are predominantly
fraudsters by virtue of their work. You certainly won't be getting a
clear picture. Less than 2% of JSA is fraudulent, comparable with an
amount paid due to customer error and slightly less than official
error. Also not much more than pension money fraudulently claimed.
Perhaps we should ban pensions for those dapper grey thieves!
Policies that ignore fraud are just daft, ones that take it into
account and try and minimise it will at least keep some costs down.
We are talking fraud though - not people getting what they are
entitled to, which is a different thing.
I don't recall saying that fraud should be ignored. Though I suspect
the amount of money expended in dealing with the terrible scourge of
benefit fraud is probably not far behind the amount stolen by these
evil criminals.
Not just bankers.
So how do you run banks then without bankers?
And is the alternitive to bailing them out better?
I have no idea, I'm not advocating any one solution.
I simply don't buy stock I don't approve of. Including organic, low
salt and sweeteners.
Try not to miss the point.
 
M

mart2306

On 17 Oct, 08:57, "(e-mail address removed)"
And 'known'?

Is that where you get to say that there are so many people claiming
benefits of one ind or another that there must be a lot more people on
the fiddle by virtue of sheer weight of numbers? That's like saying
that aliens must be real because of the sheer weight of numbers of
people who claim ot have seen them.

By known I mean the ones who have admitted it or who have been tried
in court and found guilty.

Not reporting a change is just that. People are not machines and
sometimes forget things. Sadly these days that means that they must be
treated with suspicion and an intent to do wrong, as that's how our
society now operates. Guilty till proven innocent is how the benefits
system works.
And when its financially to their advantage to forget?
The benefits system presumes a lot of things. Including that you can
handle your own financial affairs and that you can read (we don't have
even close to 100% literacy rate).

That's because we don't practise it and because we are governed by a
capitalist mindset which, as we can see, doesn't ultiamtely work.
No system works when it has problems. You tend to get systems put in
place that are different from before, solve some problems and create
others.
Cuba is one of the more famous examples in recent times of a
capitalist system that was replaced.

Hardly. The richest 2 per cent of people in the world own more than
half of all household wealth, while the poorer half of the global
population control just 1 per cent.
Global isn't Britain.

That isn't a conspiracy theory.



You honestly believe that people aren't entiteled to a decent standard
of living? Do you value human life in monetary terms? Human life and
society existed long before money and industrialism.
No, they aren't entitled to a decent standard of living under our
current benefit systems.
I don't say I always agree with the levels set - but what we have is a
system that gives a low amount. Lower for some than for others.
If people were entitled to a decent standard of living we'd have
different benefit rules, different benefit rates and different tax
rates.
In the meantime, try and keep up with the system we do have.
What does family have to do with anything?
Before the welfare state, family was the main source of help.
Before the welfare state peopel starved on the streets, existed in
poorhouses and kids were sent up chimneys.
True.
But you didn't rely on government to do things.

<snipped to try and keep posting shortish>

Martin <><
 
G

ghostwhistler

By known I mean the ones who have admitted it or who have been tried
in court and found guilty.
And they are representative of all benefits claimants then?
And when its financially to their advantage to forget?
You don't seem to understand the concept of forgetfulness.
The benefits system presumes a lot of things. Including that you can
handle your own financial affairs and that you can read (we don't have
even close to 100% literacy rate).
all the more reason to help people rather than chastise them or
criminalise them.

Forgetfulness isn't a crime as far as I'm aware.
No system works when it has problems. You tend to get systems put in
place that are different from before, solve some problems and create
others.
Cuba is one of the more famous examples in recent times of a
capitalist system that was replaced.
Our system doesn't work, that's why we have 3 times as many people
looking for jobs than there are jobs for them.

Do we let those people starve and go destitute because of simple
mathematics?
Global isn't Britain.
YOu think it so different in Britain as to be an invalid point? It's
about 10% here. Hardly an improvement.

No, they aren't entitled to a decent standard of living under our
current benefit systems.
So we should let people starve then?
I don't say I always agree with the levels set - but what we have is a
system that gives a low amount. Lower for some than for others.
If people were entitled to a decent standard of living we'd have
different benefit rules, different benefit rates and different tax
rates.
In the meantime, try and keep up with the system we do have.
I'd rather change it.
Before the welfare state, family was the main source of help.
We don't live before the welfare state, we live now.
True.
But you didn't rely on government to do things.
What is so bad about relying on government? Government isn't any less
dependent.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
My mother, who is in receipt of DLA due to Rheumatoid Arthritis, has
just been required to submit a completed questionnaire in connection
with the Right Payment Programme. This all smells very insidious.
She is very disabled and in receipt of the benefit for some 14 years.
Her condition is progressive and certainly will not get better, so
being required to do this does make me very wary.

Should she be be worried?
she should be worried i have progressive ra FOR 12 YEARS GOT MY CAR TOOK OF ME BY GUNPOINT , .AND NOW GET ESA AND ITS £65 A WEEK and have to pay back £30 overpayment a week .? seen a dr/nurse from atos a profit making company. most from kenya, commonwealth so you can,t sue ,through europe uninon ? bllod tests don,t tell lies. this is great britain, or now its worse britain , home of the imigrant .who they are trying to get rid off , us with 8 generations in graveyuards have beg, steal, or borrow, so am taking whats mine , by hook or crook
liverpool
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Programmable Keyboard 3
programmable keyboard 1
Accounts programme 4
Programmable Keyboard 1
Is payment for severing Right to sue taxable? 2
CFA Study Programmes 1
Is It Right? 3
Quickbooks Programmer for hire 0

Top