Disabled by grenade - soldier fights for his benefits

[AccessOfficer]

A former lance corporal wounded in grenade attack in Iraq says he is being accuse He says that six successive doctors, including three appointed by the DWP, have agreed his injuries are serious.
But assessors from the D.W.P have stopped a £70 monthly allowance to Douglas's wife, Maria, for help with his "bathing and toileting difficulties" after in effect accusing him, he says, of "faking" his injuries. The DWP said he had failed to inform them of a "change in circumstances", essentially that his health had improved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/24/disabled-grenade-soldier-benefits

Regards
AO

[Yvette]

How appalling. The D.W.P  are   >bleep<     >bleep<

[DarthVector]

Yet again, I'm sickened by the way DWP spokespeople always ignore the injustice at hand and push their agenda instead. Every single time the press ask for a comment on a case like this, the DWP does nothing but assert that the system will be so much better after the welfare cuts are complete.

[neurochick]

Before everyone automatically jumps to his defence, you might want to read further and also look at some of the comments he himself made about his great recovery in an interview on the BBC news website after he had the neuromodulation surgery for his bladder and bowels.  There is much more to this than the usual 'poor bloke with an acquired disability being turned down by the DWP' story.  He has been the subject of multiple investigations including a covert investigation involving the police. 

I'm not saying that the particular decision to refuse careers allowance was correct -  just that not every story about a disabled person not getting benefits should necessarily be taken at face value as inherently involving unfair treatment by the DWP.  Whether this particular man did or he didnt obtain benefits he wasn't entitled to, disabled people who abuse the system are no better than non-disabled people who do the same.

[Dic Penderyn]

Somehow the knowledge that that the full force of the state had been turned against this individual and that the police had been spying on him does not make me feel any better.

[KizzyKazaer]

What I am uncomfortable with about all this is the mindset held by his insurers:

Despite his failed appeal, Douglas continued to pursue his case with Scottish Widows. It then put him under surveillance, apparently suspicious after learning he had set up the charity and was working as an administrator at a local primary care trust.

That smacks to me of someone being penalised for working - at a time when the Government is pushing for as many disabled people as possible to get back to paid employment.  Rather 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' is the message, it seems.

[stalwart]

I just spent 15 mins writing a post and then it says I'm timed out >steam< I feel like  >crying<
It takes a lot out of me doing posts :-(

[seegee]

The "timed-out" thing has been happenng to me too.

[oldtone27]

Noticed OuchToo has been slow on and off for a few days, but ok today so far for me.

To avoid 'time out' problem I always compose posts in a text editor first then copy and paste to reply box. That way I still have text until I know it has posted.

[Peggythepirate]

The Guardian article doesn't make any sense. They're confused about whether CA is his or his wife's benefit. It's not clear if she's working. If she earns over £100 pw she wouldn't get CA anyway. It doesn't make clear whether they're also talking about DLA. If so, on what grounds did he claim DLA? What is it that he can't do for himself? Are these claims at odds with what he does at work? DLA care would have to be at middle or higher level for his wife to get CA. We just don't know. Does he need Access to Work? It's not mentioned. Does he claim Tax Credits? Does he have an army pension?

If he didn't tell them about a change of circumstances then he should expect them to challenge him.

There is just not enough clear, solid information in this article for anyone to tell the rights and wrongs of the situation.

[Dic Penderyn]

When it says timed out just refresh the page you should find the reply has been posted.

[neurochick]

Kizzy

His insurance company aren't trying to penalise him for working.  The policy was in place to pay off his mortgage in the event that he became totally disabled.  The test for this is that a person is totally unable to do any work of any sort.  Some policies are based on a test which pays out if you are unable to work at your normal job (a lower test standard) but others like this only pay out if you are unable to work at all in any job.  That is why they were investigating the claims that he was undertaking all of this activity which would either be equivalent to a job or would show that he could actually do a job.   The article quotes him telling us how hard he works.  It's not about penalising anyone, its about paying out to assist someone but only in circumstances where a person is completely unable to work at all.  Unlike state benefits, this is a commercial arrangement that he entered into voluntarily with awareness of the policy test upfront. 

I am no fan of insurance companies believe me but I have no desire to pay increased premiums because people get payouts they aren't entitled to receive.

[Dic Penderyn]

I still don't see why the police became involved where they acting on behalf of the DWP or the Insurance company or was there a question of criminal activity involved?

[Peggythepirate]

I still don't see why the police became involved where they acting on behalf of the DWP or the Insurance company or was there a question of criminal activity involved?

The article doesn't make things at all clear.

*If* someone lied to their insurance company and said that they were incapable of doing any work when. in fact, they could do work, in order to claim a pay out to which they were not entitled, it would be fraud. Fraud and suspected fraud should be reported to the police.

We don't really know exactly what has happened in this particular case.

[KizzyKazaer]

Points taken, Neurochick and Peggythepirate....

I'll certainly agree about all the facts not being available - that's the trouble with most media reporting on benefit fraud anyway, whether it's 'pro' or 'anti' the claimant!