benefit fraud?

No offence but i have multiple sclerosis in a very advanced stage (respite care for 3 weeks) and im launching an appeal against a no award ruling...id be pretty peed off if i knew of somebody claiming dla while refereeing! xx

DLA(LRM) is for people that need supervision in unfamiliar places. A referee could easily be supervised when at an away match, and it would be possible for a referee in a local league only to referee in familiar places.

Looks like this thread may be locked soon!

Just wanted to say that I for one am saving my anger for the politicians and the negative media. (and malicious callers).

Does anyone like going to the doctors, hospital, atos medicals, tribunals etc?

People are awarded benefits having gone through the same processes you and I have, don't think then that they just get given benefits easily!

I think that one thing that this case highlights is that DLA entitlement is not clear cut, that it depends on individual circumstances, and that it is very difficult to know whether someone is entitled to DLA without knowing all the circumstances.

If you consider how many appeals against decisions are successful, then it shows that even Decision Makers find it difficult to assess just who is or is not entitled to DLA. That means that we can discuss issues in general, but we only know about specific cases on here what people tell us, which is only a small part of the picture.

pata1 wrote:

Actually, the level of fraud in DLA claims as per DWP statistics is less than 0.5%.

However, that doesn't stop members of the public, usually jealous neighbours,
ex-partners, wives etc anonymously reporting claimants for alleged benefits fraud.

Earlier in the year, Jim was anonymously reported to the DWP Fraudline because he was supposedly renovating our retirement apartment and was allegedly seen carrying bags of sand and cement along our promenade, despite the DWP knowing he'd been a wheelchair user for over 10 years

Our apartment is only 16 years old and is in excellent condition.

However, that didn't stop us being visited by a Customer Compliance Officer.

Thankfully, she was a very kind and understanding lady, and on seeing Jim, she had no hesitation in accepting that Jim was fully entitled to his current DLA award, and went on to inform us that around 95% of anonymous calls turn out to be malicious calls.

Need I say more

Pat

it gone up to about 1.8% see my post with details of there being no medical for the DLA change

its still low but a big jump from what it was

Survivor wrote:

I think that one thing that this case highlights is that DLA entitlement is not clear cut, that it depends on individual circumstances, and that it is very difficult to know whether someone is entitled to DLA without knowing all the circumstances.

If you consider how many appeals against decisions are successful, then it shows that even Decision Makers find it difficult to assess just who is or is not entitled to DLA. That means that we can discuss issues in general, but we only know about specific cases on here what people tell us, which is only a small part of the picture.

What I have never got my head around is how some very sick people take ages to get DLA awarded and some people who have been found guilty by a court of law sailed through and got the benefit

I think if funding for advice centers is cut, then people found guilty of DLA fraud should be made to do community service and help others fill in there forms, they seem to know what they where doing