Select Committee on Social Security Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR) (DLA 2A) as an Appendix to the Disability Benefit Consortium Submission

BENEFIT INTEGRITY PROJECT

  1. RADAR together with other members of the Disability Benefits Consortium have been monitoring the project since its introduction. Since that time, we have been informed of numerous problems with the project ranging from difficulties obtaining copies of previous application forms to visiting officers turning up on people's doorsteps.

  2. While some of the problems which occurred early on have been addressed, specifically short notice/same day visits, RADAR continues to receive information from individuals extremely anxious about the outcome of a review, as well as those concerned at the prospect of a visit or questionnaire.

  3. We have grave concerns about the quality of the visits and the lack of awareness of disability by visiting officers. In particular we have been informed of a visiting officer who asked a young man how old he was when he "contracted Downs Syndrome". In another case a visit of two hours caused a great deal of discomfort to a woman with arthritis in her spine.

  4. Individuals contacting RADAR have very little confidence that the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP) is anything other than an exercise to cut benefit. Basic mistakes on paperwork sent such as incorrect names and reference numbers do not reassure people that this is a competent exercise.

  5. Below are brief outlines of some of the cases we have been sent which we believe illustrate some of the main concerns about BIP.

  6. A 71-year-old woman with osteo-arthritis in all joints, diabetes and breathing problems, receiving middle rate care and higher rate mobility completed the questionnaire without assistance. She indicated that her condition had deteriorated and that a stair lift had been installed in the house. She was not aware that her care component had been stopped until she went to withdraw money from her bank account. On contacting the DLA Unit at Blackpool she was told that her care component was stopped because a stairlift had been installed. She is still awaiting the outcome of her request for a review.

  7. A 68-year-old woman with a number of conditions including emphysema, arthritis, diabetes and angina was receiving both components at the higher rate. She was visited in October and her comments on the visit were that the visiting officer "did not discuss medical condition but spent whole visit discussing Hull ". She lost her entitlement to both components despite the fact that she receives hospital treatment every week , her GP visits fortnightly and district nurses visit alternate days. She had the mobility component reinstated on review but is still without the care component and is having to appeal.

  8. A 54-year-old woman with psoriatic arthritis, has had both shoulders replaced, surgery to both wrists causing weakness and rigidity and is awaiting surgery to her left knee. She had middle rate care and higher rate mobility component for life. She received a questionnaire to complete and following BIP review had her care component reduced to the lower rate. She told us that "as my award was for life I did not complete the new forms properly even though my condition has worsened. Some of the questions I just put `as before' instead of completing it thoroughly. The way that these forms arrived with no clear explanation I feel is wrong. I have been greatly distressed by what has happened and of course worry and stress do not help anyone. I feel that perhaps there could be a better way. "

  9. A 62-year-old woman who was partially sighted, had diabetes, a below knee amputation and hypertension completed the DLA 250 herself. Her entitlement to both rates was removed and she has appealed against the decision. Her welfare rights advisor explained that the GP, who was contacted by the DLA unit, was unaware of his patients difficulties and consequently the report was not good. The advisor further explained that the woman's own assessment was optimistic and that she is a very independent determined lady.

  10. A 50-year-old man in Berkshire with a total Tracheotomy (had his voice box removed following throat cancer) was awarded middle rate care and higher rate mobility components for life in February 1996. He received a DLA 250 questionnaire to complete. Five months later he was notified of the outcome of his Benefit Integrity Project review of his award, his entitlement to both components was removed. A review has proved unsuccessful and he has now appealed. He explains "I applied for mobility because I needed help with getting around, because of voice box being removed, having difficulty breathing and getting very short of breath. I have problems communicating when I am outdoors, I have had jugular vein removed which puts pressure on smaller veins and causes them to burst. I also need my wife to help me wash and dress."

  11. A 46-year-old woman "severely disabled with multiple sclerosis, no use in either leg or right arm wheelchair user " receiving both components at the higher rates. Her husband told the visiting officer that he was helping his wife more now than when the claim was first awarded (for life) in 1991. Following the visit the higher rate care award was reduced to middle rate, (it has since been reinstated on review,) there has been a further "attack" brought on, they believe, by the stress of the original decision.

  12. A 69-year-old man with "left ventricle failure, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive airways disease and ongoing dementia" who was originally awarded mobility allowance and lower rate attendance allowance from 1990 for five years. In 1995 he was awarded DLA higher rate mobility and middle rate care for life. He completed and returned the DLA 250 questionnaire and received a follow up visit from a Visiting Medical Practitioner (VMP). The VMP, according to the man's benefits advisor, ignored the views of the claimant's wife and preferred views of the man himself even though they were unreliable as a result of the dementia. Entitlement to both rates was removed. There was no change at review but the benefits were reinstated at appeal (with an increased level for care). The advisor believed that "claimant had been treated unfairly.

Ended up in intensive care following receipt of BIP review reply. "

  13. RADAR has received calls from thousands of disabled people anxious and fearful as a result of BIP.

We are aware that many other groups have received similar calls and letters. A recent survey by Mind—the mental health organisation—focused on the impact of rumours of changes to disability benefits on people with mental distress. The survey although not directly referring to BIP, revealed high levels of anger and worry amongst respondents from local Mind associations and found that the uncertainty about the future was damaging mental health now.

17 March 1998


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 30 April 1998