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
| 
