I've always been keen on giving the underdog their say, probably because I've been the underdog so much of my life I'm writing about my experience going through the social security benefits overhaul to describe how awful it is, and to put my points across.
I've been going through the changeover from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independent Payment with the government's benefit overhaul and it's been awful. I was born with a one in 5000 complication which I ended up getting reconstructive surgery in Great Ormond St children's hospital to fix when I was nearly 16, then further surgery in the Middlesex Hospital in my mid twenties. I was awarded DLA for life when I was 16, as what I cope with isn't going to change and neither is the daily maintenance and care.
The PIP claim was refused, and the mandatory reconsideration turned down. The main problems here are that statutory guidelines in PIP advice issued to disability welfare to help in completing applications were not adhered to; in the report by the decision maker there were assumptions made about my health, and part of the report statement was based on something out of context; and my both my Citizen's Advice case worker and I feel that the mandatory reconsideration statement wasn't properly read.
The 'medical professionals' I've encountered during this process are quite unlike any GPs, consultant surgeons, nurses, radiologists, etc etc I've ever encountered in my vast experience. Their cross examination was intimidating; they had a hostile attitude and were more like prosecution lawyers who know how to get a very specific and particular response from someone. The approach was very simplistic, the tribunal were ready to hear only fairly basic answers to questions rather than fully fleshed responses that are appropriate in explaining complicated health issues and how these affect me on a daily basis.
The changes to the benefits system, and the changes to the eligibility criteria is completely unjust for someone in my circumstances. Restructuring the benefits system is all well and good (in theory) to try and reduce fraudulent claims, but to significantly change the qualifying criteria to make existing recipients unable to gain an ‘award’ (like it’s some kind of trophy!) is something which I believe should be illegal . People with restricted or limited capabilities should be given assistance as they need - if you don't have adequate quality of health you have very little. To treat people who are vulnerable in this way is awful, and my experience has shown people are being exploited to an unnecessary extent.
A most important aspect to this is the point that it's meant to be about saving money. When the half day session for a doctor is £300, and the lawyer will have a hefty fee as well, it will quickly meet the amount of money which could have covered many people's benefit claims for a year or more. There are several cases heard each day in centres up and down the country, and approx 60% of decisions to not grant claims are overturned, basically meaning these hearings are a huge waste of time, and money.
My entire life has been defined by cost cutting and money saving which has a continuing detrimental effect on my life and ability to reach my potential.
Continued use of antibiotics throughout my life has caused a huge problem for me. Two years ago I was able to start using alternative which it seems has been available since 2012 and I was only informed about it in 2017. When I asked why I'd not been made aware of this beforehand I was told that antibiotics are "recommended procedure" the reason for which becomes apparent when you consider the price difference between the mineral solution I now use is £97/month whereas the antibiotics I was on for nearly 30 years at least were less than £15/month according to a Google search. In the scheme of things, this is a small amount, and if my health had deteriorated further it would have ended up costing much more in the long run.
The other example is the lack of maintenance care I received as a child which caused severe permanent kidney impairment. The extent of it meant that I could have sued Yorkhill Hospital before I turned 21 (I didn't as I didn't want to go through that sort of experience as a youngster).
Regarding the working life I’m meant to sustain myself with,a prime example of this being untenable is that despite very interrupted education, within 5 years of getting my first job I was the only woman out of 120 applicants to get one of five jobs with BBC Scotland. Then after 2 years I was made redundant due to the financial crisis ten years ago, and the last several years have been spent working in a low paid job while continuing to train and progress in my specialism in fashion styling in quite a limited way while dealing with my health issues. I’ve had to rely on my creative ability to get satisfying work and there’s so little investment in the creative industry so very few opportunities for me to get suitable work on a regular basis. I have the ability to make my life work for me but the opportunities aren’t available.
Previously tax credits payments were alike to financial subsidies for lack of decent pay from good jobs, but now this has been stripped and there are fewer satisfying decent paying jobs. Surely the sensible solution is to get high generating companies to invest in creating more jobs of a higher quality, therefore enabling real personal independence payments.
If security isn't being provided through suitable jobs a responsible government has a moral, ethical and legal responsibility to it's society to support the people who make up that society through benefits.
