Social Security Schemes and Carer Allowances - Case Study Example

Running head: DLA AND CARER BENEFITS DLA and Carer Allowances: How the System Works You're Disability andCarer fraud have both been issues that have been a problem within the Government in the UK for a number of years now. Although it is true some people rather innocently succumb to the mistakes of notifying the system about changes to their DLA, or Carer allowance, others intentionally swindle the system creating various adversities for those who need the benefits. This research is being done to carry out an analysis on an exemplary case to give an idea of how the legislation works for DLA allowances and what the changes are. What will be found is one slight small change in a living situation can make all the difference in the correct amount of funding getting to the beneficiary or those entitled to receive the funding. In conclusion this research will show how to avoid the negativities, such as having to pay back an overpayment by emphasizing the correct steps to follow as well as how to go about notifying the service of any changes in the lifestyle of the person or persons receiving the benefits. DLA and Carer Allowances: How the System Works Social Security Schemes to gain funding that one is not entitled to is a pertinent problem in the UK, however some do make innocent mistakes such as in the case that this research is examining. Anytime that DLA increases or decreases the changes have to be noted or otherwise it could be presumed that fraud was being committed. The overpayment of carer services has been an extensive problem for a number of years now, therefore many laws and policies govern it. The main basic program is ran on a Universal Health Care Policy that depicts what benefits families will receive (Zeitzer 1995). The program that this couple falls under would be governed by the laws associated with "disability pension schemes" which can be found to be very strict when in regards to tracking family income and the amount of an allowance that should be allotted (Zeitzer 1995). Withholding information or not reporting changes to the proper association can promote much negativity in the program which this case is a prime example of what can happen. Furthermore, the assessed DLA defines what types of benefits an individual is entitled too and if they are eligible for carer service as well (Berthoud 1998, p. 224). Due to the past problems, such as those who have had to question whether or not to actually telephone a difference of their DLA change into the service, especially a carer service, such as in the case of Gloria and Steven, many improvisions have been made to correct these various problems and lower the fraud rate of DLA. The main concern of the Government is to gain funds back that were overpaid or falsely claimed period. So it could be that in Gloria's case, regardless of whether her actions were a mistake she is more than likely going to have to be pay back what she was overpaid due to the already outstanding issues in the policies of DLA and Carer benefits and allowances (Berthoud 1998, p.224). The reason for this is logically it can be assumed Gloria was aware of the laws at the review, she had to have known that carer's in a lower rating could not receive more than 40 pounds per week in income and must provide at least 35 hours of service (Zeitzer 1995). In Gloria's case there were hints that the income was above 40 pounds per week and also she was not putting in the service hours to make her eligible to receive the allowance that she was. However Gloria and Steven could possibly claim that they had perceived that the review board would have automatically alerted the other agencies that there were changes in the DLA benefits and therefore the Carer allowance would have been adjusted as well. At the same time this is said it could be stated that as soon as Gloria became aware she was being overpaid she should have called in and ensured that the changes had been received instead of sitting back and claiming the extra benefits of which she certainly wasn't entitled. The many adjustments and changes in DLA benefits and payments to carers could very well be taking place due to situations such as Gloria and Stevens but it is far more likely that it is caused by those who are intentionally lying on their disability claims. For example, the Incapacity Benefit is now possibly going to be changed to a short term benefit arrangement and those receiving the allotments are going to be required to do a means-test (Berthoud 1998, p.225). Also it has been stated that the DLA and Attendance allowances might be done away with in the aspect of cash altogether. Rather the government is considering sending the funds to the agencies that supply services to those who are disabled so that those with severe disabilities would receive appropriate care but it would be better measured by their needs rather than supplied to them in a monthly payment. Even though this has been discussed it hasn't taken place yet but if cases continue to arise such as Gloria and Stevens were funds were received yet not paid back, then there is a possibility of a social policy such as this one coming into effect. Furthermore, Gloria should have fully realized that she was being overpaid, especially considering that those with DLA allowances in the median don't get the extra cost benefit that she was providing her husband with fulltime (Berthoud 1998, p.226). The most median DLA clients receive is a minimum of carer services and Social Security is strict on this type of service more often than not. Of course Gloria and Steven's isn't the only type of case that goes before a review board and then somehow the new updated information gets scrambled and misinterpreted. There are a number of cases where scenarios such as this have taken place yet are not being disputed. What is being questioned however is why Gloria or Steven did not alert the benefit office when the carer allowance was still being allotted which both of them knew that they weren't entitled to. Again, it is obviously cases such as these that have lead to important questions being raised about the scope of social security and who should be entitled to what benefits. Even though Gloria and Steven can state their argument as being that they had perceived the benefit office was aware of the changes, it could be turned around and refuted to state that at the same time they knew they were getting extra benefits that they should have simply turned back in to the benefits office but they did not. Therefore their argument is not really reasonable or logical and again as is being repeatedly stated these types of cases affect the services of others as is seen in the case of Mrs. Cockurn who is 71 years of age and suffers from a number of disabilities (Wikeley 1998, p.552). The social policies meant to assist those with disabilities is definitely being sorely tested due to the many inaccuracies that do arise in benefits being passed out that should not be, or underreporting of income, etc. In fact it is raising many concerns among those who worry for their family members who have severe disabilities and are in need of more fulltime care and additional benefits. Although it has been stated that Gloria and Steven might have just made an honest mistake, they will still have to pay back the overpayment charge because they are not entitled to it, regardless of any argument that they claim or make. It is the only logical recourse of action in order to clear the system and take away one of the many mistakes that are affecting services. Some exemplary issues that are now in question among the many others are for instance what are going to happen to the longer term incapacity benefits that many of those suffering with disabilities are going to desperately need (Prior et al 1998, p. 72). Mental illness and psychiatric patients rely heavily on the benefit system, so this is another concern that is being created due to the number of miscalculations in funding and then other cases of obvious fraud. The scenario is somewhat bleak for those that have an honest need for the funding and extensive services. Furthermore, it doesn't help the situation any when there are cases such as Gloria and Stevens popping up and then the legislative process begins to question what the money is being used for that should never have been received. Often there is a problem with drug use with those who have disabilities and this could be assumed to have been an area in question with Gloria and Steven's case, even though they show no signs of drug use. However, if they knew there was a problem with the benefits why did they not turn in the money Another way of looking at it could be that they simply misassumed but nevertheless, the law holds Gloria liable for any overpayment that she received and expects reimbursement of the fees she received. For example, it could be considered a fault on her part to have misunderstood the payment as being correct. There are three forms of fault in these cases, ones with intent, malice, and then negligence (Deakin & Markesinis 1999). Thought it can't be proven that Gloria had any intention of committing a fraudulent act, by not returning the amount she wasn't entitled to increased the suspicion within the legal framework of the situation. Therefore, something seems oddly out of place in this case so it is logical to assume that perhaps one or the other could have been using the funds for something illegal and that is why they never reported it (Swartz et al, 2003, p. 966). It's sad to assume that this might have been what happened but one can never know for a certainty and regardless if drug use is a factor in Gloria or Stevens case or not, it doesn't change how their case and others affect the system as has been stated previously in this literature. Also, Gloria knows as a carer that she is under a governing "tort of contract" which her actions are prosecutable by the law for misrepresentation and suspicion of fraud (Deakin & Markesinis 1999). It is a fact that she will have to pay the overpayment back, as has been stated basically due to the tort law that governs carer services to begin with. The English law shows that any breach of contract by a service professional requires monetary compensation for restitution and penalization (Deakin & Markesinis 1999). For example, Mrs. Cockburn and other's like her now have to deal with statutory interpretations of their living situations before they can get the exact services that they need. Although Mrs. Cockburn suffers from severe arthritis and bladder incontinence with limited mobility she still doesn't get full carer service but simply help such as, a certain amount of hours a day about three times a week assisting her with laundry, dressing herself, and assisting somewhat with other necessities around her house (Wikeley 1998, p.553). Furthermore, other instances that emphasize fraud, misinformation, plus the lack of unpaid over funding are disrupting the system is in regards to another disabled elderly person. In Miss Fairy's case she needs extra help for when she gets older and these possible services she is entitled to have been interfered with due to the adversities facing the social security system. In Miss Fairy's case, she is deaf, yet she only gets a limited amount of carer allowance and that is when it is in regards to communication needing given since she can not speak for herself but needs a translator of sign language. Thereby it can be seen that the procedures to claim disability and other benefits along with it are becoming stricter all the time and with a global context as well. Now the procedures that are required and mandated require those with minimal disabilities to go through a number of competency testing processes, a medical examination, full length questionnaire form, and then receive a decision by an Adjudication officer to know whether or not they will be eligible for their benefits (Priori et al 1998, p.73). In conclusion this research has shown how the smallest details can have an adverse affect on the social security benefits and carer services of others who need them. Under-reporting or Non-reporting of changes period can drastically impact how well the benefit system is going to work. Because Gloria and Steven knew there was a problem yet failed to report it or return the over paid funds their cases is a prime example of how the system changes due to fraud and misinformation. In finality, it is hoped that Gloria and Steven will repay the over paid benefits because they are legally required to do so or could possibly face a fraud charge. In any regard, it is hoped that newer policies will change the way the program works and therefore prevent any innocent mistakes or wrong presumptions from occurring anymore. This would be a positive stage of the Social Security system and hopefully an improvement for disabled people everywhere within the UK. References Berthoud, Richard. (1998, 05 December). Small Change: The Benefits Agenda for Disabled People. New Economy, 5, 224-229. Deakin, S. F. & Markesinis, B. S. (1999) Tort Law. Clarendon Press, 20-25. Priori, Pauline & Econ, Phil & McGilloway, Sinead & Herron, Stanley & Donnely, Michael. Mental Health and Social Security: The Case of the Incapacity Benefit in Northern Ireland. Health and Social Care in the Community, 6, (1998): 71-77. Swartz, James & Hsieh, Chang-ming & Baumohl, Jim. Disability Payments, Drug use, and Representative Payees, an Analysis of the Relationships. Addiction, 98, (2003): 965-975. Wikeley, Nick. (1998, 01 July). Benefits, Bodily Function, and Living with a Disability. Modern Law Review, 61, 551-560. Zeitzer, Ilene. (1995). Social Insurance Provisions for Children with Disabilities in Selected Industralized Countries. Social Security Bulletin, 58, 1. Read More