Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Sunny, the question on the on-line quote system reads, ''Not in employment due to disability or illness'' this is the box which I ticked on the quote which offered me the £164 premium so when the RAC customer service woman, Maisie, told me my premium was raised due to my employment situation that could only be down to my being unemployed due to disability hence discriminatory. For the RAC customer services to later claim I had not ticked 'any box' in that question of employment status is simply a lie.

''If the difference in how you were treated related to being on benefits because you were sick or disabled, not to your being disabled as such, then unless there's some other factor in the way you were treated that relates specifically to disability, then this isn't a disability discrimination matter, it's a general matter of not behaving honestly and/or decently.''

I can see and understand what you are saying Sunny.
Disability Talk / Re: Should I be worried
« Last post by JLR2 on June 19, 2018, 11:43:00 AM »
''Or should I say upkilting laws''

Being a lowlander by tradition I am not really able to wear a kilt trews being the mode of dress in the lowlands. So far as kilts go I'd be so conscious of the feeling that everyone looks and wonders if I am or am not wearing it according to legend....  The only time I could imagine someone wanting to upkilt a kilt wearer would be such as when a hen night is in full swing and a poor unfortunate kilt wearer crosses its path. Mind you some kilt wearers might be only too happy to have their accessories caught on camera as it were >lol<
I'm not saying you have no grounds for complaint.

What I'm saying is that there are separate issues.  There's the issue of whether you were treated unfairly or dishonestly or misleadingly etc.

Then there's the issue of whether you were treated differently because you're disabled.

If the difference in how you were treated related to being on benefits because you were sick or disabled, not to your being disabled as such, then unless there's some other factor in the way you were treated that relates specifically to disability, then this isn't a disability discrimination matter, it's a general matter of not behaving honestly and/or decently.

I think it might pay you to take it apart, as it were, and make sure you've got a clear separate case in relation to the disability thing.  For example, see how they divide down people who are on pensions and people who are in employment.  Is disability a box you tick there?  If not, they can argue that it's the benefits/unemployment that's the factor, not the disability.

Wording could be very important there.  You mention being unemployed 'due to disability' and the distinction between being unemployed due to disability as opposed to being on benefits due to disability could be crucial. 

I'm really interested in seeing how this plays out.  It may be that you'll get them to  review and re-write their quote system.

Disability Talk / Re: Should I be worried
« Last post by Sunny Clouds on June 19, 2018, 10:31:00 AM »
I just did a search and thought I'd found the right think because it said "even if itís just for a visit".  It looks like I should have searched further. 

I haven't been abroad for years.  Part of me would rather like to go somewhere but I don't think I've got the emotional energy.  Ah, yes, I know - Scotland.  Strange country with strange customs.  It's a pity, though, that they're ahead of England on their upskirting laws.  Or should I say upkilting laws?   >devil<
Disability Talk / Re: Should I be worried
« Last post by JLR2 on June 19, 2018, 10:10:30 AM »
Fiz, I phoned the DWP on their Freephone number 0800 169 0310 which I found on the government's web pages, thankfully it was Freephone as I waited 56 mins to get through to speak to someone. Pity it's too late today to phone after 8am when the lines open as they tend to be quicker then.

If you call them today I would expect them to ask you when you are going away and returning. I'm sure they will do everything they can to get the form, a BF5, to you before you leave and they will have it noted that you have called to inform them of your intention of being away.

Under present rules a claimant can be out of the country for up to 28 days including departure and return dates and so long as there are at least 3 months between any period of being abroad.

Fiz, re your posting there I have always felt it better to let the DWP know about my being abroad in case they were in the process of organising a reassessment, then again I tend to go away for as near the 28 day mark as I can. Still safer I feel to let them know than hope there is not a letter calling me for any DWP related matter waiting for me returning home.

If I were to go abroad for a week on say the 2nd of January and then again on the 4th of February for 2 weeks the three weeks spend abroad would be added together giving a total of 21 days abroad. If I were to exceed the 28 day limit even by a day I would be compelled by the DWP to start my benefit claim as a completely new claim. That is something I've even had confirmed by Job Centre staff when I used their office in person to confirm to the DWP that I was back in the country.

So far as notifying other areas of benefit claims such as the DLA side of things I have never done this as I feel having informed the DWP and completed and returned their form BF5 it would be up to them to let anyone else know about my going abroad.
Disability Talk / Re: Should I be worried
« Last post by Fiz on June 19, 2018, 10:05:08 AM »
That quote is taken from an information section on moving abroad though. Not just Joe Blogs who is having his first holiday in years. I've googled this and found on government pages specifically about going on holiday abroad that it is advisory but not compulsory to inform the DWP that you are going to be abroad for less than 28 days.

The moderator on benefits and work adds that if you are in the working half of ESA that he advises that you do inform them in case you are called in for an interview. But he was addressing someone who was going away for almost 4 weeks. I'm in the support group and will be away for one week. Once on my tablet I will try to find the ESA and going on holiday pages on the government website to add here.

Fiz, given I had already ticked the box in the RAC's on-line quote and been offered the £164 premium, a premium I was looking to accept, to then be told that my ''employment status'' was the issue that was increasing the premium by £52 is something that wound me up. During the course of my further calls with the RAC I was being treated as a mug as they tried to convince me that I had not ticked any boxes in the employment question, even when I pointed out to them that I could not have obtained the £164 quote without first having completed all the questions asked in their own on-line quotation system.

Just as what happens when booking bus tickets through City-link the customer on-line has to answer all the questions ticking the required boxes before their system will progress the RAC's system is the same so what this all boils down to is a RAC customer services call handler who decided she could increase her bonus if she could convince me to pay her inflated insurance premium.

Sunny, I just read your posting as I went to post the above, as I was saying above on-line the RAC knew of my being unemployed due to disability or illness when they offered the £164 premium. They, in the phone call handling side, knew that they were lying to me when they claimed I had not ticked any boxes in the employment status question. As I have said not ticking one of the boxes in that part of filling in the on-line quote stops the quote going any further therefor I could not possibly have achieved a final on-line quote. Come to think of it Sunny, when I spoke of my going through the Information Commissioners Office the woman at the RAC with whom I was speaking asked for a few minutes before coming back to me and telling me she would offer on behalf of the RAC terms and premiums matching my on-line quote. Would that not suggest she had indeed looked at my on-line quote, the one that is only available to customers who have completed 'all the questions' on the on-line system?  That being the case in offering to match the on-line quote she has confirmed the RAC's call handling staff were lying when they claimed I had failed to tick any box re my employment status.

Need to find my coffee noo :-)
Disability Talk / Re: Should I be worried
« Last post by Sunny Clouds on June 19, 2018, 09:33:00 AM »

Benefit fraud

Youíre committing benefit fraud if you:

    donít tell the office that pays your benefit youíre going abroad, even if itís just for a visit

But don't panic!  Do like JLR2 did.

Having said that, my gut feeling is that if at the same time as you phoned to request a form, you wrote to them telling them you were going and sent the letter 'signed for', they'd be hard-pressed to argue that you'd behaved fraudulently if they didn't send the form in time for you to submit it before going.

That being so, since I'm in a nitpicky mood, I also notice that the government website doesn't say "tell before you go" it says "tell if you're going".  That might be useful if they kicked off.

Incidentally, if you're on more than one sort of benefit, don't forget that.

I think there are overlapping issues here and whether JLR succeeds with this specific complaint or not, hopefully it will prod them into sorting things out.

You see, the difficulty here is that if the price varies according to being on benefits, whether disabled or not, and it just happens that being on disability is one reason, they may try to argue that it's not being disabled that's the issue, but being on benefits, and that being so, may simply re-write the criteria in a way that still indirectly discriminates but is difficult to prove.

So there needs longer term to be some way of ensuring that such criteria are adjusted. 

The difficulty, of course, is that there are benefits such as ESA that are paid to both disabled and non-disabled people.  For example, if you get injured and are out of work for, say, three months with it, and then are up and about, pretty much as good as new, then you wouldn't count as disabled, but you would have been on ESA or UC.

I wonder whether there are any examples within the industry of insurers that get this right when it comes to avoiding disability discrimination or whether it's something that's going to require legislation?  If so, I hesitate to hope, but if the government thought it wasn't going to cost them a lot and if their mates in the industry thought the good PR of not arguing against changes would outweigh any losses, then something might be done.
Disability Talk / Re: Heavenly telephone options!
« Last post by Sunny Clouds on June 19, 2018, 09:16:42 AM »
Sadly, having called four different companies (for various reasons) yesterday, I can't remember which.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10