|
Post by quantumranger on Nov 5, 2018 9:43:45 GMT 7
If you work between 15 and 30 hours you will most likely trigger a review which happened to my friend.
But if you try to find somewhere to hire you for less than 15 hours it's quite difficult.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 12:32:24 GMT 7
Can traveling overseas even for only 3 weeks trigger a review? I doubt that very much! But as we all know; we can never say never 100%. These two examples are just the system taking our supplements after six weeks away and/or determining our AWLR and if we've provided a true record of the duration we'll be away. That's my take on it, cheers bear overseas selective pensioner entitlement reviews, AND 6-month overseas reviews. Someone from ACOSS told me frequent overseas travel can trigger a review, l wonder what they consider frequent, would 3 short trips in 5 years be frequent
|
|
|
Post by mspurple on Nov 5, 2018 14:46:30 GMT 7
Are you sure the manifest grants are not reviewed in the same way as all other DSP reviews?
I know of three different people who meet the DSP criteria for manifest grants but all have had to just recently jump through hoops to prove they will never get better because they were born the way they are and have had little (or no) improvement over the years since birth. They had to make appointments for specialists they have not had to use or see since they were first diagnosed and put on DSP, all this was to re confirm that they do indeed have birth defects/ intellectual disability and genetic problems that are degenerative or final.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 15:29:54 GMT 7
I doubt that very much! But as we all know; we can never say never 100%. These two examples are just the system taking our supplements after six weeks away and/or determining our AWLR and if we've provided a true record of the duration we'll be away. That's my take on it, cheers bear overseas selective pensioner entitlement reviews, AND 6-month overseas reviews. Someone from ACOSS told me frequent overseas travel can trigger a review, l wonder what they consider frequent, would 3 short trips in 5 years be frequent I wouldn't think so @wombat79. I have travelled every year for ten years, sometimes multiple times when portability allowed it, and travelled every year from 2015-17 for my 28 days entitlements. I wasn't reviewed in sixteen years! Cheers bear
|
|
|
Post by cripple on Nov 5, 2018 15:35:24 GMT 7
It be nice to hear from a Centerlink insider what is really going on instead of us always guessing. It’s nice to have this union though
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Nov 5, 2018 17:54:24 GMT 7
Are you sure the manifest grants are not reviewed in the same way as all other DSP reviews? I know of three different people who meet the DSP criteria for manifest grants but all have had to just recently jump through hoops to prove they will never get better because they were born the way they are and have had little (or no) improvement over the years since birth. They had to make appointments for specialists they have not had to use or see since they were first diagnosed and put on DSP, all this was to re confirm that they do indeed have birth defects/ intellectual disability and genetic problems that are degenerative or final. I'm not sure to be honest but I guess some of the manifest granted may have been selected in the reviews? Or those over 16 having to qualify for adult DSP?
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Nov 5, 2018 19:25:01 GMT 7
mspurple your post reminds me of a story a few years ago. A man was on DSP after losing an arm in an accident. He was asked to bring medical evidence to show he was stll eligible. He asked them why? Do do think it may have grown back again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 6:31:25 GMT 7
Are you sure the manifest grants are not reviewed in the same way as all other DSP reviews? I know of three different people who meet the DSP criteria for manifest grants but all have had to just recently jump through hoops to prove they will never get better because they were born the way they are and have had little (or no) improvement over the years since birth. They had to make appointments for specialists they have not had to use or see since they were first diagnosed and put on DSP, all this was to re confirm that they do indeed have birth defects/ intellectual disability and genetic problems that are degenerative or final. I'm not sure to be honest but I guess some of the manifest granted may have been selected in the reviews? Or those over 16 having to qualify for adult DSP? I think you're right about the age thing tasjo. My nephew had the same hurdle, though I thought it was when he turned 18. Unfortunately he didn't get over it due to his condition being diagnosed by some type of Pediatric person who had by then retired. Not that they were interested in that evidence; he needed to be re-diagnosed by another person who didn't think he was disabled. He eventually got his pediatric reports, but by then was on Newstart and didn't want the aggro. Happily he is almost finished his third year mechanical apprenticeship after a ton of support with a Disability Employment Service. Cheers bear
|
|
|
Post by mspurple on Nov 6, 2018 7:58:45 GMT 7
I'm not sure to be honest but I guess some of the manifest granted may have been selected in the reviews? Or those over 16 having to qualify for adult DSP? I think you're right about the age thing tasjo . My nephew had the same hurdle, though I thought it was when he turned 18. Unfortunately he didn't get over it due to his condition being diagnosed by some type of Pediatric person who had by then retired. Not that they were interested in that evidence; he needed to be re-diagnosed by another person who didn't think he was disabled. He eventually got his pediatric reports, but by then was on Newstart and didn't want the aggro. Happily he is almost finished his third year mechanical apprenticeship after a ton of support with a Disability Employment Service. Cheers bear Two of them were well over 18 but one of them I think is about 23-25 and I believe they had to re-confirm diagnosis to keep DSP and also access NDIS again (now that the rules have changed they needed to be reassessed for it) and possibly one of them needed to do it to keep assisted work placement funding. One of them is a ward of the state due to being so severely intellectually disabled and having no family interested in staying in contact with him from before he was an adult. The thing I do not understand about these three in particular is that they have conditions that automatically makes them eligible and their conditions were not the sort that would fluctuate or get better with age. Even if they were granted under the old tables they still easily meet today's criteria (due to adult IQ scores centrelink already had) and the reviews were just an added unnecessary pressure these people and their families/carers did not need to deal with. The stupid thing is all of them had to jump through hurdles in the first place (years ago for DSP) to satisfy centrelinks need to know that they would NEVER improve in their entire life time as there is no form of intervention that can help these disabilities.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 6, 2018 13:20:55 GMT 7
MSPurple, It sounds like they were affected by the initial rollout of reviews. Because they didn't originally have them marked as manifest in the computer system, they were automatically selected. It was a number of these cases that got into the newspapers at the time, wards of the state etc. The articles are listed here in DSP News section from 2016/17. Fair bit of egg on this governments face, which did help with the government quietly cancelling the reviews, though it took 2 years.
Social Services claim the decision was made in October, but the review numbers started hadn't changed since March.
The reviews will go back down to the 500 or so they do for "integrity" as the department calls it. That seems to be random selection for internal reasons.
Income can be a trigger, but there is about 10,000 or so that work on the DSP.
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Nov 6, 2018 15:36:12 GMT 7
I'm not sure if this is correct or not but I recall reading something somewhere that when the impairment tables changed the definition of manifest also changed. If that's the case it may also have been why they were asked to show they fitted the 'new' manifest grants.
|
|