How disabled do you have to be then?

sastusbulbas said:
#

The UK is a joke with regards to governance.

I know a man who contracted a lung problem due to working with petrol motors, he is suffering genuine problems, but works full time and also coaches football, yet he drives a new car, has a new one quite regularily and usually very decent VW Golfs and such, over the years I have seen him with a Subaru Impreza, Golf GTi, Audi A3 sportback, currently has a nice Astra, they are given free for mobility reasons. No cheap tat there, proper new models with all the trimmings. Married, with kids, and a working wife with her own car, bought house! No idea how that works to be honest!

I also know unemployed parents who have been offered mobility cars due to children having slight health issues but unable to take them due to having no driving licence. Not sure why we can't pay for them having driving lessons or if they get GTi's too?

Yet one of my lads has had health problems and regularily needed picking up from school and his mum to be available on short notice, she could not work because of young kids and our son, but because I was working, and even though not earning much or owning a car, we had no entitlements.



Yet we see amputee's managing quite well in dancing, running, and general life with prosphetics? On a serious note, no one is forcing her to do anything, and it looks like she is more mobile than many people I know. Plenty of people dying of cancer and on benefits have to make their own way to treatment on buses.
Click to expand...

Can I suggest you read up on the Motobility scheme.

If someone goes for almost any car other than a fairly basic model they actually pay an additional amount for it (even many basic models require an upfront additional and non refundable payment), often a very large additional amount for it.
And IIRC the higher end cars often end up bringing more back into the scheme at the end of the lease (the cars never belong to the driver under the part of the scheme that is most commonly used).

With regards to parents offered the cars when their kids have "minor" problems.
The kids would need to meet the requirements for higher rate DLA mobility component (so not by definition a "minor" problem), now the higher component of the PIP benefit, and it's a fairly standard letter to anyone in receipt of the benefit that says something along the lines of "if you are in receipt of this benefit you may be eligible to turn over part or all of the benefit in return for a lease on a car".
They don't check who has a driving licence as quite often the driver may not be the person actually in receipt of the benefit, but the person that helps the disabled person get around (IE carer). The car has to be used for the person in receipt of the benefit though.

You never get the car "free", it's always in return for you basically giving up the mobility component of the benefit.

It's also worth noting that the mobility component of both PIP and DLA is a non income related benefit, you can get it if you're in work and doing well, or out of work due to the health problems, the idea is that it helps overcome the additional costs of those health issues.
So someone might be making £30k+ a year and be in receipt of it, and they might decide to go for a nicer car than they could otherwise get, but they might only be able to afford that nicer car because the mobility money offsets say the extra use it gets compared to if they were more able, or offsets the cost of them having to have things like stairlifts or wheelchairs and other adaptations around the house that require maintenance.
 
Some of the ignorance shown towards disability and the motability scheme in this thread makes me quite angry.

Many are understanding and supportive, but most seem to be fit healthy people who have copped the right hump because someone can get a car without working. If you was to say to them that the disabled person gets £50 a week to help with their mobility costs, they would hardly bat an eyelid, but because it's a nice shiny car, it suddenly becomes a travesty.
 
Werewolf said:
They don't check who has a driving licence as quite often the driver may not be the person actually in receipt of the benefit, but the person that helps the disabled person get around (IE carer). The car has to be used for the person in receipt of the benefit though.
Click to expand...

Yes and no :)

The car always has to be used for the benefit of the entitled person.

The dealer providing the motability vehicle has to see the driving licenses of the driver or his nominees, (the scheme allows for 2 named drivers per vehicle included, more can be added at extra cost to the individual), when the vehicle is collected from them at the start of the lease so they have to be physically present at the time of collection/handover.
 
My Daughter was reclassified from high to medium level disabled category as part of the new scheme, sadly her leg hadn't regrown in anyway shape or form. Wonder what the criteria is really based on...
 
Seems to be based on ability rather than illness/disability.

Person A may get X and Y even though their illness/disability does not seem as severe as person B because person B is seen to be more able than person A.
 
Ironically, its probably because she has done so much charity fundraising that she is being penalised in this backwards system - if you try and help yourself, you get the help taken away because your seen as capable (regardless if its a one off or not)

Do nothing and get rewarded- and given the overall stigma of the word "benefits", most genuine people will try to push themselves to avoid being seen as the scrounger you see depicted in the media.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Seems to be based on ability rather than illness/disability.

Person A may get X and Y even though their illness/disability does not seem as severe as person B because person B is seen to be more able than person A.
Click to expand...

I do believe it's mainly based on cutting costs...
 
All it will achieve is a more dishonest nation. People will start to resort to lying to carry on receiving their disability benefit. Over time, more and more will embellish their conditions. More and more will have their benefits reinstated and we'll be back where we started.
 
robfosters said:
All it will achieve is a more dishonest nation. People will start to resort to lying to carry on receiving their disability benefit. Over time, more and more will embellish their conditions. More and more will have their benefits reinstated and we'll be back where we started.
Click to expand...

Trouble is the system at the moment has a lot of perceived judgement made by the claimant themselves. I know a number of people who greatly embellished their symptoms in order to continue to get it. Like wise I know a number of people who are too proud, strong or resilient and push past their problems causing them to have lost a benefit they need and deserve.

Example, can you walk 10m unassisted?

Yes.

No benefit for you then.


What the person isn't mentioning is it's absolute agony to do so and will take them about five mins.
 
Uther said:
The changeover to PIP was never intended to help people, but to cut costs :(
Surprised she didn't appeal the decision TBH, but I think they dramatically cut the distance down that you can walk without discomfort from what it was on DLA.
She was probably trying to do the right thing and being honest. Or naive.
Click to expand...

Definitely this, I used to work in the benefits sector and can tell you from first hand experience, telling lies on forms is mandatory, I would hazard to guess that well over half of all claims are done under false pretences where one or more lies have been told or a persons condition greatly exaggerated.
 
JoeF1 said:
I agree, although on the other hand compared to all the "back" problem people sponging maybe she should be more entitled.

Very harsh though.
Click to expand...

There is a sore back then there is a back problem, the former is a little uncomfortable. The later will leave you in bed peeing in a bucket unable to walk a few meters to the toilet, for months on end, leaving you with life long pain once you get back on your feet.
 
And yet my 59 year old cousin who has always worked cash in hand and never paid tax in all his life went to live in Alcudia in the late 80s leaving his wife and 3 kids.
Around 2007 he got blown up lighting a fag when his chalet filled with LPG gas (I wrote a thread about it).
He had 70% 3rd degree burns and I went to Barcelona to pick him up in a coffin but he survived.
He came back to Britain, sponged off his eldest who didn't really know him but has been given a car, house and at least £170 a week :(
He doesn't do a paid job but he does work all day for a Charity building which involves him carrying huge PA systems, doing Disco's etc.
He is still in pain but looking at him you wouldn't know anything had happened.

I really don't know how some people get away with it however if he could go back to Alcudia running a bar again without his scars he would do it.
 
Dis86 said:
Trouble is the system at the moment has a lot of perceived judgement made by the claimant themselves. I know a number of people who greatly embellished their symptoms in order to continue to get it. Like wise I know a number of people who are too proud, strong or resilient and push past their problems causing them to have lost a benefit they need and deserve.

Example, can you walk 10m unassisted?

Yes.

No benefit for you then.


What the person isn't mentioning is it's absolute agony to do so and will take them about five mins.
Click to expand...

True. I can walk a short way, but what they don't see is that I am seriously breathless and if they was to look at my oxygen sat's, they are in the 70's when walking. I bet the assessment offices dont come with such equipment to help make a judgement.

Someone may be able to do something, but is it acceptable that they have to suffer pain and anguish to accomplish it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom