Cheaper GAS if Disabled person in the House?

minimadtrix

krisskross wrote: »

But these people ARE looked after by the Government. It is just called DLA not WFA. For goodness sake how many more times does it need to be said.

So my husband and I get £125 each in November, ostensibly to help with our fuel bills, this is in addition to £150 a week we get between us for pension. So a grand total of £155 a week for the 2 of us. This is after 90 odd years work, paying tax and NI between us. I have never claimed benefits except child benefit. He was on IB for 5 years from age 60 other than that nothing. Neither of us ever unemployed. We get NO means tested benefits.

Bloody hell if you begrudge us that tiny amount I feel sorry for you.You are like Scrooge in Christmas Carol. Perhaps it would be better if we all died (of hypothermia) at 65 and decreased the surplus population.

No, I've never claimed any benefits either. I resent you calling me Scrooge - you haven't read any of my posts properly. I said I don't begrudge anyone over 65 that needs the WFA. I'm on the side of those poor disabled people (and no I'm not talkin about those who have self inflicted disabilities), who are also in need of extra help with fuel costs.

Let me put it another way. If it goes below a certain temperature for 7 days, the disabled and the over 65s receive a Cold Weather Payment. The Government accept that this is necessary to pay all those concerned in these posts. So why are they not eligible for the WFA?

I think you feel I'm having a direct attack on you and your husband - far from it. You should be entitled to AA and should be appealing any decision that goes against you getting it.

My husband is the disabled person referred to in my posts. He was doing very well in his working life - well paid job, enabling him to own his own property - until someone nearly killed him on a motorway. At the age of 32 he was told his working life was over with. Its not his fault he has to 'scrounge' off the state - he can't do anything else. All the care component DLA he now receives has to go on personal care. The motability component goes on the car because of having to transport him around all the time as, after 20 years, he still requires constant medical attention, is in constant pain 24/7. He has to have the heating on due to poor circulation and the costs go up in the winter, as the heating has to be on all the time.

I don't like to compare, but how is your husband and mine different? They both need heat to ease their situation and make life more comfortable for them. The only difference, as I see it, is that my husband isn't old enough for the WFA.

Fortunately, I am in a good, well paid job which means we do not have to worry about the costs of heating, however, others on this forum are not so fortunate. It is those people who I feel sorry for.

It is also my opinion that, if the Government say you're entitled to something, you should take it.

pipkin71

E.ON_Company_Representative:_Malc wrote: »

From the above description, I would certainly start by asking your friend to make sure they are on the Priority Services Register.

I would agree with making sure they are on the Priority Services Register.

I signed up due to being disabled, and it was fairly straightforward to do.

krisskross

minimadtrix wrote: »

No, I've never claimed any benefits either. I resent you calling me Scrooge - you haven't read any of my posts properly. I said I don't begrudge anyone over 65 that needs the WFA. I'm on the side of those poor disabled people (and no I'm not talkin about those who have self inflicted disabilities), who are also in need of extra help with fuel costs.

Let me put it another way. If it goes below a certain temperature for 7 days, the disabled and the over 65s receive a Cold Weather Payment. The Government accept that this is necessary to pay all those concerned in these posts. So why are they not eligible for the WFA?

I think you feel I'm having a direct attack on you and your husband - far from it. You should be entitled to AA and should be appealing any decision that goes against you getting it.

My husband is the disabled person referred to in my posts. He was doing very well in his working life - well paid job, enabling him to own his own property - until someone nearly killed him on a motorway. At the age of 32 he was told his working life was over with. Its not his fault he has to 'scrounge' off the state - he can't do anything else. All the care component DLA he now receives has to go on personal care. The motability component goes on the car because of having to transport him around all the time as, after 20 years, he still requires constant medical attention, is in constant pain 24/7. He has to have the heating on due to poor circulation and the costs go up in the winter, as the heating has to be on all the time.

I don't like to compare, but how is your husband and mine different? They both need heat to ease their situation and make life more comfortable for them. The only difference, as I see it, is that my husband isn't old enough for the WFA.

Fortunately, I am in a good, well paid job which means we do not have to worry about the costs of heating, however, others on this forum are not so fortunate. It is those people who I feel sorry for.

It is also my opinion that, if the Government say you're entitled to something, you should take it.

Winter fuel payment is not given to everyone because it would be prohibitively expensive and the country can't afford it. So it is paid to the people seen as most at risk who are the elderly. DLA mobility and/or care is only available to those under 65 when the need first arises. You don't hear the over 65s demanding this do you?

DLA is to help with the additional costs encountered due to disability so it is obviously meant to include additional heating. This was made crystal clear in the post by DX2 which quoted a reply made by a government minister.

I am sorry your husband was so badly injured in a car accident but I expect he got financial compensation which would help your financial situation a bit. As you now say your 'disabled person' is your husband and bearing in mind you have a well paid job why do you get help with your mortgage? We certainly didn't when my husband became too ill to work as I was working full time.

As I said before my husband has quite high care needs at present but once his condition has been stabilised and he can use his hands again then he won't need so much. In these circumstances and given that most of his needs revolve around mobility issues then he is not entitled to Attendance Allowance. There is no mobility element. However I am not complaining that his mobility needs are as great or greater than someone under 65 so he should get it as well. My husband's mobility needs might actually be more than your husband's. Mine can walk about 15 meters without stopping because of pain or severe shortness of breath.

There have to be cut off points, everyone cannot be given every benefit available.

minimadtrix

krisskross wrote: »

Winter fuel payment is not given to everyone because it would be prohibitively expensive and the country can't afford it. So it is paid to the people seen as most at risk who are the elderly. DLA mobility and/or care is only available to those under 65 when the need first arises. You don't hear the over 65s demanding this do you?

DLA is to help with the additional costs encountered due to disability so it is obviously meant to include additional heating. This was made crystal clear in the post by DX2 which quoted a reply made by a government minister.

I am sorry your husband was so badly injured in a car accident but I expect he got financial compensation which would help your financial situation a bit. As you now say your 'disabled person' is your husband and bearing in mind you have a well paid job why do you get help with your mortgage? We certainly didn't when my husband became too ill to work as I was working full time.

As I said before my husband has quite high care needs at present but once his condition has been stabilised and he can use his hands again then he won't need so much. In these circumstances and given that most of his needs revolve around mobility issues then he is not entitled to Attendance Allowance. There is no mobility element. However I am not complaining that his mobility needs are as great or greater than someone under 65 so he should get it as well.

There have to be cut off points, everyone cannot be given every benefit available.

Well, if you want to know the whole of my personal life, my husband was not my husband at the time of the accident - I met him later in his life (when he had his accident, I was only 17! Why do you insist on assuming all the time?

He was financially compensated - but most of this went on adapting the house and his way of life - again, soon swallowed up. Oh and of course, the government took a huge chunk of that because they could at that time.

As I said in my last post - all of the DLA goes on care costs - not on heating.

Also, if someone was in receipt of DLA up to the age of 65, they would automatically receive AA. If they were already in receipt of the motobility part and used that money for a car, this would also continue.

Any more questions?

krisskross

minimadtrix wrote: »

Well, if you want to know the whole of my personal life, my husband was not my husband at the time of the accident - I met him later in his life (when he had his accident, I was only 17! Why do you insist on assuming all the time?

He was financially compensated - but most of this went on adapting the house and his way of life - again, soon swallowed up. Oh and of course, the government took a huge chunk of that because they could at that time.

As I said in my last post - all of the DLA goes on care costs - not on heating.

Also, if someone was in receipt of DLA up to the age of 65, they would automatically receive AA. If they were already in receipt of the motobility part and used that money for a car, this would also continue.

Any more questions?

I don't actually care about your personal life but you are the one who put it on the forum.

I am fully aware that if DLA is in payment before 65 then it can continue. If you continue to meet the criteria of course. So to use your 'fairness' criteria. Is it fair that someone aged 64 and 11 months is awarded DLA high rate mobility and gets to keep it after age 65. Someone else meets the criteria at 65 years 1 month and is therefore not entitled. It is the way things happen. There are rules. Same with WFA. If you are over pension age you get it, if not you don't. Absolutely simple.

I don't understand why you keep accusing me of 'assuming'. What assumptions am I making?

minimadtrix

krisskross wrote: »

I don't understand why you keep accusing me of 'assuming'. What assumptions am I making?

That the scenario I set was in the present - that my husband shouldn't have been getting help with interest payments on his mortgage because I was employed full time.

krisskross

minimadtrix wrote: »

That the scenario I set was in the present - that my husband shouldn't have been getting help with interest payments on his mortgage because I was employed full time.

But you SAID the person in your scenario got mortgage help, then only later said it was your husband and that you had this excellent job.

That was not making assumptions that was believing what you said.

Tell you what though shall we, as families, swap benefits. You have ours and we'll have yours.So you have our £155 a week.

BTW we also live in an adapted for my husbands needs property. Wet room, no stairs, wide doorways etc, vibrating smoke alarm. Alarm system for him to call help if I am not there.

minimadtrix

krisskross wrote: »

But you SAID the person in your scenario got mortgage help, then only later said it was your husband and that you had this excellent job.

That was not making assumptions that was believing what you said.

Tell you what though shall we, as families, swap benefits. You have ours and we'll have yours.So you have our £155 a week.

BTW we also live in an adapted for my husbands needs property. Wet room, no stairs, wide doorways etc, vibrating smoke alarm. Alarm system for him to call help if I am not there.

Yep GOT being past tense.

Personally, I wouldn't want to change places with you - I'm still young enough to work, so why would I want to be a pensioner on poor money? And, because of this, you so deserve to have the WFA. Those that don't are the ones who have a good private pension behind them, good life savings stashed in the bank and lauding it up in their Mediterranean villa!! - Now where's the justice in that? I mean, let's face it, if all the pensioners that move abroad were to stop getting the WFA, the poor pensions resident in the UK could have more of the coffers

krisskross

minimadtrix wrote: »

Yep GOT being past tense.

Personally, I wouldn't want to change places with you - I'm still young enough to work, so why would I want to be a pensioner on poor money? And, because of this, you so deserve to have the WFA. Those that don't are the ones who have a good private pension behind them, good life savings stashed in the bank and lauding it up in their Mediterranean villa!! - Now where's the justice in that? I mean, let's face it, if all the pensioners that move abroad were to stop getting the WFA, the poor pensions resident in the UK could have more of the coffers

Sorry to burst your smug little bubble about us ' pensioners on poor money' but think for just one moment why we only get £150 a week state pension for 2 of us and why we still pay a lot of income tax. Both over 65, need an income of at least £20K to be in the tax umbrella. I expect the penny will drop in the next week or two.

We did actually have the villa in Spain for 4 years or so.

kingfisherblue

This thread seems to have turned into an argument between two posters