New Post Advanced Search

DLA fraud check

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Disability Money Matters
403 replies 29.2K views
13537394041

Replies

  • Indie_KidIndie_Kid Forumite
    23.1K posts
    sunnyone wrote: »
    Care is expensive for those who need it, most people with disabilities dont pay for care.

    Probably because SS deems them not disabled enough to warrant the care; so they have to get friends or relatives to care for them - which they get no money for and there's not enough DLA fort the disabled person to pay their friend and buy things they need.

    SS won't give someone care unless they need a substantial amount of care - whatever that means.

    And how do you know most disabled people don't pay for care? Or do you somehow know what ecery disabled spends their DLA on?

    My mobility very rarely goes on mobility - I've spend most of the past 2 weeks housebound. Yes, I've gone out once or twice - but that's because I had to.
    Sealed pot challenge #232. Gold stars from Sue-UU - :staradmin :staradmin £75.29 banked
    50p saver #40 £20 banked
    Virtual sealed pot #178 £80.25
  • Vicky123Vicky123 Forumite
    3.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    sunnyone wrote: »

    Care is expensive for those who need it, most people with disabilities dont pay for care and thats why DLA is going to be changed back to what it was meant for in 1992 and not as it is in 2010 when everybody is disabled and wants DLA.

    I don't understand this paragraph, what was it intended for in 1992?
    I am my sons carer and provide all his care needs, never asked for or used respite or paid carers which doesn't come cheap.
    I thought DLA was intended to help whatever arises from a persons disability in our case that would be therapy and not paid care workers or childminders.
    If I had to use all his money on care workers then I would have to put him into a residential placement costing upwards of 200k per year, he will never improve as he will not get the therapy he needs therefore he will be fully dependent on others 24/7 for the rest of his life, using DLA for therapy gives us a good possibility of at least semi independence and therefore less of a burden on society.
    I might add that as his condition is so severe it would be very easy to get him into a residential placement and financially we would be better off also, but that is not what he needs or wants and certainly not what I want. We are using this money to help him become less of a burden using it on care workers will make him more of a burden.
  • Indie_KidIndie_Kid Forumite
    23.1K posts
    Vicky123 wrote: »
    I am my sons carer and provide all his care needs, never asked for or used respite or paid carers which doesn't come cheap.

    it's like this for many disabled people - their families provide all the care for them.
    I thought DLA was intended to help whatever arises from a persons disability in our case that would be therapy and not paid care workers or childminders.

    It is. For some of us, that's extra washing, heating, medical aids, etc. It says nowhere that DLA has to be spent on care - some of us do need care and also some expensive equipment.
    Sealed pot challenge #232. Gold stars from Sue-UU - :staradmin :staradmin £75.29 banked
    50p saver #40 £20 banked
    Virtual sealed pot #178 £80.25
  • karatedragonkaratedragon Forumite
    1.1K posts
    I notice the DLA haters seem to have crawled off.
  • edited 29 July 2010 at 3:30PM
    krisskrosskrisskross
    7.7K posts
    edited 29 July 2010 at 3:30PM
    I notice the DLA haters seem to have crawled off.

    Well personally I have been otherwise engaged arranging for the GP to come to see my husband as he has a nasty chest infection and is really struggling to breathe. Already been on antibiotics and nebulised salbutamol for a couple of days. Husband has a depressed immune system and gets all manner of infections. Which in turn messes up his diabetic control and means much changing of insulin doses and extra monitoring.

    Discussion about hospital admission, doctor wants, husband doesn't. Agreed in the end that with a nurse (me) in 24/7 attendance then he can stay at home with daily GP visits. So perhaps I am worth the £70 a week AA just to keep him out of hospital.

    I am not a DLA hater, in fact I am very much in favour of people getting financial help to provide the care they say they need and on which basis the award is made. However if they still do not get the care and manage without it then why do they get the cash?
  • Vicky123Vicky123 Forumite
    3.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    krisskross wrote: »

    I am not a DLA hater, in fact I am very much in favour of people getting financial help to provide the care they say they need and on which basis the award is made. However if they still do not get the care and manage without it then why do they get the cash?
    Have you missed the examples given above?
    We can already get respite care workers, we do it ourselves and pay for therapy as far as I am aware that is within the rules and saving the tax payer money.
  • I notice the DLA haters seem to have crawled off.
    *sniggers* 24/7
    Some of us actually have a life outside MSE :eek: shocking stuff hey.
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • edited 29 July 2010 at 4:12PM
    krisskrosskrisskross
    7.7K posts
    edited 29 July 2010 at 4:12PM
    Vicky123 wrote: »
    Have you missed the examples given above?
    We can already get respite care workers, we do it ourselves and pay for therapy as far as I am aware that is within the rules and saving the tax payer money.

    Your child obviously gets all the care possible and then some. His DLA money is spent on treatment for him.

    Surely however you would agree that if you get DLA for him on the basis of the care he needs and then do not provide that care, either yourself or use the money to pay someone for it, then you should not have the money.
  • Vicky123Vicky123 Forumite
    3.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    krisskross wrote: »
    Your child obviously gets all the care possible and then some. His DLA money is spent on treatment for him.

    Surely however you would agree that if you get DLA for him on the basis of the care he needs and then do not provide that care, either yourself or use the money to pay someone for it, then you should not have the money.

    I see what your saying but it wouldn't be possible not to provide the care, the only situation I can see that arising in is if the person getting DLA is doing so fraudulently or are exagerrating their needs or in the case of a child the parent is overstating.
  • edited 29 July 2010 at 5:35PM
    when_will_it_endwhen_will_it_end Forumite
    1.4K posts
    edited 29 July 2010 at 5:35PM
    krisskross wrote: »
    Your child obviously gets all the care possible and then some. His DLA money is spent on treatment for him.

    Surely however you would agree that if you get DLA for him on the basis of the care he needs and then do not provide that care, either yourself or use the money to pay someone for it, then you should not have the money.

    who in there right mind would not look after there disabled child
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support