Have I gambled the DLA?

Jay_Tee

sader1 wrote: »

Unfortunately you are wrong on that point. DLA is clearly for the benefit of the recipient in consideration of their extra needs.

It is not a compensation package to make up for what someone has lost in income!!

Have a read on the Gov website - it tells you exactly what it is for!

I get low rate care DLA, I know what it's for and in my case and most others it helps offset extra expenses I have due to disability it far from covers all those expenses.

Why whem the OP says "I could do with the extra money as it costs a lot to drive my child everywhere because of his problems." don't you accept that is part of her sons extra needs?

pipkin71

All you can do, bbjohnny, is wait now and see what is awarded on your claim. If your son's care needs have not changed then you may find that, come June, the HRC will continue.

You say in your post that you have put the mobility claim in now, so that if things change in June, you won't lose too much money. What happens if they again say that you are not entitled to HRM?

There can be higher expenses when having a disability, and I agree, you did not ask for your son to be disabled. Majority of people would rather not have their disability.

When it comes to DLA, I personally do believe that the money should be spent on care / mobility needs, even though I know there is no law that says you have to.

You say you have to drive your son everywhere. Well, that costs more money and therefore you are using the DLA in a way it is needed, so please try not to feel too defensive.

It can be a worrying time when it comes to renewal for DLA, and, from your posts, I can see that the financial implications of you not being awarded this for your son will cause you stress, but, now that it's done, there isn't anything more you can do.

ali-t

bbjohnny wrote: »

It is absolutely none of your business what my expenditure is. For all you know I could use it all to buy drugs and shoes as could anybody else on here.

The pertinent information here is that my child should clearly qualify for this money in accordance with their criteria and an abundance of supporting evidence, but has not been awarded it - at a time when cutbacks are being made. My child is not a mild case who seems okay most of the time and only requires a small amount of extra help, they have related issues and an obvious disability.

DLA claims are based around care needs and not material purchases, contrary to your opinions. I drive my child everywhere for their own safety, however the same amount of money is paid for those who walk for free and have to be closely supervise.

I really cannot believe your attitude. Are you autistic yourself? Aspergers? Because I can't think of any other reason why you consider it acceptable to speak to a complete stranger who has a delicate personal life in such a rude, presumptious and aggressive manner.

despite your rantings I wasn't having a go at you in my posts so try re-reading them without the chip on your shoulder.

But just to appease you I will re-write my post for you.

Yes OP, you deserve high rate of all categories and it will be a travesty if you don't get it. I hope you get it whether you deserve it or have evidenced the need on your application form. :silenced:

If you only wanted replies from people who completelly agree with you, it would be helpful if you stated that in the OP.

So now you can add sarcastic to the rude, presumptious and aggressive you have already thrown at me.

cit_k

sader1 wrote: »

Unfortunately you are wrong on that point. DLA is clearly for the benefit of the recipient in consideration of their extra needs.

It is not a compensation package to make up for what someone has lost in income!!

Have a read on the Gov website - it tells you exactly what it is for!

I never said it was to replace what is lost in income.

I said, its to bump up their income to the same level as the equivalant person without the care mobility need.

In other words, one person (unemployed or working, does not matter) with the needs, has to spend money to cover those needs (ie care mobility) another healthy person does not.

So the healthy person has more money (assuming both people had the same income coming in) - compared to the disabled person.

DLA addresses that balance (or at least attempts to) by paying for costs incurred for care/mobility due to disability, meaning both people have the same amount of money available at the end of the day.

Without it, disabled people with care/mobility needs would always be worse off financially than the equivalant non disabled person who does not have to pay for those costs.