DLA and MOTABILITy over 65

Marisco

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

A lot of these pensioners have been fit and active all their lives and there has been no excuse to not get a pension together for their old age. Some claim they never had the finances because of low paid employment, but that is no excuse, evening classes and home study has been on the go since 1960's (for last 50 years), available for anybody to improve their education. The pensioners that moan about the married womans stamp and say that now there state pension is poor, well I started work in 1974, I became aware of the advertising on tv and newspapers to change from a married womans stamp to a full one, so any one of them could have had when they retired a full state pension.

So who does the low paid jobs then, when everyone is "training" for the high paid jobs?? Not everyone can be a "high flyer"!! I must agree with you though, about the married womens stamp. I always knew about it and always paid full stamp.

Kriss, if someone is 65 and one day, then that is just bad luck! There has to be a cut off date somewhere, and no matter what age it is, it's going to upset someone!! TBH, I cannot see someone being 64 +364 days and they are OK, then 65 + 1 day and they are disabled!!!! Why are 24 year olds paid less benefit than 25 year olds? Why can someone of 17 +364 days not buy a drink legally and an 18 year old can? There has to be a date somewhere along the line. Yes, it's tough if you are on the wrong side, but that's life.

krisskross

Marisco wrote: »

Kriss, if someone is 65 and one day, then that is just bad luck! There has to be a cut off date somewhere, and no matter what age it is, it's going to upset someone!! TBH, I cannot see someone being 64 +364 days and they are OK, then 65 + 1 day and they are disabled!!!! Why are 24 year olds paid less benefit than 25 year olds? Why can someone of 17 +364 days not buy a drink legally and an 18 year old can? There has to be a date somewhere along the line. Yes, it's tough if you are on the wrong side, but that's life.

Oh yes I totally agree although i would add that the 24 years old on lower benefits will become eligible on reaching 25.

i have not been complaining because my husband of 65+ does not receive the mobility payment although he definitely has the disability. It is the people already receiving it who look to be going to lose it at 65 that are doing the moaning . I simply see it as making it the same for all disabled people at age 65. And surely that is equalising the situation. If all over 65s are not given mobility help when it is needed then it seems unfair to give to some.

Marisco

Yes, I agree with you up to a point. Maybe it would be better if they just stopped it at retirement age (whatever that is these days, they change it so often!!!!) Personally, I don't think old people should get it anyway, for reasons I've previously stated, i.e the body "breaks down", normal "wear and tear" etc. I do think though, that if someone has had it for years and years, that they should continue to receive it, as they would have been young when they got it.

Maybe they could start tapering it as people get older? That way they would get used to not having it when they retire?? Maybe also they could give more practical help i.e bath hoists, commodes etc, rather than actual money?

Ideally, no one should lose anything, but this gov seems determined to wield the scissors with force, so something has to go, and as Ive said, I would rather the money go to create jobs for young people, who have their lives in front of them. And just to keep things "fair" I wouldn't pay CB for any more over 2 kids either;)

krisskross

Marisco wrote: »

Ideally, no one should lose anything, but this gov seems determined to wield the scissors with force, so something has to go, and as Ive said, I would rather the money go to create jobs for young people, who have their lives in front of them. And just to keep things "fair" I wouldn't pay CB for any more over 2 kids either;)

Unfortunately we are now in the position of having such a bloated welfare state that the scissor wielding is necessary.

Ideally we would all like the cuts to affect someone else:rotfl:but I think we are all going to have to take a hit. The pain will be shared.

I agree with child benefits for just the first 2 children as well.

parsons

krisskross wrote: »

Unfortunately we are now in the position of having such a bloated welfare state that the scissor wielding is necessary.

Ideally we would all like the cuts to affect someone else:rotfl:but I think we are all going to have to take a hit. The pain will be shared.

I agree with child benefits for just the first 2 children as well.

I totally agree with you. It is not those over 65 that do not have DLA mobility that are complaining, it is those that are and likely to lose it. Tough that is life. We all suffer in one way or another with these cuts. It is to be expected, given the abuse the system has had to put up with. It wasn't that many years ago that the Tories encouraged people on Unemployment Benefit to claim Sickness Benefit instead just to massage the figures.

Same with DLA, I think most of us know someone that has tried it on, exagerated or whatever in the past.

As for 2 children, I don't think there should be ANY benefit for children unless the parent could show that at the time of conception, and for a period after birth that they could support them theirselves out of income. Leaving benefit for those that could but have fallen on bad times. Call it forced contraception or what, it would work!

jo011e2470

krisskross wrote: »

This must be the most trotted out phrase on any thread about disability.

What about the ones who DO have the disability but are 65 and1day old?

Original DLA Rules around 1992

If I remember right if your 65 plus one day you can claim DLA if you can show that your disability started before 65 I am sure this can go up to the day before your 66 birthday

Has these regulation changed in the past few years?

parsons

jo011e2470 wrote: »

Original DLA Rules around 1992

If I remember right if your 65 plus one day you can claim DLA if you can show that your disability started before 65 I am sure this can go up to the day before your 66 birthday

Has these regulation changed in the past few years?

Turn2us state that you MUST be under 65 to claim

But,

R(DLA)5/02 (formerly CDLA/3861/1999) states that a claimant cannot get lower rate care component after age 65 if previously awarded another component. Lower rate must be awarded before age 65. But see CSDLA/388/2000* – (41/01) which allows lower rate to be awarded where the tribunal makes the effective date of review prior to age 65. See also CDLA/754/2000* (12/01) for similar issues and a summary of powers of the tribunal and CDLA/301/2005.

Catiecat_2

I would bet my husbands DLA that whatever the outcome of the Bill we wont be the same, or better off.

My husband has worked full time all his life, never out of work, even though he was made redundant 3 times, he always managed to get another job. I too have worked all my life, be it part time when we had our 1 child. We have paid into a Pension scheme, done without holidays and the like to do so, it wont be a fortune, but should keep us off the poverty line.

A year ago my husband had a stroke, a non smoker, non drinker, never over weight, physically fit, such is life, very unfair.

He lost his job, with the disabilities the stroke left him with he couldnt do the job anymore.

6 months after the stroke a friend told us about DLA (we had never claimed a penny before so were clueless about these things). He was awarded middle rate care and high rate mobility. We thought all our Christmases had come at once. We could manage to still run his car, which meant his world went beyound our 4 walls.

My husband had another stroke 3 weeks ago, his eyesight is affected now.

I hope with all my heart we dont lose the DLA when he is 65 next year, our lives have changed so much, I hope we can still get beyound the 4 walls. I understand where people are coming from with the unfair system if you didnt get it before 65, then hard luck if you need it after.

My mother died from Alzheimers' she suffered from that dreadful disease for 8 years prior to her death, it was my privilage to care for her, she, nor we ever claimed a penny from anywhere.

For the last 2 years of her life she needed nursing home care, and because she owned her own home we had to sell it to pay for her care in total, every penny was worth the tender loving care she received, we had sufficient funds left to pay for her funeral.

However, there were 16 residents on her floor, mum was the only one self funding, the rest were paid for by the State because they did not own their own homes.

I share this information to demonstrate life isnt always fair.