DLA and MOTABILITy over 65

krisskross

nannytone wrote: »

it's strange how 'equality' always mean that some people lose.
why take the mobility away? why not give it to all over 65's?
oh yeah....it'd cost money!
it's fine to keep giving the workshy money to reproduce, but we all know that anyone over 65 doesnt ever need to go anywhere!!

I do agree with you but given that there isn't a prayer of anyone already over 65 being given mobility assistance is it right that others receive it?

Shouldn't it be all or none?

harry7075

krisskross wrote: »

Maybe. But do you honestly think it is fair? Or is it just that you are at risk of losing a very valuable perk?

I'm in receipt of War Pension Mobility Supplement I was seriously injuryed
whilst serving my country. I'm also a fair few years of 65.

I just get annoyed with people moaning because genuine cases get something they don't. Should your husband receive AA? Surely conditions having an adverse effect on your health are to be expected when you each retirement age. THAT's ANOTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT

nannytone_2

ive never understood why AA doesnt have a mobility compnant.

i remember some years ago i lived in a borough that was split in half when it came to cold weather payments. half went by stanstead and half by heathrow.
the answer was to change everyone to the weather station that paid the least!

it made it fairer i suppose, but made everyone equally hard up!

its all about the lowest common denominator!

krisskross

harry7075 wrote: »

I'm in receipt of War Pension Mobility Supplement I was seriously injuryed
whilst serving my country. I'm also a fair few years of 65.

I just get annoyed with people moaning because genuine cases get something they don't. Should your husband receive AA? Surely conditions having an adverse effect on your health are to be expected when you each retirement age. THAT's ANOTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT

My husband IS a genuine case. Rheumatoid Arthritis is absolutely nothing to do with age.

So as you expect to have mobility problems when you reach retirement age then it is entirely right that everyone or no one should get any financial help, is that what you are saying?

nannytone_2

kriss........llok at it another way. forget about how fair or unfair it is.

would it make your husband any better off for the person across the road to be worse off?

krisskross

nannytone wrote: »

kriss........llok at it another way. forget about how fair or unfair it is.

would it make your husband any better off for the person across the road to be worse off?

No of course not. But cuts in welfare payments are having to be made and stopping DLA at 65 seems to be a fairly painfree and sensible one AND addresses the anomaly of some pensioners getting mobility assistance and some not. There is no barrier to over 65s claiming AA to replace their DLA.

There has been talk of changes to DLA for a long time now, surely none of this is such a surprise.

nannytone_2

i do understand what youre saying but....

if a person has been wheelchaor bound for life. never been able to work. their only freedom is their mobility car.
so age 65 it's bye bye car, bye bye any freedom that they might have!

yes they could claim AA, but that doesnt cover the loss of the DLA mobility, as AA is equivalent to the middle and higher DLA care rates.
you're talking of a loss of almost £50 a week.

lilac_lady

Maybe the new rules stopping DLA will be applied to new claimants only. I agree with krisscross - why should some pensioners keep their motobility payments when they reach 65 while others over 65 don't qualify.

Likewise why are people on Incapacity/invalidity before 1997 (?) not treated the same as newer applicants? Other income is not taken into account but after claims after 1997 have that taken into account and the benefit is reduced.

BTW, i don't get DLA and the only state benefit I receive is my State Pension.

krisskross

nannytone wrote: »

i do understand what youre saying but....

if a person has been wheelchaor bound for life. never been able to work. their only freedom is their mobility car.
so age 65 it's bye bye car, bye bye any freedom that they might have!

yes they could claim AA, but that doesnt cover the loss of the DLA mobility, as AA is equivalent to the middle and higher DLA care rates.
you're talking of a loss of almost £50 a week.

So what you're saying is that it is only those who got the mobility allowance before they were 65 who will miss the freedom of being able to get out and about. Tell that to my husband who is wheelchair and housebound for weeks on end. Doesn't he deserve some help to get out? We actually use his high rate AA to pay for taxis. Oh and we also use it to pay privately for steroid injections into his very painful joints.

nannytone_2

people that have become disabled after the age of 65, are more likely to have been anle to work than people that have been disabled long term and so should be in a better financial position.

the beauty of DLA/AA is that they are not means tested benefits and are available to anyone that meets the criteria.

as an example............my father in law worked even though he recieved DLA (nerve namage due to severe burns? he has a state pension, a works pension, industrail injuries benefit and DLA, meaning he would lose physical and financial freedom.
my grandson became seriously ill at 18 months and was left severly disabled. all he would ever have is his DLA. so at 65 with no contributions to a state pension, no private pension.....all he would get is High rate AA and pension credit.