DLA and MOTABILITy over 65

nannytone_2

as i said before......i think there should be a mobility componant to AA.
but taking someone elses freedom will not give your husband his freedom will it?

Oldernotwiser

nannytone wrote: »

my grandson became seriously ill at 18 months and was left severly disabled. all he would ever have is hgis DLA. so at 65 with no contributions to a stae pension, no private pension.....all he would get is High rate AA and pension credit.

I certainly don't begrudge your grandson anything but Pension Credit, AA , DLA, LHA and CTB add up to a larger income than many people who have worked all their lives, so it's untrue to say that people who've become disabled when they were young are worse off than those who haven't.

I wish there was a way that everybody could have a mobility allowance but the system at present is very unfair.

krisskross

nannytone wrote: »

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 hgis DLA. so at 65 with no contributions to a stae pension, no private pension.....all he would get is High rate AA and pension credit.

My husband only has his state pension and a very small amount of a private pension, less than £100 a month. Pension credit is actually more than my husband receives, but we are a couple so my pension is taken into account.

Do not forget the rent and council tax that people on pension credit don't pay, plus the help with dental and optical. In fact people on pension credit plus high rate AA with no rent etc will be quite comfortable with a disposable income of ~£200 a week

nannytone_2

it's ireelevant because, terribly, my grandson died suddenly last may. but even at the age of 4, my daughter was already fretting about making provision or him. he was severly physically disabled, but mentally as bright as a button. there was no chance for physical improvement.

he would have had no chance to make any provision for himself. and the way things are going, anyone that doesnt make provision will be in the workhouse!!


i just dont understand the mentality that says 'i havent got it so you cant have it either!'

allen35

The reason for AA is that people over the age of 65 have real care needs above the rate of lower rate care of DLA, unfortunately we are all expected to have mobility/care needs from the age of 65 which is why we cannot claim for mobility needs and low rate care and we are expected to get on with it.

krisskross

nannytone wrote: »

i just dont understand the mentality that says 'i havent got it so you cant have it either!'

By the same token I can't understand the mentality of someone who says it's fine and absolutely vital for me to have it past 65 because I got it when I was 64 and 364 days old but YOU can't have it because you were 65 and 1 day old when your serious mobility problems began.

krisskross

allen35 wrote: »

unfortunately we are all expected to have mobility/care needs from the age of 65 which is why we cannot claim for mobility needs and low rate care and we are expected to get on with it.

Quite but it should apply to all of us.

sunnyone

allen35 wrote: »

The reason for AA is that people over the age of 65 have real care needs above the rate of lower rate care of DLA, unfortunately we are all expected to have mobility/care needs from the age of 65 which is why we cannot claim for mobility needs and low rate care and we are expected to get on with it.

And of course younger people dont have real care needs then?

I wish I didnt have to pay for care and then I would be rich but because Im under you age group I cant possibly be disabled can I.

nannytone_2

so saying that, if you cant get it past the age of 65, would it be fairer if no one could get it at all?
whatever their age.

your argument is that it discriminates. so if you cant get it at 65 you shouldnt get it at 25, because its still discrimination.

krisskross

sunnyone wrote: »

And of course younger people dont have real care needs then?

I wish I didnt have to pay for care and then I would be rich but because Im under you age group I cant possibly be disabled can I.

By the same token we can't possibly need any help with mobility as we shouldn't expect to go out once we get to 65.

That poster did say he was talking about the lowest rate of DLA care and we all know you are severely disabled and that won't apply to you.