OT Assessment for Blue Badge

dafyguy

LadyMorticia wrote: »

When I got in contact with the DLA department via email to ask about applying for HRM, the person said that it was up to me and it would only be compulsory to inform them if my health had got better, which it hasn't.

So, I was rest assured that if I didn't want to apply for HRM, then I didn't have to.

Are you sure of that? That's not what I was told. They have been telling me that it doesn't matter if the needs go down or up, I am still legally required to inform them.
I'll have a look at some things that they pointed out to me and post them if and when I find them.

Taken from the declaration when you signed the original claim:

QUOTE]

[FONT=OOFEI E+ FS Me,FS Me][FONT=OOFEI E+ FS Me,FS Me]that I must promptly tell the office that pays my Disability Living Allowance of anything that may affect my entitlement to, or the amount of, that benefit. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=OOFEI E+ FS Me,FS Me]
[/FONT]

shays_mum

I was awarded a blue badge after a very thorough 1.5hr interview. It was done at the council offices & i am sure i was watched coming in, the ot def watched me when going out, even waited till my lift arrived.

Saying that, i have just got a 3yr LR DLA award, so its confusing

Just a note to add my award was "limited as i was going to attend a pain management course" so beware what you say!!. The tribunal was horrendous & they were just looking at ways to catch me out, asking the same questions an hour into it , instead of trying to find out about my condition & how it affects me!!

LadyMorticia

dafyguy wrote: »

Are you sure of that? That's not what I was told. They have been telling me that it doesn't matter if the needs go down or up, I am still legally required to inform them.
I'll have a look at some things that they pointed out to me and post them if and when I find them.

Taken from the declaration when you signed the original claim:

QUOTE][FONT=OOFEI E+ FS Me,FS Me]
[/FONT]

Yes, very sure. I'll even try and dig out the email reply for you if I still have it.

dafyguy

LadyMorticia wrote: »

Yes, very sure. I'll even try and dig out the email reply for you if I still have it.

Well! It's not that I don't believe you at all. It's the DWP who are having a go at me for failing to tell them that my needs changed in 2005, but didn't tell them until Jan 2011.

Although they haven't said so, but the gist of one conversation I have had with them in the past was that it creates suspicion when someone comes up with the fact that the needs changed 5/6 years ago and I didn't think about telling them?

They pointed out that I have 4 months to notify them of ANY change.

LadyMorticia

dafyguy wrote: »

Well! It's not that I don't believe you at all. It's the DWP who are having a go at me for failing to tell them that my needs changed in 2005, but didn't tell them until Jan 2011.

Although they haven't said so, but the gist of one conversation I have had with them in the past was that it creates suspicion when someone comes up with the fact that the needs changed 5/6 years ago and I didn't think about telling them?

They pointed out that I have 4 months to notify them of ANY change.

The thing with the DWP is that sometimes one person will tell you one thing, and then another employee will tell you something different.

So it makes it hard who to believe sometimes.

PlasticMoose

LadyMorticia wrote: »

The thing with the DWP is that sometimes one person will tell you one thing, and then another employee will tell you something different.

So it makes it hard who to believe sometimes.

This is my experience. My DLA application was refused and I appealed an was then awarded LRC and HRM. It was while my application was initially being considered that my BB finally arrived (it took ages - backlog I think) so I rang to inform the DWP of this and was told that having a BB was totally irrelevant. When I rang to arrange my appeal for a reconsideration I was told it certainly was relevant and should have been noted when I first notified them but it hadn't been.

I agree that the system is very strange and uneven and there are improvements that need to be made but HRM is just an automatic qualifier and councils should be able to use their discretion if someone doesn't have HRM.

fiendishly

Worth mentioning on this thread I think that a Blue Badge is awarded for a permanent and substantial disability that affects ones ability to walk.

HRM is awarded for conditions that have caused mobility problems for the previous 3 months and are expected to last for the next six months.

This is a possible reason for someone to get a badge via HRM but would not be entitled to one directly. Happened to a friend and fellow arthritis sufferer.

Also, someone over 65 would not be eligible to claim DLA so would be better applying for a badge directly

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

How about if someone has a BB already then later applies for DLA HRM and gets turned down by the DWP for the HRM DLA.

Does that mean that they should call up the council and say "because the DWP say I can't have HRM DLA then I should give up my badge"?

If your needs increase with regards to DLA then the only person you hurt by not telling the DWP is yourself if there is a chance of extra money. Does this mean anyone who has a disability but does not have DLA MUST apply for DLA beacuse not telling the DWP that you have a disability or needs at all is illegal?

Also - how about if you write the same thing on a DLA application for HRM DLA and the same thing on a council BB form and get turned down for DLA and acceped by the council - does that mean the DWP must honour your DLA claim?

As far as I am concerned the two items ae totally separate if you apply for a BB on council discretionary grounds.

I know of DLA claimants that get LRM or even no mobility component but get a care component that have been awarded a BB by the council. Be grateful they are saving the tax payer money by not upping their DLA claim for mobility.

Blue Badges are not awarded via the council's scheme for the "dangerous and extreme behaviour/mental" criteria that goes with some HRM DLA claims either. The council only award them for direct physical problems with walking. So someone with Autism for example woudl struggle to get a BB via the council due to "extreme behaviour" but possibly easier via a HRM DLA claim for "difficult behaviour". The council does not recognise Autism for example as a "physical" disability and therefore would decline a BB under their criteria.

Incidentally Council BB issuing rules are actually governed by the Department for Transport not by the Councils themselves and definitely not by the DWP. It is the DfT that say HRM DLA passports to a badge and they also lay down the guideline and criteria for discretionary issue too.

Authorities are mandated to issue BBadges if the applicant has HRM DLA. At the end of the day it is up to the authority whether they issue a BB or not under their own non HRM DLA scheme. For example I know of cases I have read on the MUMS-NET forum where a council has issued badges for an Autistic child but another authority does not.

Anubis_2

Anubis wrote: »

Because DLA on it's own does not allow a person to park their car in a disabled space, and that need may be greater than the need for DLA at this moment, as it is a priority. The OP may also be getting DLA - the BB does not automatically come with DLA and some need assessments.

Additionally, DLA may be the way to go, but it doesn't mean someone will be awarded DLA, especially at the high rate. There are many having to fight for it, and it is only going to get harder when PIP is introduced.

dafyguy wrote: »

It does. DLA, higher rate mobility gives automatic right to a blue badge.

I can't understand this then. To get a blue badge (if you don't have DLA
high mobility) you have to show that you either can't walk or are virtually unable to walk. This is the same as DLA high mobility.

Are you saying that you don't have to as bad to get a blue badge with the new tests as you do have to be to get DLA high mobility?

I thought that that was the idea to bring the requirements in line with
each other.

You can't walk or be virtually unable to walk in different ways for the two schemes.

As for it being harder to get, I understood it that the assessment for a blue badge was to be made harder because of the past abuse of the
system.

No, what I am saying is the two are separate. Just because someone is awarded DLA does not automatically entitle them to a BB. Just because soneone has a BB does not automatically entitle them to DLA.

Some have a BB and may not get DLA, some have DLA and may not get a BB.

Also, when you notify of a change of circumstances, that you are worse, your whole award is looked at again and you may be in danger of losing it. Judt because someone feels they should get a higher rate does not mean they will - it doesn't work like that.

I know people who are less disabled than others and seem to get higher awards. There are also people who are not able go mobilise at all who get nothing. As I said when PIP is introduced it is going to be much harder to get any DLA.

I believe the Government wish to phase out DLA and AA as the green paper is there for the proposal to scrap both, and everyone pay insurace of 12 or 25 thousand pounds, ( regardless of health) and if you are disabled you recieve the care you need without getting any money.

Richie-from-the-Boro

#12 - technically this is correct [ the charge is 112 (1A) failure to notify change of circumstances ] as it means any circumstances that change from your original claim. I'll check for you but I've never heard of it being used in this way where care / and / or mobility needs increase but are not claimed for. I make the assumption they assumed you were working and ' keeping your head down' by not claiming. The fact of the matter is care / mobility needs can and do fluctuate up and down and at irregular times for many people, arthritics for example are worse in the cold wet winter, they may think they are feeling better but the cold quadruples their pain and restricted movement.

Ordinarily they only use 112 (1A) if its the other way round and your condition improves, ] particularly if you return to employment ] because this results in an overpayment to be clawed back in addition to all sorts of knock on payments such as tax credits / council tax / pension credit etc.

The whole system is inconsistent in the way it supports supports disabled people with like~with~like similar needs. One excellent defence against 112 (1A) is that whilst the catch all phrase is writ large on all government documents the individual is given no clear guidance on how to report the change in circumstances.

dafyguy, the BB issue as others have said is different to yours, they are different issues, your post has served only to hijack LadyMorticia's thread.