OT Assessment for Blue Badge

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

HiYa flock of sheep - it in fact says that none of these offences could be committed without the BB user being implicit in its misuse. Its BB users who brought the hammer down on their own heads.

They found a sweet shop full of candy and helped themselves to the bits they wanted, loaned or gave them to their friends, sold or duplicated them for thieves, shared them with their family when they shouldn't. Hey its free and no one is counting or cares, and if they don't like one of the rules they will ask if they can change it, after all its only staffed by minimum wage muppets and as stated no one cares or counts or costs. They just fill the shelf ready for the next troop of claimers.

But someone did notice.

My point is the BB and DLA is a lifeline, make a pig at the trough and sure enough someone will pull the trough away, and they did, and it was BB owners and that phrase ' discretionary criteria ' that brought it tumbling down.

Sharing per the blue book and sharing per anyone and his auntie are different things. The BB users will be 30% minus after PIP and perhaps a~n~other % minus for those who had a BB under the old criteria / standards but cant get through the O/T examiner [ many LA's are already using the new rules already ] hoop when the new rules come into full force.

I would imagine the ones that will suffer will - as usual - be those with hidden disabilites that actually also find the BB a lifeline. If the OT sees no walking stick(s) or takes no account of "hidden" pain and after effects of exertion hours after then I am sure they will "fail" the applicant. I then beg the question how qualified and knowledgable is the OT?

For example although not strictly in accordance with the rules *some* authories issue Blue Badges on a discretionary basis for Autistic children and for very good reasons. They would probably suffer under the new rules which is a shame.

Richie-from-the-Boro

bifold wrote: »

Certain people are allowed to inspect the blue badge and use the photo for identity purposes,A year ago I looked like Brian Blessed ,I now look like a slice of corn beef crossed with a potato So using a photo ID is pointless in my case.
And if you remember the context of the last quote was the new style bb and some people wanted photos on the front of the bb.

The only person in the big round world that would want to inspect your badge is the traffic attendant / warden. Lets remind ourselves .. .. he is the one in front of you with the funny forage cap who has already seen your face, c'mon bifold you sound like so many here the .. .. .. "" my illness is worse than your illness so give me extra special consideration "" You previously quoted defence was "" no photo on display to all whilst parked at the supermarket / and / or / don't want my house to be targeted whilst shopping? or mugged because I am a easy target? ""

bifold you photo is not on display through the windscreen mate :beer:

bifold

Anubis wrote: »

Do you have a link where it states the specifically? All I can find is that exemptions from photograps are very rare, even for those with facial disfigurement?

There is a genuine reason why I ask.

http://www2.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/259428/281009/laguidance.pdf

Look at 2.6 photograps.

Hi my badge was issued under 2.4:(
but I think I would get exemption under 2.6 facial disfigurement.
That said I have since been awarded DLA high rate mobility/care.

bifold

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

The only person in the big round world that would want to inspect your badge is the traffic attendant / warden. Lets remind ourselves .. .. he is the one in front of you with the funny forage cap who has already seen your face,

---

bifold you photo is not on display through the windscreen mate :beer:

Now lets see the person in the funny forage cap looks at photo on the badge and then looks at me who no longer looks like my own photo.
As I said your not in charge,quote me out of contex if you wish and bully me as much as you like,but their are always exceptions.

Richie-from-the-Boro

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I would imagine the ones that will suffer will - as usual - be those with hidden disabilities that actually also find the BB a lifeline. If the OT sees no walking stick(s) or takes no account of "hidden" pain and after effects of exertion hours after then I am sure they will "fail" the applicant. I then beg the question how qualified and knowledgeable is the OT?

But that applies to someone [ a liar ] on 7 crutches and a more than well rehearsed speech doesn't it ? They don't give BB to hidden disabilities unless it laid down in law.

The answer to the second part of your reply is the O/T [ its health and social care by the way ] is magnitudes more qualified than the minimum wage YTS kid who decided previously.

Look I do not and never did agree with it being taken from GP's, I think the government shot itself in the foot, it was / is the case that the GP should / would help any of his patients get a BB and in that he was lax, however all therefore they had to do was issue a new directive to GP's along the lines of a HGV / PSV standard for assessments.

However how a GP can perform a walk or virtually walk test in a 6 x 4 foot box in ten minutes I'll never know, maybe its not the GP's fault the came to be seen as ' comfortably accommodating long term acquaintances '

dafyguy

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

HiYa flock of sheep - it in fact says that none of these offences could be committed without the BB user being implicit in its misuse. Its BB users who brought the hammer down on their own heads.

They found a sweet shop full of candy and helped themselves to the bits they wanted, loaned or gave them to their friends, sold or duplicated them for thieves, shared them with their family when they shouldn't. Hey its free and no one is counting or cares, and if they don't like one of the rules they will ask if they can change it, after all its only staffed by minimum wage muppets and as stated no one cares or counts or costs. They just fill the shelf ready for the next troop of claimers.

But someone did notice.

My point is the BB and DLA is a lifeline, make a pig at the trough and sure enough someone will pull the trough away, and they did, and it was BB owners and that phrase ' discretionary criteria ' that brought it tumbling down.

Sharing per the blue book and sharing per anyone and his auntie are different things. The BB users will be 30% minus after PIP and perhaps a~n~other % minus for those who had a BB under the old criteria / standards but cant get through the O/T examiner [ many LA's are already using the new rules already ] hoop when the new rules come into full force.

Same old, if something can be abused it will be abused. Yes the whole pack of cards has been brought down by the badge holders themselves.
People cannot be trusted to act in a decent law abiding way, so the arm of the law has come crashing down on them.

I feel so sorry for the genuine guys that have followed the rules and find that the badge gives them more freedom.

The new rules are already in force, they are in my county. And to be honest from what I hear from my social worker, the 90min OT assessment is not only an assessment of walking ability, but an in depth question and answer session. Some are saying that it is more draining than filling in the DLA application form.
The LA's are not just not making sure that justice is done, but can be seen to be done.

I'm now waiting for the mad scramble for people to try their luck at the high mobility rate of DLA, instead of going down the discretionary route, especially now that PIP is not that far away.

At least there is an appeal process available for a failed DLA claim, whereas there is only a complaint procedure in place for the discretionary route.

sunnyone

formaldehyde_perfume wrote: »

Not at all. As my condition is (probably) genetic, I will have it for life, therefore I fit the BB specific criteria. The severety of the symptoms a person has from the condition is very variable and therefore someone who has less problems with walking but still finds it difficult to walk and would probably fit LRM catagory yet would still be entitled to a BB under their rules.

Each case should be looked at on it's own terms.

Also, all I did to get my BB was to write a form online and send a photo and admin fee. I was asked for permission to contact my GP, which I gave, but my GP has never mentioned it and I have never to her. I assume by this fact that they contacted my surgery to get my notes and confirm my story with diagnosis's and medication. It is besides the point, but I do have a very sympathetic doctor, and I am very grateful, but why shouldn't all GP's be sympathetic to their patients health worries?

formaldehyde_perfume wrote: »

I don't know about supervision, but dislocating a joint such as a knee cap in public and thus probably causing a fall would need some assistance from a carer who is aware of how to physically handle a person with EDS, and which joints in particular are at risk when helping the person up from a fall. There is also the issue of severe pain, whether standing, sitting or laying, which can cause a lack of concentration and lead to dangerous situations. On the rare occasion that I do walk, I am concentrating so hard on keeping my legs pointing the right way and maintaining my balance that I have walked in to a road without realising a car was coming and have almost been hit...

..... I was going to write more but I am far too ill to think right now, I may edit this later on as I did have a point but my mind has gone foggy.

You wont get LRM for dislocating anything, thats not what the criteria of LRM is about and I very much doubt an award of LRM would be awarded on the basis of lose of concentration on the grounds of dislocation either, I have been in that situation many times and its just not what LRM is about.

I hope your feeling a bit more "with it" soon.

shays_mum

sunnyone wrote: »

You wont get LRM for dislocating anything, thats not what the criteria of LRM is about and I very much doubt an award of LRM would be awarded on the basis of lose of concentration on the grounds of dislocation either, I have been in that situation many times and its just not what LRM is about.

I hope your feeling a bit more "with it" soon.

I have & i did for the above reasons & more!.

Anubis_2

LRM is awarded for guidance or supervision outdoors in unfamiliar places. Loss of concentration may come under that scope as you would need supervising if you had a situation where concentation loss was apparent as in some cases of Asperger's etc.

However, joint dislocation is another matter, but theoretically, if joints are regularly dislocated then it can be seen that the person needs supervision because they would be in danger otherwise ( such as sudden dislocation while crossing a road etc) but then that could happen in familiar and unfamiliar places, so it's not clear really.

you need guidance OR supervision most of the time from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places.