Cars on motability scheme are now limited up to AP £2000

melbury

Totally agree, it does need tightening up. Seems that in the past it has been fairly easy to qualify for this.

sizzler1893

Wheels872012 wrote: »

The changes need to happen.

there are too many people say with diabetes or asthma

Diabetes with legs amputated would of course qualify these people for DLA HRM.

Similar as chronic Asthma meaning the claimant is unable to walk any distance.

However changes are needed and this will go someway to tightening those taking the proverbial. There are plenty of lower spec 4 x 4s available but granted some people will need a higher end vehicle and provision should be made, somehow.

davsidipp

yes changes are needed but some peoples attitude to other peoples disabilities needs to change.

Edale

melbury wrote: »

Totally agree, it does need tightening up. Seems that in the past it has been fairly easy to qualify for this.

It is not motability that needs tightening up though is it, it is DLA. From everything you read on here they are very much tightening up.

Wheels872012

sizzler1893 wrote: »

Diabetes with legs amputated would of course qualify these people for DLA HRM.

Similar as chronic Asthma meaning the claimant is unable to walk any distance.

However changes are needed and this will go someway to tightening those taking the proverbial. There are plenty of lower spec 4 x 4s available but granted some people will need a higher end vehicle and provision should be made, somehow.

Sorry sizzler1893 I didn't mean to cause offense ofcourse alot of people recieving dla and on notability genuinely have a mobility problem but I was talking about alot of people who do say only have mild asthma or have their diabetes controlled and still recieve it their not the only examples, kids with ADHD. Like I said motability needs to sort some issues out with choices, transmissions, car type and prices as they differ widely, but the main issue is dla assessors there obviously doing something wrong in some cases and yes get it right in others where people are genuinely entitled to higher rate dla.

Whatever the changes must happen everyone is to be assessed of people have a genuine mobility problem and meet the criteria for dla then they like me have nothing to hide and it won't be a problem. !

Ames

Oh dear, I'm in two categories of 'the hated'.

Firstly, I have a far bigger car than I need. I was going to get an Alfa Mito, or another Citroen C3. Then I saw that I could get a Vauxhall Insignia for no AP. As it had all the back support, and fully adjustable seat, that I needed, I went for it. It's much more comfortable than the C3 I had before, which is important because of my pain problems. And the price on the agreement was very reasonable - about 13k if memory serves, it was much less than I'd expected - but I think that was down to Vauxhall having good fleet offers, rather than anything to do with motability. I'm hoping I'll be able to buy it at the end of the lease, thanks to an inheritance.

Secondly, I'd like to add my sister as a named driver. I live in Leeds, she lives in London. When I visit her, I prefer her to drive as she's used to the traffic down there. Her car isn't really suitable for me, being a small three door and harder to get in and out of. Plus, if we go on holiday together in the UK, it's easier to share the driving. So I'm a bit !!!!ed off that people have abused the scheme enough that we'll be affected, as I don't think that it's unreasonable to have her drive in those circumstances.

Does anyone know if you'll be able to add drivers to the insurance for a fee if they live more than five miles away, like you can with third drivers? And if it'll be five road miles, or as the crow flies?

tottybum

sizzler1893 wrote: »

Diabetes with legs amputated would of course qualify these people for DLA HRM.

Similar as chronic Asthma meaning the claimant is unable to walk any distance.

However changes are needed and this will go someway to tightening those taking the proverbial. There are plenty of lower spec 4 x 4s available but granted some people will need a higher end vehicle and provision should be made, somehow.

Diabetes by itself is not a condition that causes problems with mobility. It's the effect on other parts of the body that create the problems.

I don't know much about Asthma causing being unable to walk 25 metres.

I have Peripheral Arterial Disease which causes clots in both legs, thus rendering them useless. I am also a Type 1 Diabetic, but when I applied for DLA before I was 65, I was told by the medical assessor that my ability to walk was nearly normal - so I couldn't have DLA.

So can't accept that being Diabetic would mean you are disabled.

sizzler1893

tottybum wrote: »

Diabetes by itself is not a condition that causes problems with mobility. It's the effect on other parts of the body that create the problems.

I don't know much about Asthma causing being unable to walk 25 metres.

I have Peripheral Arterial Disease which causes clots in both legs, thus rendering them useless. I am also a Type 1 Diabetic, but when I applied for DLA before I was 65, I was told by the medical assessor that my ability to walk was nearly normal - so I couldn't have DLA.

So can't accept that being Diabetic would mean you are disabled.

Sounds like you had an inept assessor Tottybum!


Funnily enough Diabetes is named in the DDA, for reasons not relevant to this discussion mind:rotfl:). Diabetes in itself would not meet the criteria for LRM yet alone HRM. Heck it doesn't qualify for LRC unless in specific circumstances.


This discussion proves you cant lump claimants and their conditions into one box!!

tottybum

sizzler1893 wrote: »

Sounds like you had an inept assessor Tottybum!


Funnily enough Diabetes is named in the DDA, for reasons not relevant to this discussion mind:rotfl:). Diabetes in itself would not meet the criteria for LRM yet alone HRM. Heck it doesn't qualify for LRC unless in specific circumstances.


This discussion proves you cant lump claimants and their conditions into one box!!

Yes you are not wrong on that!
I thought that myself after, he was a bit of a waste of space when he never asked me to walk to show him. I sat on the sofa all of the time and my wife let him in and saw him out.

Diabetes is certainly not a disability in itself for claiming benefits.

Brassedoff

tottybum wrote: »

Diabetes is certainly not a disability in itself for claiming benefits.

My wife has type 2, my nan had type 1 that required the district nurse to inject everyday. My friend has type 2. My wife manages hers well with diet and exercise. My friend eats what he wants, drinks lots and has terrible legs and feel, plus many other health problems related to his diabetes. Now, I am not grouping all diabetics together, but when I compare my wife who takes real care and which has resulted in her metphormin (sorry if spelt incorrectly) being lowered and my friend, his resulting condition is self inflicted.

He has gone down the DLA route, but that's after talking to me and asking me what I get. Personally believe he should be turned down because it is self inflicted.

Like others have said on here. Disabilities are all different. I too believe all DLA applications should be re-evaluated as some people have got better since their award and have not told the DWP and some conditions should not be awarded HRC and HRM as progress in medication or aids. At the same point and I know its wishful thinking that money saved could be spent on those left.