DLA - the purpose

Astaroth

Not sure if it should be posted here or the discussion forum but probably get a better response here....

I am confused as to what the "purpose" of the DLA benefit is. From reading the sites that others have linked to here it appears to be to cover the cost of having people help you however the money is paid to the person with the disability rather than the "carer". To go down my usual controversial route it seems that DLA in many cases is almost a token compensation payment for having been dealt a poor hand by fate.

A friend is partially deaf (wears hearing aids) has a good job (around £150k) and receives £33 a week in DLA (though has no carer and no specialist equipment other than a thing to make lights flash when the doorbell rings and to be honest I think I could really do with one of them too) and makes a thing of buying the first round every week with his "pity money" as he calls it.

I dont get why he should be getting money from the government when there is no additional cost for him in life and even if there was he could clearly afford to pay it.

If the purpose of DLA is to provide carers then why 1) is it not paid direct to the carer in all cases rather than to the person and 2) why is it not means tested... surely the governments money should only be there for those that cannot help themselves rather than all who have had a poor hand.

(note this is not a stab at anyone claiming DLA or saying that it should be abolished but simply to understand it better)

Zara33

Good post, good question something to think about.
Perhaps i have to think real hard as to how i respond as not to offend anyone.

Fran

DLA is for the extra costs of disability. I take your point that your friend does not have extra costs, maybe in fact he wouldn't be entitled if his claim was reviewed.

Carers can claim Carer's Allowance which is a separate benefit.

It would be too complicated to break down into actual expenses of each disability a person might have, they have presumably taken an average of the extra costs, I assume that's why there's not variation according to individual actual expenses.

It's bad enough that someone has a disability in the first place without having to justify every penny they spend that has been allocated to improve their lives in some way.

healy

If he does not want the "pity money" he did not have to claim it in the first place or continue to claim it.

D&DD

Hi Astaroth (I hope you have your tin hat and flameproof knickers on lol you may need them later, but I think this is a good question not everyone knows about this unless you have direct contact with people who recieve it..)
Right to answer your question we applied for DLA for our 2 sons on the advice of our doctors,we were not aware we qualified for any help with their disabilities for 5+ years we just got on with it!
DS 2 has a spinal problem which affects many things he wears a special body brace and under this he wears a special orthotic vest,these are nearly £20 each and he has up to 10 changes a day due to sweat etc.His DLA money pays for things such as this,his transport to and from places as he can't walk far etc and any aids or equipment he needs.He wears through clothes at a rate of knots and shoes too due to his orthotic (or bionic as he says) bits and pieces
DS3 has autism and a host of other bits..He smashes things,chews things,eats things including clothes and linen.We use his DLA to pay for a private tutor and soon a private speech therapist.He is also on a special diet and meds which we have to pay for.We can get through a lot of mattresses too as well as doors,walls,carpet etc :eek: Thats just on a good week :rotfl:

Astaroth

healy wrote:

If he does not want the "pity money" he did not have to claim it in the first place or continue to claim it.

As far as I am aware he does want it, dont know many people who would turn down "free money"

He is just the cause of me wondering 1) what the idea of the money is 2) why isnt it paid directly to the carer if that is what it is for - I notice several sites that say you dont get DLA if all you need is specialist equipment and not a carer 3) why it isnt means tested

D&DD wrote:

I hope you have your tin hat and flameproof knickers on lol you may need them later,

I wear full body flameproof suit at all times

Fran

Astaroth wrote:

...why isnt it paid directly to the carer if that is what it is for - I notice several sites that say you dont get DLA if all you need is specialist equipment and not a carer 3) why it isnt means tested

It is not for the carer it is for the disabled person. It is because they have care needs, it doesn't mean they necessarily have a carer, it's that DLA is assessed on the two elements of care needs and mobility needs. The money is expected to be spent on the most appropriate thing for the individual which might be something other than a carer.

oldMcDonald

Hi

I was always under the impression that Carers Allowance paid money to the carer due to their finding it hard or impossible to work due to their careing responsibilities. It took me a long time to claim carers allowance for looking after my profoundly disabled son as I could not see why I should be paid to look after him as I was his parent. As he got older I understood more about how much being a carer impacted on your life. I cannot work as I have to be there for him constantly, I am unable to something as simple as 'just pop up to the shop', I can't even rush to the loo without making sure he is safe (this often involves me rushing around messing about with hoists and jiggling like mad as I'm very desperate but need to make sure he is safe!!). Unlike Carera Allowance, DLA is for the disabled person to spend on the eqipment that they need (if they are able to - in my sons case we must decide on his behalf)

As I said, the DLA is his money - to be spent on his needs. In my sons case he needs apx 5-6 clothes changes each day, I have to change and wash his bed linen every day, he goes through clothes and sheets at an unbelievable rate - it is so expensive to cloth him as he chews through them all.

A large chunk goes towards equipment. For instance, his wheelchair cost £1200. He is incontinent and needs changing every couple of hours - his nappies cost a good few pounds each week!

I don't know much about equipment that the person the OP mentions would need so I can't help there. Just thought that it may help if I explained what my sons DLA is spent on?

Poonum_2

hi astaroth, DLA is not an easy thing to be awarded, so i'm sure your friend must have proved to doctors and the DWP that he is eligible? he'd have to fill in 30 odd pages of forms that ask very specific questions for a start, they are notorios for being almost like an exam, with what the DWP consider to be the "right" answers to qualify. the application is generally considered quite a stressful and far from straightforward process, so it makes me think your friend must have proved a serious need during his application for help at home and getting out and about?

lilac_lady

astaroth asks a good question. It would be a fairer system if the money was awarded directly to the carer but then not everyone claiming DLA needs help with stuff - they just know how to fill out the form like the guy with the hearing problem. That makes things much more difficult for the ones who really need help.

Astaroth

Fran wrote:

It is not for the carer it is for the disabled person. It is because they have care needs, it doesn't mean they necessarily have a carer, it's that DLA is assessed on the two elements of care needs and mobility needs. The money is expected to be spent on the most appropriate thing for the individual which might be something other than a carer.

Which I would accept other than having seen reputable advice sites about DLA it does say that you must require a carer and just because you need specialist equipment is not sufficient

If it is to cover costs of equipment or carer then surely it should be means tested therefore allowing those that are in "true" need and unable to financially support themselves to receive a more appropriate level of assistance rather than paying everyone who has been unlucky enough to have a disability (there are plenty of other disabilities which will limit someones finances for one reason or another which does not attract government support)