DLA - the purpose

seven-day-weekend

I don't think it should be nmeans tested. If a person has a disability, then they have similar needs to anyone else with that disability and they should not be penalised just because they have more money.

filigree_2

If you don't want the free beer paid for by pity money, you could just say no

I know the OP said they aren't having a dig at anyone but I admit that I've got a personal stake - my son got DLA for years and I'll be eligible soon so I'm being careful not to take offence if someone is just asking genuine questions So please excuse me if I'm a bit biased.

There seems to be some kind of general misunderstanding that DLA is intended to pay for a carer. It is not. Carer's Allowance is a different benefit and that is paid directly to the carer. In my son's case he's underage so both payments came to me, so really it's academic who got the money. You can't "pay" a carer anyway - it's only about £45 a week at the moment for a 35 hour week! In reality most carers are close family members and the money all goes into the same pot.

I can't give the exact quote because I haven't got a form in front of me, but the DWP say you can claim if you need help, even if you aren't getting any help at the moment which is an important distinction. If some poor soul is struggling on alone it seems a bit mean to deprive them of money because they don't have anyone to help them.

Maybe I'm being pedantic but I think "help" can take many forms and doesn't have to be a named carer. For instance, a housebound person might have to do all their shopping online and pay for delivery costs just to fill their fridge - that's a kind of help, isn't it? It is money that they wouldn't have to spend if they were able bodied.

Imagine if someone like D&DD had to fill out lots of different forms to claim for a laundry allowance, a clothing allowance, a bedding allowance, a special food allowance etc each time one of the children needed something extra to help with their care. It would be unwieldy and even harder to administer than the current system.

I see the point about means testing, but if that happened in my family we wouldn't get a penny because my husband works. His wage would just about support the family under normal circumstances, but if we got zero benefits he would have a hard time paying for all the extras like taxis to hospital. If the only allowance payable was for a carer, we wouldn't get it unless he gave up his job and then we'd all live off benefits. Far better to keep him in work and give me a little bit extra to pay for whatever comes up.

Did you realise that people with terminal cancer don't get free prescriptions unless it's means tested? Just one idea of how disability and illness can impact on your finances whether you have a carer or not. Imagine having to pay for morphine :mad: Sorry, bit of a personal soapbox there.

Hope that clarifies it a bit.

Astaroth

Then is the information on other sites incorrect in saying that it is necessary for the claimant to require a "carer" (irrespective of if they actually have one or not) and it is only a requirement that you incur some form of additional living costs because of it (eg specialist equipment, extra taxi runs, extra clothes etc)? Or is this information technically correct but people "argue" the need of a carer simply to get the money which is needed for the additional living costs?

Benefits will always be an emotive subject but trying to keep an impartiality to it, it does feel it should be a means tested thing if it is designed to help people live/ exist - that isnt to say that the means should be the same as the tests for other benefits. I guess there may be an argument (I am prepared to be shot down in flames) that the majority of adult claimants eligible for DLA do not earn "sufficient" money to be means barred from claiming and the cost of means testing everyone would be greater than the X% that would be stopped from claiming because it is deemed their salary should be sufficient to pay their own way.

krisskross

We have applied again for Attendance Allowance for my husband. It is a sort of DLA for the over 65s. Although we took advice from a welfare advisor who completed the forms we fully expect it to be refused again. The welfare rights advisor considers it to be a 'shoo in' but I am not so optimistic. This time though we will appeal if it is refused. The cash would be so handy for cab fares etc as his mobility is fairly poor and waiting around in the cold affects his breathing. And he is complaining about having to take sandwiches out because of his diabetes......

Still we shall see, it does seem to be more difficult to get Attendance Allowance than DLA. The galling thing is he had most of these problems before he was 65 but we had never heard of DLA although he was on long term Incapacity Benefit.

patricia1066

Interesting thought that money given to someone with a disability is “pity money”– my other half qualified for DLA when he was in work as he had unstable diabetes. It was possible for him to work with the help of his workmates who gave him the necessary support, read for him as his eyesight faded in and out etc. Now he would have worked whether he lost out on that benefit, he loved his job, and it was just a form of additional income funded by the taxpayer (of which he was one).

I seem to recall it gave him some pleasure that his illness dealt him one good turn. Sadly he died a few years ago, I miss him a lot.

If he and I had had children we would have had income funded by the tax payer in the form of child benefit and this also would be regardless of our income. We would also benefit by the provision of schools, and the like.

DLA is the only nonmeanstested benefit paid to someone with a disability, while other interest groups, such as parents, have many benefits where they have no need to present their finances to be scrutinised.

hilstep2000

I have MS. I do not have a carer. I get DLA. This money is essential to me. I am a single parent, and due to my illness have had to cut my working hours. This I am only able to do because I get DLA. The problem with it is that there doesn't seem to be any criteria for getting it or not. The MS society sees people all the time who are obviously disabled, and have been turned down for DLA, whilst people like your friend do get it. The rules should be better, but for the moment we have to manage with what we've got.

shameless-about-money

I converted my DLA Mobility section into a vehicle, with everything paid for except the petrol.

I still get the money awarded as the "care" component because of the extra cost of living incurred due to my disability. That care component is only £16.50 per week, not a lot of money by today's standards.

Considering the trauma that folks go through to get DLA in the first place it is highly unlikely that someone gets it who shouldn't have it in the first place.

filigree_2

Astaroth wrote:

Then is the information on other sites incorrect in saying that it is necessary for the claimant to require a "carer"

I think it is incorrect, or at least misleading. The trouble is that it is a very complicated form to fill in, and it is very hard to give one single piece of advice that will apply to everyone who has to complete it. As I said the official wording from the DWP says "do you need help", it does NOT say "give the name of the person who helps you". Cut & pasted direct from their own site the phrase is

You can get Disability Living Allowance for your care needs even if no one is actually giving you the care you need, even if you live alone

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with this. A disabled person says "I need help to do stuff" and the DWP say "We agree, have some dosh" but nowhere in their literature do they say that you must use the money to pay for that help. Purely and simply it is a token payment to ease the problems that disabled people have, and the healthy population don't. Since it's immensely hard to define disability, they give you this horrible form to fill in so they can allocate you to a band. The questions on the form don't necessarily relate to the way the money will ultimately be spent and the DWP know this.

I think the chap with the £150K salary and DLA is a rare fluke and his circumstances do not necessarily mean that the whole system is flawed. If means testing was set at a "generous" level, it would be another burden for claimants who have already completed the ghastly DLA form. The cost of administering the means testing bureaucracy would possibly outweigh the savings made by limiting payouts.

Besides, how would one pay carers anyway? If some nice chap on the train gives up his seat, my brother gives me a lift somewhere, my husband cooks the tea and a friend accompanies me to hospital, do you want to suggest a)how much the hourly rate should be and b)on what ratio should I distribute the money?

mouseymousey99

Why not suggest your friend stops claiming the money? Or he could sponsor a child & use the money to do some good rather than wasting it in throwing beer down your throats?

Morglin

"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"



OP - I think perhaps you are confusing Care Allowance (DLA), with Carers Allowance.......which is paid to a carer.

You have never had to have equipment or a carer to claim DLA - it is awarded purely on the NEEDS you have (whether you have a carer or not is up to you).

Mobility component (DLA) is based purely on any mobility issues - whether you obtain a car through Motability (assuming high rate) or use it for public transport is also up to the person getting it.

As for it being "free money"...........well, I worked and paid in for 24 years and have my disability, in part, because of our not-so lovely NHS (as has OH who paid in for many more years than me), so I don't actually consider it "free".

Why should it be means-tested?

Why should we be penalised because we paid into private pensions?

We still have the "needs" and we still have the mobility problems.

I am so tired of hearing about "free money" and "free cars" and benefit fraud............perhaps those that feel it's all so lovely would like to live with my disability 24/7?

Do people honestly think anyone (with a brain) would sooner have the hassles/discomfort/pain of disability in order to claim some money, rather than a healthy working existence?

Unlike my job (when I had one) my disability doesn't turn off at 5pm - it's always there.

I shall now be at the hospital most of the morning seeing my neurologist and my rheumatalogist having probably unpleasant tests and being poked around............so perhaps the OP will forgive me if I use a little of my "free money" and stop, on the way home (in my Motability car) to buy myself a decent bottle of white wine to cheer me up.;)

Lin :rolleyes: