Does DLA change to Attendance Allowance at 65?

rosgrech

My partner was awarded, indefinitely, DLA (lowest care) a couple of years ago and will be turning 65 this year.

What happens at that stage? Does she lose DLA and have to re-apply for Attendance Allowance? Does her DLA award automatically change to AA? Is she likely to lose DLA and not be awarded Attendance Allowance?

Your advice please.

krisskross

rosgrech wrote: »

My partner was awarded, indefinitely, DLA (lowest care) a couple of years ago and will be turning 65 this year.

What happens at that stage? Does she lose DLA and have to re-apply for Attendance Allowance? Does her DLA award automatically change to AA? Is she likely to lose DLA and not be awarded Attendance Allowance?

Your advice please.

Anyone entitled to and receiving DLA at age 65 keeps it and does not change to Attendance Allowance.

However my understanding is that the lowest rate of DLA is being abolished so don't know how she will be affected.

If she loses her DLA she could of course apply for Attendance Allowance.

rogerblack

People on DLA, who are soon to turn 65 will not go through the PIP conversion, they remain on DLA.

krisskross

rogerblack wrote: »

People on DLA, who are soon to turn 65 will not go through the PIP conversion, they remain on DLA.

Will lower rate care remain for those people ?

rogerblack

krisskross wrote: »

Will lower rate care remain for those people ?

DLA will not have the lower care component removed.
PIP may not have the lower care component.
Those people remain on DLA.

benji_boy

Can people over 65 remain on DLA and ask to reconsider (change in circumstances) the decision as health condition worsened ?

HB58

benji_boy wrote: »

Can people over 65 remain on DLA and ask to reconsider (change in circumstances) the decision as health condition worsened ?

Yes, they can ask for a supersession of whatever DLA element (care or mobility) they receive before the age of 65. I don't think it is possible to get paid an element that has not already been paid before the age of 65.

nannytone_2

HB58 wrote: »

Yes, they can ask for a supersession of whatever DLA element (care or mobility) they receive before the age of 65. I don't think it is possible to get paid an element that has not already been paid before the age of 65.

jf you only receive the care componant of DLA before 65, then you cant apply for the mobility componant after 54, just a supersession of the care componant.

however ....

if you only receive the mobility componant of DLA.....
after 65 you can apply for AA, and still keep the mobility componant of DLA ( as long as you meet the criteria)

so it is actually possible to claim DLA and AA at the same time

tiddlertot

Mobility under DLA should be scrapped for everyone over the age of 65 - not carry on paying it!

It is a common fact that once you get to that age, you are more likely to have mobility problems simply caused by old age - which is not a disability!!

How many times have i heard a 70 year old have a review and he puts on the form details of his additional mobility problems that happened AFTER his 65th birthday!!!
And the DWP actually consider those additional mobility problems.

Mobility represents problems with mobilising due to a physical problem that was in existence prior to their 65th birthday.

Being a veteran doesn't!!

HB58

A mobility problem that has been present before the age of 65 is only going to worsten with age, it is likely that it will always be worse than that suffered by someone of the same age who has previously been fit and well.

tiddlertot

HB58 wrote: »

A mobility problem that has been present before the age of 65 is only going to worsten with age,

it is likely that it will always be worse than that suffered by someone of the same age who has previously been fit and well.

And that is a good enough reason to allow the HRM award to continue? - because they will get worse.

What I am simply trying to say is that HRM should cease on the 65th birthday because a perfectly fit guy at 64 could easilly become ill and lack mobility at 65. He couldn't make a claim.

So if we accept that being old brings on mobility problems, shouldn't we just accept that as passage of life for all?

I reported a 70 year old guy a year or so ago for fraud (HRM). They sent a doctor out to see him and he explained what his problem was - heart condition. The DWP agreed that it was worthy of the HRM award. Yet what he didn't tell them was that the condition didn't arise until he was 68!

The previous reason for his earlier claim (arthritis) had all but disappeared due to him being on the correct medication.