No outgoings taken into consideration?

princessdon

krisskross wrote: »

My husband is quite severely physically disabled but because he is over 65 there is no help with mobility for him. He has 3 hospital appointments next week, all involving a 20 mile round trip, and had to visit the GP surgery 3 times last week. Even the GP surgery is about 50 times further than he can walk.

We have to manage don't we?

Life is possible without a car you know, especially without a car paid for by other taxpayers struggling with mobility problems themselves.

Does AA not give rise to a mobility car?

If not that is disgusting IMO.

wattdallas

How these trolls are allowed to post on this forum time and time again is wrong.i must say though it does give me a little satisfaction that their life's revolve around an online forum thus they cannot deal with their own pathetic life's.Mind you they probably live in a high rise flat in some ghetto with an army of kids ,living on the breadline and going no where fast.SAd really

krisskross

princessdon wrote: »

Does AA not give rise to a mobility car?

If not that is disgusting IMO.

No, there is no mobility element in AA. However if someone has had DLA and a mobility car prior to being 65 then assuming they continue to meet the criteria then they keep the car or the payment forever.

princessdon

krisskross wrote: »

No, there is no mobility element in AA. However if someone has had DLA and a mobility car prior to being 65 then assuming they continue to meet the criteria then they keep the car or the payment forever.

What a weird system. Personally I don't think that is fair, it's like putting an age limit on mobility needs.

krisskross

princessdon wrote: »

What a weird system. Personally I don't think that is fair, it's like putting an age limit on mobility needs.

There always have to be cut off points, but perhaps allowing those claiming DLA prior to retirement to keep it is the point that needs reviewing. Perhaps when one gets to 65 they need to claim AA and lose the mobility component of DLA completely.

Anny_2

Krisskross, if you had the opportunity to have a mobility car I doubt very much you would decline and because your husband is having to manage without one, do you really believe that all disabled people should have to or would even be able to?

Many disabled people with mobility cars are tax payers...some of us are higher tax payers. DLA is not means-tested.

'Disability Living Allowance provides additional help for people who are disabled earlier
in life and who can face limited opportunities to work, earn and save for their retirement.
While Attendance Allowance does not have a mobility component, the design of the
benefit means that older disabled people are not restricted in the type of support they
can purchase, including help with their mobility costs to enable them to get out and
about and participate in public life'. Welfare and Well-being group (Equality Impact Assessment).

wattdallas

princessdon wrote: »

What a weird system. Personally I don't think that is fair, it's like putting an age limit on mobility needs.

Of course there's an age limit,else what's to stop all older people receiving it ,lots of people whom are old and not disabled have walking difficulties ,it's called growing old . Comes to us all.

annie1975_2

wattdallas wrote: »

Of course there's an age limit,else what's to stop all older people receiving it ,lots of people whom are old and not disabled have walking difficulties ,it's called growing old . Comes to us all.

Its like the age limit on tax credits for under 25s,they cant claim it when working on a low wage.(if they have no children).
I cant understand that one either?

krisskross

Anny wrote: »

Krisskross, if you had the opportunity to have a mobility car I doubt very much you would decline and because your husband is having to manage without one, do you really believe that all disabled people should have to or would even be able to?

Many disabled people with mobility cars are tax payers...some of us are higher tax payers. DLA is not means-tested.

'Disability Living Allowance provides additional help for people who are disabled earlier
in life and who can face limited opportunities to work, earn and save for their retirement.
While Attendance Allowance does not have a mobility component, the design of the
benefit means that older disabled people are not restricted in the type of support they
can purchase, including help with their mobility costs to enable them to get out and
about and participate in public life'. Welfare and Well-being group (Equality Impact Assessment).

We actually use most of my husband's AA payments to fund taxi and other transport costs as his actual physical care comes at no cost as I provide it myself. Well I like the odd kiss now and again:)

I still think that having reached retirement age the assistance given should be levelled out so that all people of pensionable age receive the same amount of support. The help getting to work etc will no longer apply. Why should someone who starts getting mobility DLA at 64 and 11 months be entitled for the rest of their life? They are getting older as well and when did reaching pension age equal suddenly developing mobility problems? I don't have any mobility issues and have been retired for 10 years.

Of course we wouldn't decline help with his mobility, who would? The simple fact is he is discriminated against because he didn't apply before he was 65. He is often confined to the house for long spells because of either a relapse in RA causing pain or because of breathing difficulties such as now when he is struggling with a chest infection. Because we have to pay we can't just get in the car and have a little drive around to relieve the boredom.

I do understand that everyone sees some things as their right and want to hang onto it at all costs but do spare the odd thought for those not so fortunate.

And we both still pay income tax as you seem to think this matters.

SandraScarlett

Unfortunately there are zillions of rules and laws that have cut-off points, sometimes age-related, or income-related, or savings related, and if you're affected by these, it seems very unfair.

And I expect most of us are affected one way or another by something. And to the OP, nobody is saying that somebody disabled shouldn't have a Motability car, but as the option available is to have the car or the money, people are only suggesting that it might be a better choice to have more cash.

If you live in a village with one bus a week, and have several appointments, your car is vital to you, whereas if you live in an area with a good infrastructure, and numerous taxi services, it might be something you could do without.

I think the OP mentioned she needed incontinence pads, and I know when my Mum was in a nursing home, that she had to pay for these, because she was self funding, whereas others had them for free.

These are hardly a luxury item, though they are priced as if they are, and I think this is an anomaly that could be corrected. I hope you sort out your problems OP.

xx