This sort of thing annoys non disabled people

L0RRY

krisskross wrote: »

I agree that there has to be a cut off. Far too expensive otherwise but nonetheless very galling to see my neighbour doing his own gardening etc and then getting into the mobility car he has had for 20 years while my husband is housebound for days on end.
absolutely! but if hes able to do his own gardening etc maybe the problem is that hes not really eligible.

Perhaps the DLA mobility component should stop at 65 then it is fair for all.

so people whove been wheelchairbound all their lives and need wavs to get around suddenly have them taken away? i wouldnt call that fair either because their mobility problems are still due to their long-term disability rather than age related.

krisskross

L0RRY wrote: »

so people whove been wheelchairbound all their lives and need wavs to get around suddenly have them taken away? i wouldnt call that fair either because their mobility problems are still due to their long-term disability rather than age related.

But my husband's mobility problems are NOT age related but due to a long term incurable illness and he is sometimes reliant on a wheelchair.

Surely if people are aware that they will lose the mobility help at 65 then they can plan for that eventuality.

L0RRY

krisskross wrote: »

But my husband's mobility problems are NOT age related but due to a long term incurable illness and he is sometimes reliant on a wheelchair.

but hes managed for 25 years without disability benefits so although it may be due to his condition its ultimately age related mobility problems.

Surely if people are aware that they will lose the mobility help at 65 then they can plan for that eventuality.

have you seen the price of wavs? :eek:

clemmatis

krisskross wrote: »

To continue to use my husband as example he would probably be dead in a week if his claimed for care needs were not met. He would have no idea how to work out his insulin requirements and he would simply forget to do it anyway. So he has no need to exaggerate his care needs to qualify for the benefit. The diabetes is just one aspect of his life where he has care needs, I could mention many more but won't.

I have never suggested your husband exaggerated his care needs. I have never suggested he did not or should not claim/qualify for/receive AA. I have never suggested that when he applied, he presented every day as though it were his worst.

I did once point out to you that you had not reported a change in his condition, but I did that only because you had suggested other posters had not, and attacked them for it. My comments here about claiming for care when mobility is the problem, but no mobility benefit may be claimed, are not aimed at you and him.

I really don't see how I can make this any clearer than I already have.

krisskross wrote: »

No no. What I think is completely wrong is those that claim for care needs on the basis of needing care both day and night and put absolutely nothing in place to meet those supposed needs. I still do not understand how this works. How anyone can have such imperative care needs and yet can continue to survive without them being met?

But it accords with the rules. Fully. And so, it might be best to give your views to this effect in DT (though I realise we all let our opinions intrude into other sections of the forum).

seven-day-weekend

I don't understand it either. If someone is saying 'I need help to do wash and go to the toilet' and then don't have the help, how do they manage? Do they just not wash or go to the loo? And if they do wash and go to the loo, then they don't need the help, surely?

Puzzled.

krisskross

L0RRY wrote: »

have you seen the price of wavs? :eek:

You obviously have no idea that auto immune diseases CAN be drug controlled and thus the full impact is sometimes not felt until those drugs don't work anymore.

This doesn't make it an age related illness. Had my husband's RA relapsed so spectacularly just 1 year earlier then he would have been entitled to DLA mobility and you wouldn't have considered that he had an age related problem. Simply a mobility problem.

zaksmum

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't understand it either. If someone is saying 'I need help to do wash and go to the toilet' and then don't have the help, how do they manage? Do they just not wash or go to the loo? And if they do wash and go to the loo, then they don't need the help, surely?

Puzzled.

Obviously they manage without the help they "need". But possibly the AA compensates them in other ways, like being able to get a taxi instead of waiting for the bus.

zaksmum

krisskross wrote: »

I agree that there has to be a cut off. Far too expensive otherwise but nonetheless very galling to see my neighbour doing his own gardening etc and then getting into the mobility car he has had for 20 years while my husband is housebound for days on end.

Perhaps the DLA mobility component should stop at 65 then it is fair for all.

Does your husband not qualify for DLA then - or should I say did he not qualify before he reached 65?

krisskross

zaksmum wrote: »

Does your husband not qualify for DLA then - or should I say did he not qualify before he reached 65?

His RA relapsed just after he got to 65. At one point prior to that he probably would have qualified because of heart disease but he didn't claim as hopefully his heart was going to be mended, which it was.

He receives the higher rate AA which is equivalent to HRC DLA which i think is probably a good reflection of his physical difficulties but there is no mobility element in AA.

We get none of the disability premiums either because we don't get pension credit.

We are not complaining, very fortunate to be in receipt of extra money to help especially as his care needs do not cost anything except my time. It is quite an anomaly though that some pensioners get financial help with mobility whilst others don't.

clemmatis

zaksmum wrote: »

Obviously they manage without the help they "need". But possibly the AA compensates them in other ways, like being able to get a taxi instead of waiting for the bus.

Yes indeed. And obviously if they had a partner, the issue of lacking help might not arise, and then they could draw the benefit and spend it on, yes, taxis! without anyone complaining that they didn't spend the money on care.