This sort of thing annoys non disabled people

LimeLight

With the right adjustments and additions, then someone with a bad back CAN cycle.

I used to cycle, even though it hurt like hell and it would take a couple of days to get over it.

Idiophreak

LimeLight wrote: »

With the right adjustments and additions, then someone with a bad back CAN cycle.

I used to cycle, even though it hurt like hell and it would take a couple of days to get over it.

So could you have worked, if someone had replaced the top of an office chair with a saddle?

LimeLight

Idiophreak wrote: »

So could you have worked, if someone had replaced the top of an office chair with a saddle?

ha !!!!!!! ha

seven-day-weekend

I will just say here that my dad was registered disabled (in the days before DLA and such benefits).

He cycled everywhere, it was far more comfortable for him than walking, which was very painful.

He worked nights in a factory and cycled there too. He was part of the intake of disabled people that all sizeable businesses had to employ in those days.

He was still riding his bike every day when he was killed in a road accident in 1993 aged 89 (not riding his bike on that occasion).

So although I am sure there are those that fiddle the system, please be totally sure of your facts before judging. A physical disability does not mean you cannot ride a bike!

As regards PIP, my dad would have had nothing to fear from being 'tested' every two years, he was disabled, end of. He might have found it a bit of a nuisance, but that doesn't mean it should not be done. In fact, towards the end of his life, he had laser treatment to remove unsightly scar tissue that he got from the motorcycle accident he'd had as a young man that left him disabled. His disability was still there, but looked a lot better .That treatment did not exist when he was a young man. So who knows what treatment may come in years to treat different conditions? Conditions can, and do, change or there is better treatment that might cause the condition to improve and render someone ineligible for a level of support that they have needed in the past.

So of course there is need for someone receiving public money to be checked periodically to make sure that they are still eligible for it.

Invalidation

krisskross wrote: »

New definition of troll appears to be someone who disagrees with you?

No, turkey, this is a Disability and dosh forum, not some trolls private place to rant against something, and start an off topic trolling session.

But you can think what you want, I dont give a fig really

krisskross

Invalidation wrote: »

No, turkey, this is a Disability and dosh forum, not some trolls private place to rant against something, and start an off topic trolling session.

But you can think what you want, I dont give a fig really

Likewise. I think what I want to think as well. After seeing so many would be cheats posting for help filling in forms etc. on these boards over the years one becomes all too aware of how widespread the cheating on disability benefits is.

krisskross

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

He cycled everywhere, it was far more comfortable for him than walking, which was very painful.

My husband preferred cycling to walking as well. His breathing was better cycling rather than walking.

CKhalvashi

pauliboo wrote: »

As far as I'm aware both a Blue Badge and DLA are not Means Tested.
In essence you could be a multi-millionaire and still claim these benefits.

I hope you have proof that these people are living beyond their means before reporting them.

I am in receipt of both, yet live in an £800k house and £120k of cars on the drive.

In certain circumstances, especially if he problems with one of his legs, cycling can be beneficial. I cycle regularly with my DD's to keep my left leg active under medical advice, although saying that, it doesn't do my back a lot of good!

My injuries are sustained from a car accident when we lived in Russia (I'm not originally Russian, although I wasn't born in the UK either) shortly after I took my 1st teaching post, so late 2001, and I'm still living with the effects, to the greatest of extents.

CK

sparkycat2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

As regards PIP, my dad would have had nothing to fear from being 'tested' every two years, he was disabled, end of. He might have found it a bit of a nuisance, but that doesn't mean it should not be done.....

.....who knows what treatment may come in years to treat different conditions? Conditions can, and do, change or there is better treatment that might cause the condition to improve and render someone ineligible for a level of support that they have needed in the past.

So of course there is need for someone receiving public money to be checked periodically to make sure that they are still eligible for it.

OFF TOPIC

It is not a one size fits all situation.

For some conditions DWP contact the person's doctor or specialist before contacting the claimant, to check the claimant is ok to contact. Or at least they used to.

Some conditions are exempt from face to face assessment or are on the list of conditions where expert medical advise must be sought before any decision on if a face to face assessment is appropriate is made. Or at least they used to be.

ATOS assessment guidelines on holding face to face assessments for some conditions highlight safety having a assistant present who can get help and having a panic button or alarm, and what to do if assessment can not be completed.

For some conditions the DWP decision makers guidelines make it clear they should not rely on any information provided by the claimant and should rely on expert medical evidence in making the decision.

Also many conditions are bar medical breakthrough, incurable or degenerative.

For some I think the process should solely be relying on expert medical advice, with the claimant not being required to fill in a form or have a face to face assessment. Weight of medical evidence and expert medical opinion as to diagnosis and prognosis. As to if the condition is never going to better, the likely effect of any assessment process on the person's health, the ability of the claimant to fill out forms or take part in a face to face assessment, the competence of the claimant, the reliability of any information provided by the claimant, and any safety issues for the claimant or the person doing a face to face assessment.

blossomhill_2

p00 wrote: »

Perhaps this should be in the 'vent ' thread but this really annoys me.

My neighbour who hasnt worked for over 20 years (bad back) and gets not only a blue badge but full mobility as well and his wife carers allowance has been abroad in their new huge motorhome for 8 weeks earlier this year and now 9 weeks travelling around Europe - with their nice new expensive bicycles in the back.

Should people claiming benefits really be able to take these long extended holidays and still claim off us tax paying workers?

Why not assume that they have notified the relevant authorities that they will be out of uk for x no of weeks and the relevant authorities have made the right decision on whether or not it is appropriate to pay them for that period

They dont have to notify their neighbours of any such notifications or decisions

PS - I am non-disabled (thankfully) - it doesn't annoy me , so I guess it only annoys some non-disabled people