DLA for child - none financial benefits.

Mojisola

tinkledom wrote: »

It was suggested to me by more than a few posters on here that whilst someone is entitled it should not be the case to apply for it if the money is not needed.

I was put in my place when I said that I claimed because I was entitled but had no real need of the money.

In this case, it's the child who is entitled to the benefit while it's the parents who currently have enough money not to need the extra.

I don't think the parents should be turning down money that belongs to the child.

The same applies to adults - if you are entitled, you can claim.

It's a different situation when adults arrange their situation so that they can claim the maximum possible - just as it is when people use every tax avoidance trick in the book to pay less. Both are legal but right or moral?

nlj1520

I agree with mojisola.......the DLA is the child's not the parent's and they should claim it for her. If they don't need it now for any additional costs related to her health problems, it should go in her savings account against future needs. Who knows what the future holds?

Mojisola

cattermole wrote: »

The point being I don't think this would help solve the problem she is most concerned about which is getting her daughter's educational need's met in real terms.

It won't make the school any more helpful than they are being but the money can give other options.

It can be very stressful trying to force a reluctant school into doing what they should be doing - they will be getting money every year for the child and will have nicely worded documents about the school saying how every child is treated as an individual and educated according to their needs but getting those fine words put into action is another matter.

cattermole

I try not to give advice where it is clear from the OP they don't want advice on it.

The question was whether DLA would facilitate getting the school to take action.

Yes getting a school to take action can be very stressful.

JimmyTheWig

I would have thought that qualifying for DLA certainly wouldn't harm things as far as the school are concerned.
While I agree with others it shouldn't officially make any difference, it is an extra body who agree that your child has additional needs. That might be enough to make someone at the school take a little more notice.

I also agree that money can help to fix a lot of things. If you can use the DLA money to pay for a tutor either now or in the future to help with the work that your daughter misses due to appointments, etc, then why not?

cattermole

Yes that is true Jimmy it would not do any harm.

I was going to ask Princessdom if the Consultant has written a letter to the LEA/School outlining the condition and what this is likely to mean in terms of having to have regular time off? And is it Secondary school we are talking about here or Primary/Junior?

tinkledom

Mojisola wrote: »

In this case, it's the child who is entitled to the benefit while it's the parents who currently have enough money not to need the extra.

I don't think the parents should be turning down money that belongs to the child.

The same applies to adults - if you are entitled, you can claim.

It's a different situation when adults arrange their situation so that they can claim the maximum possible - just as it is when people use every tax avoidance trick in the book to pay less. Both are legal but right or moral?

I'm not disputing that the money is for the child. What I am trying to understand is why is it that there is a difference in opinion as to what she should do about claiming it.


In my case it is a renewal of an Attendance Allowance claim for my wife. Like the OP my wife doesn't need the money, but is eligible to claim it by completing the renewal papers.


The advice I had was that even if someone is eligible, it should not follow that a claim (or renewal in my wife's case) is made for that eligibility to be turned into hard cash. Put simply, the argument I was shown was that you only claim it if there is a need for the extra money.


So should the OP actually claim the money for the child, when she quite clearly has no need to do so? Who is right?

JimmyTheWig

tinkledom wrote: »

So should the OP actually claim the money for the child, when she quite clearly has no need to do so? Who is right?

There's no right or wrong answer.
If you're entitled to something that you don't feel is justified it's up to your own moral concious to claim it or not.

You could always claim it and donate the money to charity.

tinkledom

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

There's no right or wrong answer.
If you're entitled to something that you don't feel is justified it's up to your own moral concious to claim it or not.

You could always claim it and donate the money to charity.

Ah so there is no real answer?


Pity that those on this site didn't actually explain that to me. They were quite adamant that claiming a benefit that you didn't need was plain and simply wrong.

JimmyTheWig

tinkledom wrote: »

Ah so there is no real answer?


Pity that those on this site didn't actually explain that to me. They were quite adamant that claiming a benefit that you didn't need was plain and simply wrong.

With the current anti-benefits government campaign which is championed by the press, many people have become quite anti-benefits over the last few years. They will jump on any excuse for someone to not get benefits if they see it.