"Registered Disabled"?

dori2o

I do think that the way these 'passported' type benefits are given, by having to produce proof of disability benefit, is wrong. (Not PIP/DLA/etc but things such as the CEA Card, reduced/discounted/free admittance to theme parks/attractions, anything that requires proof of being 'registered disabled' i.e of being in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc)

Someone said earlier that these threads usually descend into a 'my disability is worse than yours' argument, and used it as a way to justify the fact that proof of DLA/PIP/etc is necessary to receive these 'gifts'.

I would suggest that their argument in this case only fuels the 'I'm worse off than you' argument by only allowing a certain section of disabled people to claim, no matter how badly their disability affects them.

There are many people who have horrendous physical and mental disabilities, which have significant effects on day to day life, but yet don't qualify for disability benefits. People claiming AA could fall into this category as often an AA award isn't accepted as proof of disability.

When PIP is finally introduced nationwide, assuming that up-coming legal challenges and Judicial reviews do not change the criteria, then many people who have quite severely restricted mobility will no longer qualify for these benefits/discounts/gifts etc etc, putting even more people at a disadvantage.

Looking at me for example, the Government could take away my DLA or refuse to award me PIP when the time comes to transfer over, but just because I'm no longer receiving the money doesn't mean I'm miraculously cured. I won't be able to walk any better than I can now just because the Government doesn't acknowledge how restricted my mobility is. I will still be disabled.

It would be interesting to see what the result would be of any legal challenge (discrimination) against being able to deny a disabled person access to these discounts/gifts etc on the basis that they don't claim PIP/DLA/etc.

By quickly looking at some of the various case law on disability discrimination, be it in workplaces or in public, it would be my opinion that a court would come to the conclusion that it is discriminatory to deny those who are disabled, but not in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc, the benefit of such gifts/discounts where it is possible to provide proof of disability in other forms, i.e. bus pass, BB, visual representation, medical proof.

A disabled person in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc is no more or less disabled than a disabled person not in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc (no matter what the reason is for not being in receipt), both are simply disabled.

Confuseddot

How do you define disabled ?

nannytone_2

all an award of DLA/PIP proves is that a person has managed to ticke certain boxes, and really isnt that much of an indicator of disability.

2 people can be awarded the same rate of mobility and care ( legitimately) yet once can appear to be mych more disabled than the other.
you would either have to increase the amount of gifferent rates significantly, to reflect every level of disability or decide that a disability has to be far more significant to merit an award.
( ive lost count of the times ive been told i'm 'only blind' as if it isnt significant)
physically i am lucky and am fit as a flea, but put me outdoors pn my own and i'm stuck!
someone in a mobility scooter that may not be physically capable of walking a step,, MAY be able to manage far better than me...
i am not trying to play the ' my disability is worse' card. just pointing out that the 'fit' person isnt always at an advantage, and all this has to be considered.

kittykat17

dori2o wrote: »

I do think that the way these 'passported' type benefits are given, by having to produce proof of disability benefit, is wrong. (Not PIP/DLA/etc but things such as the CEA Card, reduced/discounted/free admittance to theme parks/attractions, anything that requires proof of being 'registered disabled' i.e of being in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc)

Someone said earlier that these threads usually descend into a 'my disability is worse than yours' argument, and used it as a way to justify the fact that proof of DLA/PIP/etc is necessary to receive these 'gifts'.

I would suggest that their argument in this case only fuels the 'I'm worse off than you' argument by only allowing a certain section of disabled people to claim, no matter how badly their disability affects them.

There are many people who have horrendous physical and mental disabilities, which have significant effects on day to day life, but yet don't qualify for disability benefits. People claiming AA could fall into this category as often an AA award isn't accepted as proof of disability.

When PIP is finally introduced nationwide, assuming that up-coming legal challenges and Judicial reviews do not change the criteria, then many people who have quite severely restricted mobility will no longer qualify for these benefits/discounts/gifts etc etc, putting even more people at a disadvantage.

Looking at me for example, the Government could take away my DLA or refuse to award me PIP when the time comes to transfer over, but just because I'm no longer receiving the money doesn't mean I'm miraculously cured. I won't be able to walk any better than I can now just because the Government doesn't acknowledge how restricted my mobility is. I will still be disabled.

It would be interesting to see what the result would be of any legal challenge (discrimination) against being able to deny a disabled person access to these discounts/gifts etc on the basis that they don't claim PIP/DLA/etc.

By quickly looking at some of the various case law on disability discrimination, be it in workplaces or in public, it would be my opinion that a court would come to the conclusion that it is discriminatory to deny those who are disabled, but not in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc, the benefit of such gifts/discounts where it is possible to provide proof of disability in other forms, i.e. bus pass, BB, visual representation, medical proof.

A disabled person in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc is no more or less disabled than a disabled person not in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc (no matter what the reason is for not being in receipt), both are simply disabled.

Well said - I totally agree

Indie_Kid

I am trying to fill a form in which means I can get someone to come with me for free to see the local football team play. Bizarrely, they say that any rate of Attendance Allowance is fine; but only HRC DLA is accepted. They say nothing about mobility DLA. But for someone like me, I would need someone with me because there's an issue of safety...

jlawrence

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Richie as I've clearly stated has the opinion that money designed for mobility & care needs should go to those whom the state measures by tests are sufficiently disabled to need that money to improve their care & mobility. If you can not self care and self mobilise then the state gives help and you go onto the states register of those it considers disabled. If you can independently afford to pay others to help with your inability to self care and self mobilise, then you don't need that helping hand ~ or ~ your self apponted disability is not sufficiently disabling in the legislation to warrent state aid, and then clearly you do not go onto the states UK register of those it considers disabled.

Thanks for that - it is very clear. So as we are able (so the DWP tell us) to pay for all of our care and help with our mobility out of the money that the bank holds to be used to repay our mortgage in 2020, and therefore have no need to call upon the state to fund it, then we are not classed as severely disabled when attempting to obtain other forms of help - ie the Disabled Persons Railcard. Nice one!!

jlawrence

dori2o wrote: »

I do think that the way these 'passported' type benefits are given, by having to produce proof of disability benefit, is wrong. (Not PIP/DLA/etc but things such as the CEA Card, reduced/discounted/free admittance to theme parks/attractions, anything that requires proof of being 'registered disabled' i.e of being in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc)

Someone said earlier that these threads usually descend into a 'my disability is worse than yours' argument, and used it as a way to justify the fact that proof of DLA/PIP/etc is necessary to receive these 'gifts'.

I would suggest that their argument in this case only fuels the 'I'm worse off than you' argument by only allowing a certain section of disabled people to claim, no matter how badly their disability affects them.

There are many people who have horrendous physical and mental disabilities, which have significant effects on day to day life, but yet don't qualify for disability benefits. People claiming AA could fall into this category as often an AA award isn't accepted as proof of disability.

When PIP is finally introduced nationwide, assuming that up-coming legal challenges and Judicial reviews do not change the criteria, then many people who have quite severely restricted mobility will no longer qualify for these benefits/discounts/gifts etc etc, putting even more people at a disadvantage.

Looking at me for example, the Government could take away my DLA or refuse to award me PIP when the time comes to transfer over, but just because I'm no longer receiving the money doesn't mean I'm miraculously cured. I won't be able to walk any better than I can now just because the Government doesn't acknowledge how restricted my mobility is. I will still be disabled.

It would be interesting to see what the result would be of any legal challenge (discrimination) against being able to deny a disabled person access to these discounts/gifts etc on the basis that they don't claim PIP/DLA/etc.

By quickly looking at some of the various case law on disability discrimination, be it in workplaces or in public, it would be my opinion that a court would come to the conclusion that it is discriminatory to deny those who are disabled, but not in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc, the benefit of such gifts/discounts where it is possible to provide proof of disability in other forms, i.e. bus pass, BB, visual representation, medical proof.

A disabled person in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc is no more or less disabled than a disabled person not in receipt of DLA/PIP/etc (no matter what the reason is for not being in receipt), both are simply disabled.

Thankyou and well put!!!

nannytone_2

jlawrence wrote: »

Thanks for that - it is very clear. So as we are able (so the DWP tell us) to pay for all of our care and help with our mobility out of the money that the bank holds to be used to repay our mortgage in 2020, and therefore have no need to call upon the state to fund it, then we are not classed as severely disabled when attempting to obtain other forms of help - ie the Disabled Persons Railcard. Nice one!!

they are NOT saying that at all.
money intended to pay for care/mobility needs ( PIP ) IS available to you but you refuse to claim it.
ESA is an 'out of work' benefit, just the same as JSA. it is not a disability benefit
it is paid at a higher rate to reflect that fact that it may be some time before ( if ever) you can return to work.
if you had claimed it when your contributions were up to date, then you would have stood a chance at conts based ESA...
but again you CHOSE not to.
that is the reason that the DWP are saying you need to live off your 100k

amibovvered

Parva wrote: »

So, by your reckoning you should be entitled to a Blue Badge due to the deafness issue? Is this what you are saying? This isn't an attack, I'm trying to figure what the issue is here.

Edit: Don't listen to lawrence (aka Andy) and his bile, he'll be banned soon enough.

No, I've already said I am not entitled to a BB because I do not have mobility issues. I only mentioned it (probably unwisely!) because of the tie-in with DLA i.e. if you get DLA you are usually entitled to a Blue Badge. But not getting DLA or a BB does not mean you are not disabled, it just means you don't have care/mobility needs. I do need other concessions though, for example I don't have to pay for my lip-reading classes which is a saving of well over £100 per year.

The original question was about being registered disabled, and it wasn't me who started the 'my disability is worse than yours' argument!

Perhaps the guy who thinks being deaf isn't being disabled enough to count would like to try it for a while?

nannytone_2

i wasnt aware that there had been a 'my disability is worse than your disability' argument??
all that has been said is that DLA isnt the be all and end all when it comes to disability.
all it does is highlight whose lives are more severely impacted by disability.
no one has said that only those receiving DLA have any type of disability
it was pointed out that the equal opportunities act classes 'stammering' as a disability'
it is no doubt frustrating but to be calling every little thing that is outside the norm a 'disability' does a dis service to those people whose lives are blighted by theirs