MSE News: Disability and carer's allowance claimaints to suffer as inflation falls

FBaby

i know you are telling of an issue that is plainly wrong, but, in the course of normal lives, keeping the mobility car stricly for the disabled persons use is really impractical and silly

I agree, but it doesn't make it right. Just trying to explain why some people resent the whole scheme. In a perfect world, there were would closer rules, but we know that is not possible.

..and if instead of having a motability car they used to pay the same High Rate Mobility monies to pay for "their own car" which would be used for the whole family not just the disabled person, you wouldn't be able to complain about how they spend THEIR money.

Yes, I would. I don't believe any tax payers money should be used towards paying for a car unless it has been assessed that the person is indeed seriously limited because of no access to transport. That means they are single and can't use public transport. Many people have a genuine need for a car, not just people who are disabled, but you can't claim any benefits just because you need it.

Indie_Kid

But many non disabled can walk or use public transport. The same can't be said for all disabled people.

nannytone_2

FBaby wrote: »

I agree, but it doesn't make it right. Just trying to explain why some people resent the whole scheme. In a perfect world, there were would closer rules, but we know that is not possible.



Yes, I would. I don't believe any tax payers money should be used towards paying for a car unless it has been assessed that the person is indeed seriously limited because of no access to transport. That means they are single and can't use public transport. Many people have a genuine need for a car, not just people who are disabled, but you can't claim any benefits just because you need it.

so theey need to be single and unable to use public transport?
what happens if they cant drive?
you wouldnt want me driving
i dont have a motability car but i could if i wished.
it doesnt make sens for me to have a car for my PA to drive for 25 hours a week when she has her own car ( i pay for fuel/parking etc and help her out with repairs) and there would be no point in my SIL driving for 40 miles to change cars to take me out over the weekend.
but people can have many issues that prevent them driving and being unable to make use of public transport/
and what if the disabled person is a child?
they dont drive .... but should they be the only passenger allowed in the car?
mobility cars are meant to be used ONLY for the benefit of the disabled person ... but having a family outing is for their benefit .... their parent working is for their benefit ...
ypui seem to object that anybody else should get some benefit because of a disabled family member ..
but the alternative is to alienate the disable3d person even more and DLA/PIP is intended for the exact opposite!
irts to allow the disabled person to have as normal a life as possible, and that includes doing things for the benefit of all family members!

scootw1

nannytone wrote: »

and i would like to point out that by trafing the mobility componant of SLA/PIP in for a car costs the tax payer NO MORE than if the person chose not to get a motability car...

or are you complaining that they get the money at all, rather than just them having a 'shiny new car'?

your words were "the taxpayer doesnt pay for the car". try reading your own posts. and no, im not moaning if they need it. i was just pointing out your own posts. problem is, of course, a lot of the time the "disabled" person doesnt need it but so hard to prove.

fed_up_and_stressed

FBaby wrote: »

I agree, but it doesn't make it right. Just trying to explain why some people resent the whole scheme. In a perfect world, there were would closer rules, but we know that is not possible.



Yes, I would. I don't believe any tax payers money should be used towards paying for a car unless it has been assessed that the person is indeed seriously limited because of no access to transport. That means they are single and can't use public transport. Many people have a genuine need for a car, not just people who are disabled, but you can't claim any benefits just because you need it.

But the point is whether you morally believe it is right or not a person could quite legally use a payment of HRM on other things than mobility costs.

Also access to transport and being able to use it are two very seperate issues. Where I live has lots of public transport. Unfortunately as a wheelchair user most of it is inaccessible to me and having immuno deficiencies means sitting with joe public and their sniffles compared to being in a car can have a direct impact on my health.

I strongly suggest that you try to use a wheelchair on public transport unaccompanied it may broaden your views. Even Tanni Gray Thompson has had to fling her wheelchair on train travel due to access issues and the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission was prevented from taking a flight to deliver a speech on treatment of the disabled because he could not climb an aircraft's steps.

fed_up_and_stressed

scootw1 wrote: »

your words were "the taxpayer doesnt pay for the car". try reading your own posts. and no, im not moaning if they need it. i was just pointing out your own posts. problem is, of course, a lot of the time the "disabled" person doesnt need it but so hard to prove.

Funny that you say "a lot of the time" yet have no evidence to back up your comment. DWP figures for DLA Fraud 2010/2011 were 0.5%

It is also estimated that 0.9%, or £1.3bn, of total benefit expenditure was underpaid due to error. So more in benefits was NOT paid to eligible people than was lost in DLA fraud. Pension Credit fraud however runs at 6.0% yet there never seems to be any comments on this funnily enough.

By comparison to benefit fraud, lost revenues from tax avoidance and tax evasion seems much greater. Using same measures of tax evasion and tax avoidance. £70 billion of tax evasion,£25 billion tax avoidance and £25 billion of unpaid tax - which almost is the same amount as spent on pensions - the main expenditure of the government.

The figures don't back up your perception.

chloe87

so because im disabled and cant work my children should be deprived of all the things their friends do? all their friends go on holiday, i take my children on holiday once a year, i own pets, is it wrong that i use 'your' money to care for these even though they help with my mental heath? i own my own car, pay my own tax and insurance, if i didnt my children wouldnt be able to get to school and i wouldnt be able to get to my family where i spend all my days as they help me out and i dont do well when im home alone due to my anxiety, should i not pay for my 11 year old daughter to have a mobile phone? if she didnt i would be having panic attacks every time she left the house to play with her friends
just how would you like me to use my money? would you like power of attorney over every benefit claimant?

i would love for you to spend just 1 day in my shoes and i would bet my life that you would be begging for your own life back

FBaby

But the point is whether you morally believe it is right or not a person could quite legally use a payment of HRM on other things than mobility costs.

People who have issues with DLA do so from a moral perspective, not a legal one.

Unfortunately as a wheelchair user most of it is inaccessible to me and having immuno deficiencies means sitting with joe public and their sniffles compared to being in a car can have a direct impact on my health.

And YOU suffer from disability for which motability should be aimed for. I don't have any issues with people like you getting tax payers money for a car.

so because im disabled and cant work my children should be deprived of all the things their friends do? all their friends go on holiday, i take my children on holiday once a year,

Well lucky you that your live in a middle class environment where most people must work very hard to be able to afford the above. Pity that many children of hard working parents don't go on holiday every year because their parents can only afford to pay the bills with their income.

It's that attitude of entitlement of holiday that makes those who get up early to get to work 5 days a week and come late and exhausted each day, yet still worried about finances and how they are going to tell their kids they can't afford to pay for their school trip, feeling that the system is very wrong.

just how would you like me to use my money?

To get medical help. Panic attacks is a disorder you can learn to manage and cure. And yes, I have spent many days in your shoes, suffered from severe depression and anxiety attacks which means I had to give up my university course, but there was no way I was going to let it rule my life, so I went through the painful journey of fighting my anxieties and fears until I reached the point I became stronger as a result. I learnt that the only way you can not let your anxieties rule your life is to face them and take control of them.

scootw1

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

Funny that you say "a lot of the time" yet have no evidence to back up your comment. DWP figures for DLA Fraud 2010/2011 were 0.5%

It is also estimated that 0.9%, or £1.3bn, of total benefit expenditure was underpaid due to error. So more in benefits was NOT paid to eligible people than was lost in DLA fraud. Pension Credit fraud however runs at 6.0% yet there never seems to be any comments on this funnily enough.

By comparison to benefit fraud, lost revenues from tax avoidance and tax evasion seems much greater. Using same measures of tax evasion and tax avoidance. £70 billion of tax evasion,£25 billion tax avoidance and £25 billion of unpaid tax - which almost is the same amount as spent on pensions - the main expenditure of the government.

The figures don't back up your perception.

for a start, you are quoting figures from three years ago. they may be the latest ones i dont know but are bound to be different now. aside from that, fraud can only be measured on what gets reported or what the dwp can be bothered to investigate. i personally think the figure is a lot higher. and i agree that tax fraud is much higher, doesnt mean we should just ignore benefit fraud.

anyway, the point of my post wasnt to say that it was to point out that cars for claimants are paid for by taxpayers. to say otherwise is just ludicrous

Credit-Crunched

nannytone wrote: »

would you also like their disability to go along with their shiny new car?

and for your future information...
the tax payer DOESNT pay for the car.
the cars are provided by the charity motability.
the recipient pays motability from their disability benefit ...ERRR and where do you think this money comes from? The magic benefits money tree?
money they would receive REGARDLESS of whether they trade it in for a car or not.
so it costs YOU the taxpayer NOTHING extra than they already receive.

as for disability benefits only covering basiscs ...
there are 2 types of disability benefit.
out of work benefits like ESA.
they are paid above the rate of HSA for a reason. it reflects the fact that the people receiving ESA are much more likely to be unable to work long term and that they need more than basic benefits as there are long terms costs associated with being unable to work. replacing white goods, furniture for example.
they are also intended to go a little way to compensating people for the disadvanyage they are at when it comes to gaining employment.

by your reasoning, someone who has been disabled since birth and never been able to work should NEVER be able to take a holiday, even though the reason they cannot work is none of their making.
the fact that they are physically at as disadvantage should mean that they deserve to live hand to mouth until the day they die? most would love the opportunity to work and provide for themselves and pay for their own 'luxuries, but unfortunately that is a choice that is denied them.
if you have no money, you have the ability to earn... yet want to force subsitance style living on those that arent fortunate enough to be as healthy as you?

people like you do make me angry!

brilliant, such a blinkered view on life. Well done