We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Allergy to WiFi = £500 per month

Comments

  • Browntoa
    Browntoa Posts: 49,622 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    I like the bit that says in testing so called electromagnetic sensitive people were unable to detect it any more than non sensitive people , so basically in blind tests they failed to prove they were sensitive
    Ex forum ambassador

    Long term forum member
  • 50Twuncle
    50Twuncle Posts: 10,763 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Browntoa wrote: »
    I like the bit that says in testing so called electromagnetic sensitive people were unable to detect it any more than non sensitive people , so basically in blind tests they failed to prove they were sensitive

    I think that the whole idea of a Human Being - being able to even detect WiFi is totally insane - but if someone in an EEC country manages to claim this - this may open the door to other claimants in the rest of Europe - including UK........just you wait and see !!
  • rogerblack
    rogerblack Posts: 9,446 Forumite
    We'd need to see the actual details of the judgement.

    The fact that someone legitimately has a psychiatric disorder that makes them think that they have a physical disorder can be a cause of disability on its own.

    There are people that legitimately believe that they are affected by wifi.
    Telling them it isn't real will generally not help. In very severe cases, this can lead to suicide by the already mentally unwell.
  • tomtontom
    tomtontom Posts: 7,929 Forumite
    People are missing the point here - Ms Richard was awarded the allowance based on her symptoms and the way they affect her ability to work, not on her diagnosis (or the validity of it). This is no different from ESA or DLA - whilst a diagnosis is helpful, claimants are primarily assessed on their symptoms.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.