UN Convention on Rights of Disabled Persons

graham44

As this prevents all kinds of discrimination against disabled persons, why is it the case, for example, that UK law requires those under 65 years of age to claim PIP and therefore be assessed quite differently (and often more onerously) from those of 65 and above who must claim AA? The benefits outcome for a 35 year old disabled person requiring the same needs as a 65 year old can surely be poles apart yet both may need similar help. Both may even be in employment.


I know that the UK is being investigated by the UN over its treatment of disabled persons but has there yet been any challenge by a disabled person through the courts?

DomRavioli

graham44 wrote: »

As this prevents all kinds of discrimination against disabled persons, why is it the case, for example, that UK law requires those under 65 years of age to claim PIP and therefore be assessed quite differently (and often more onerously) from those of 65 and above who must claim AA? The benefits outcome for a 35 year old disabled person requiring the same needs as a 65 year old can surely be poles apart yet both may need similar help. Both may even be in employment.


I know that the UK is being investigated by the UN over its treatment of disabled persons but has there yet been any challenge by a disabled person through the courts?

It wouldn't hold up in court - mobility problems are commonplace as part of aging, that is why the cut off is there (65 years) for the mobility component only. If a disability started before the age of 5 and PIP/DLA was claimed, the mobility component will continue past age 65. AA is purely for those who become disabled as a pensioner and have CARE NEEDS, where mobility issues are more commonplace. PIP/DLA is for both care needs and/or mobility needs, as under 65s on average do not have mobility issues unless they have a form of disability.

They haven't discriminated against anyone. The UN is also not interested in the DLA/PIP and AA difference, as they have not discriminated against a disabled person, there is clear scientific evidence to support it, and very little against.

Not quite sure why you have brought it up either.

missbiggles1

It's totally illogical that someone over SRA can claim a benefit based on mobility if they were claiming it before this age but someone who develops mobility issues afterwards can't.

nannytone_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

It's totally illogical that someone over SRA can claim a benefit based on mobility if they were claiming it before this age but someone who develops mobility issues afterwards can't.

although i think its unfair that there is no mobility component to AA ....

someone that develops mobility issues past 65, is more likely to have developed them due to the natural raging process rather than disability. that is why they are ignored for AA purposes.

iy would be far too expensive to start paying disability benefits when the only disability is old age

teddysmum

nannytone wrote: »

although i think its unfair that there is no mobility component to AA ....



iy would be far too expensive to start paying disability benefits when the only disability is old age

But that isn't always the case. I have, before, mentioned the media story of the lady who lost her legs at 66 and whose husband was infirm, so found her wheelchair difficult to manage. They dreaded what would happen when their old car packed up.

This lady would be virtually housebound and not because of old age.

Also the cut off age is 65,so soon there will be people of working age, who get no mobility help ?

nannytone_2

there will always be anomalies, and people that lose out because of them.

but on the whole, it would be far too costly if everyone over 65 that had walking issues could claim mobility benefits, because at some point it would be almost every single one of them

Lanzarote1938

nannytone wrote: »

there will always be anomalies, and people that lose out because of them.

but on the whole, it would be far too costly if everyone over 65 that had walking issues could claim mobility benefits, because at some point it would be almost every single one of them

But it is not even necessarily walking issues is it? As you yourself say you are as fit as a fiddle, go to the gym etc but still get the high rate mobility DLA. No one who goes blind after 65 will be able to claim.

I think mobility DLA should be stopped for everyone at 65 if no one can get a new award at that age. i think there is the same concern as there was about everuone being able to get free prescriptions at 60 because women could as that was their then retirement age.

Ames

I do think that the DLA/AA threshold should be aligned to state pension age.

[Deleted User]

I think people should be more concerned with the prospect of AA being abolished completely in the next couple of years, apparently the plan is to hand the money over to local authorities for social care, but It won't be ring fenced so were are told.

Lanzarote1938

venison wrote: »

I think people should be more concerned with the prospect of AA being abolished completely in the next couple of years, apparently the plan is to hand the money over to local authorities for social care, but It won't be ring fenced so were are told.

I think that if this happens then DLA/PIP will go the same way, certainly when a person reaches the upper age limit of DLA.

nannytone_2

i totally accept the unfairness regarding mobility past retirement age, so maybe they need to compile a list of conditions that would be classed as disabilities, totally detached from the age of the claimant.

the problem with taking the mobility component away at 65 is that it will set a precedent.

currently, people have transitional protection, meaning that unless they have a change in circumstances, they will never be made 'worse off' by a change in benefit rules.

benefits affected by changes don't rise yearly, but remain static until the new benefit amount matches the amount they currently receive.

if they take away that protection, then all benefits can be drastically reduced at whim

just to add ... i don't go to the gym anymore because i have a guide dog now and she keeps me fit