dla and tax credits

mitchaa

becky004 wrote: »

My DS gets higher rate care, and low mobility. Because of this we also get the full CTC extra payment. If you passed my DS in the street (on a good day),he would appear to be completely "normal" (whatever normal is), but you're not the one that has to carry him everywhere when he has a meltdown and refuses to walk, or has to stop him attacking people in Tesco, or being abusive to them in the street for no apparent reason. You are not the one that is up all night because his body just doesn't need sleep, or walking around the house with a plate of food encouraging him to eat because he is losing weight, or swapping food from one plate to another because it is the wrong colour plate for that particular day. Or taking 40 minutes to put a pair of shoes on because the seams on his socks aren't in the right place. He has ADHD and autistic traits (though he is not autistic), diagnosed 3 months ago at the age of 4.
DLA is not ONLY about the disability itself, it is about the amount of care and supervision they need. Eczema they may grow out of, you are right on that score, but at the moment they are 2 little boys who spend most of every day in pain, and that as far as I am concerned is a severe disability.
Oh and just for the record, I work full time as well as having this more than full time job at home.

Yes i understand that but when in comparison to MD/DS etc, it is no-where near in the same category.

The wording is wrong, there should be severe condition as is the eczema example and severe disability as in MD....low life span, cannot do anything for themselves, they cant wipe their own bum, they cant clothe, feed themselves etc.

And the financial awards should show this, i think its wrong to catagorise both examples as the same in terms of benefits as i will not accept ADHD is on a comparison with life threatening and heart breaking muscular dystrophy or any other severe disabilities. (Not conditions)

Only my opinion and of course you may disagree with it, but i will stand strong on this 1 seeing as i have a terminally ill brother in law that cannot even wipe his own bottom or lift a fork to his mouth with food on it. He is already 20, docs say he'll be lucky if he reaches his 21st as his body is now so weak. That IMO is a severe disability.

oldMcDonald

mitchaa wrote: »

Yes i understand that but when in comparison to MD/DS etc, it is no-where near in the same category.

The wording is wrong, there should be severe condition as is the eczema example and severe disability as in MD....low life span, cannot do anything for themselves, they cant wipe their own bum, they cant clothe, feed themselves etc.

And the financial awards should show this, i think its wrong to catagorise both examples as the same in terms of benefits as i will not accept ADHD is on a comparison with life threatening and heart breaking muscular dystrophy or any other severe disabilities. (Not conditions)

Only my opinion and of course you may disagree with it, but i will stand strong on this 1 seeing as i have a terminally ill brother in law that cannot even wipe his own bottom or lift a fork to his mouth with food on it. He is already 20, docs say he'll be lucky if he reaches his 21st as his body is now so weak. That IMO is a severe disability.

Hello Mitchaa

I have been reading your comments with interest. My thoughts on your first couple of posts were that you were trying to get information on how much could be claimed and were then going to jump in with agression towards the OP about benefit claiming. After reading those posts again, I'm not sure if I have read those posts wrong, or if they were written in that way.

This last post of yours, however, has given me some thought. I have no problems with the OPs children receiving higher rate, their quality of life is severely affected through their eczma and as the system stands, they do qualify for severe disability.

One of my children (aged 8) is profoundly disabled, he is unable to perform even basic living skills for himself and will never be able to. He requires 24/7 care and will do for the rest of his life. I also have a child with very high functioning aspergers, we have never attempted to claim DLA for him, although he would probably qualify for lower rate, as compared to our 8yo he does not seem, to us, to be disabled (if that makes sense!)

I think I get what you are saying - that the wording is wrong and there should be different catogories other than just the blanket 'disabled / severely disabled' one, so restricting the access it gives to the disabled element of CTC. I don't know if you are right or not, it could be argued that the extra element of CTC, given to a family in a similar situation to the OP, would help towards extra costs such as extra washing, non-allergenic items etc

There is a huge difference between the examples you gave in your post, I agree, but I do wonder if it is the terminoligy(sp?) that is wrong rather than the access it gives to other benefits. DLA is assessed quite regularly for most I believe (my sons claim runs until he is 16 due to his profound disability, but I think a lot of claims are for less time), and stops / is lowered if the disability reduces, in turn removeing the severe disability from the CTC, which is what I imagine the OP hopes will eventually be the case for their children. (I can't imagine any parent would prefer the money over no disability!)

mitchaa

oldMcDonald wrote: »

Hello Mitchaa

I have been reading your comments with interest. My thoughts on your first couple of posts were that you were trying to get information on how much could be claimed and were then going to jump in with agression towards the OP about benefit claiming. After reading those posts again, I'm not sure if I have read those posts wrong, or if they were written in that way.

This last post of yours, however, has given me some thought. I have no problems with the OPs children receiving higher rate, their quality of life is severely affected through their eczma and as the system stands, they do qualify for severe disability.

One of my children (aged 8) is profoundly disabled, he is unable to perform even basic living skills for himself and will never be able to. He requires 24/7 care and will do for the rest of his life. I also have a child with very high functioning aspergers, we have never attempted to claim DLA for him, although he would probably qualify for lower rate, as compared to our 8yo he does not seem, to us, to be disabled (if that makes sense!)

I think I get what you are saying - that the wording is wrong and there should be different catogories other than just the blanket 'disabled / severely disabled' one, so restricting the access it gives to the disabled element of CTC. I don't know if you are right or not, it could be argued that the extra element of CTC, given to a family in a similar situation to the OP, would help towards extra costs such as extra washing, non-allergenic items etc

There is a huge difference between the examples you gave in your post, I agree, but I do wonder if it is the terminoligy(sp?) that is wrong rather than the access it gives to other benefits. DLA is assessed quite regularly for most I believe (my sons claim runs until he is 16 due to his profound disability, but I think a lot of claims are for less time), and stops / is lowered if the disability reduces, in turn removeing the severe disability from the CTC, which is what I imagine the OP hopes will eventually be the case for their children. (I can't imagine any parent would prefer the money over no disability!)

I was never questioning the high rate of DLA for eczema. the boys in this example obviously do need a high rate of care and i never once questioned that.

I was only ever asking if there was a link to that and the severe disability elelment of CTC

They are 2 completely seperate awards, yes the eczema example is indicitive of high rate care, but what i was questioning is does it qualify for severely disabled?

I would argue solely due to the wording. Severe disablement and severe condition should be categorised seperately. How can you class eczema or even ADHD as being the same as MD for example?

I only asked the question i was not having a dig at anything or anyone. I honestly did not know there was a link between high rate care and the severe disability element.

Now i know there is, my intention was never meant to cause any frustration/argument, it was a genuine question.

oldMcDonald

mitchaa wrote: »

I would argue solely due to the wording. Severe disablement and severe condition should be categorised seperately. How can you class eczema or even ADHD as being the same as MD for example?

FWIW, I think that I agree with you on this.

I only asked the question i was not having a dig at anything or anyone. I honestly did not know there was a link between high rate care and the severe disability element.

Now i know there is, my intention was never meant to cause any frustration/argument, it was a genuine question.

Thank you, Mitchaa, both for your reply and for the above clarification. As is often said in forums, the lack of facial expressions and tone of voice sometimes makes it easy to get the wrong impression of what is being said.

becky004

Any body that is unable to carry out the functions of daily living independently is disabled, be that severely or not so severely. I certainly would not class my DS as severely physically disabled, however mental health wise he has major disabilities, which not only affect his day to day home life, but also his school life, and social life to a major degree. It also has a major impact on the family. He does not have a life limiting disorder (for that I am eternally grateful).
However Mitchaa, I have read a number of your posts on various threads on here, and you appear to take great delight in questioning people who receive benefits and then patronising them.

As in this comment you made to the OP

"Its strange that you didn't think they were entitled to high rate care but they got it? I thought high rate care meant severely disabled, ie 24hr supervision and care, wheelchair bound etc? That to me would have been pretty obvious?"

You are aware that higher rate care is not only awarded to people with life limiting disorders as I believe you have caused uproar on other threads with your comments (and you also deleted some of your posts on other threads because of their content).

I would however agree that people who do have life limiting disorders, should receive a much greater level of financial support, in order to give them the best quality of life possible, £67 a week does not give them that. However it is not the lay people that define the rules or the benefits awarded, your condascending posts are actually quite irritating and at times upsetting to others. If you have such a problem with benefits and definitions, you may be better taking it up with your MP, as MSE'rs do not have the power to change them to a more tiered and fairer system.

mitchaa

becky004 wrote: »

You are aware that higher rate care is not only awarded to people with life limiting disorders as I believe you have caused uproar on other threads with your comments (and you also deleted some of your posts on other threads because of their content).

I have never once caused uproar on this forum by commenting on severe disabilities:mad: The only time i get in arguments, its mainly due to the lazy workshy.

Why would i argue about disabilities when i have a B.I.L with a severe disability who has less than 1 year left of his short life???

I actually found your post quite offensive on the other hand and there has not been 1 post from me in this thread that i have tried to start a fight. (Like you are trying to do with me now)

Ps..I know exactly what ADHD is, my little cousin suffers from it. Its an on/off thing, he can be fine for days on end and then just flip 1 day, i personally wouldn't call this a severe disablement but i am of course not in the medical profession so what do i know:rolleyes:

becky004

mitchaa wrote: »

Ps..I know exactly what ADHD is, my little cousin suffers from it. Its an on/off thing, he can be fine for days on end and then just flip 1 day, i personally wouldn't call this a severe disablement

Clearly you do not, and especially not when further complicated by autistic traits. My DS is not fine for days, infact I cannot remember a full 24 hours since he was 18 months old that he had a fine day. He may have a fine couple of hours, might even stretch to 3 or 4 hours on a really good day. We rarely go out as a family, because of the unpredictability of his behaviour and the effect it has on those around him. We had our last holiday in 2005 when he was 20 months old because of the severity of his behaviour, we haven't been since. We don't eat out, go to the cinema, and I have taken him shopping once in the last year (which resulted in him attacking an old gentleman with a book, almost causing him to fall, because I had picked up the wrong colour packet of biscuits). It has affected my 11yr DD as he wakes her up at intervals throughout the night.

You have regularly offended people on all threads with your posts. You believe you are well informed as to the benefit system as you like to sound off at all and sundry.
Perhaps you should take some time to read the benefit pages, so you make well informed and well educated comments, as the majority of what you say is very offensive to the majority that read it. Perhaps you should consider studying for a medical degree too, that way you would be in a position to accurately comment on medical conditions you actually know very little about. And that way you would not cause so much offence as you would be submitting research based evidence on the various conditions people are claiming for.

DenBo_4

Mitchaa, you regularly come into forums and question why people get what they are entitled to, as you always seem to have some relation who should be "more" entitled because, according to you they are always much worse. What is it with you? Are you jealous at other's luck in being awarded DLA, it's bl**dy hard to get and if they are awarded it, at any level, then I would consider the DWP (who try NOT to give anyone any DLA if they can possibly help it) know what they are doing.

Why criticise the OP? Those poor kids, and their poor mother, they deserve as much help as is possible, not you, as usual, coming in and moaning about anyone getting anything you think they are not entitled to.

GET A LIFE!! and stop critising other people who manage to get DLA

DenBo_4

mitchaa wrote: »

Lets get in another fight and ruin a perfectly good natured thread then DMG?

What the hell is wrong with you?

If i wasn't trying to help, why would i have bothered wasting my time calculating these figures for her?

You need help DMG, preferably anger management:rotfl: Tell you what, go back to your bed and get out the other side:p

This thread was perfectly good natured until you came along and stuck your nose in.

You provoke DMG, you need to learn to control yourself;)

You are taking the p**s surely?

mitchaa

DenBo wrote: »

Why criticise the OP? Those poor kids, and their poor mother, they deserve as much help as is possible, not you, as usual, coming in and moaning about anyone getting anything you think they are not entitled to.

Are you being serious?

Please show me where i have criticised?

Also please show me where the O.P has got annoyed with me, infact i think you will find that she has thanked me in quite a few of my posts.

Why thank me if i was criticising her?

Its you bunch who are fighting with me, not the other way around:rolleyes:

Like a pack of hungry hyenas, its you guys that are ruining this thread, not me.