Carers ticket - is it reasonable

Yes...and no.

A disabled 4 year old with a complex medical condition, could need to be accompanied by a qualified nurse to provide the medical care they need through the day. This would mean purchasing a ticket for the nurse to come along. This extra cost would be considered a barrier to accessing the venue due to a disability, and would qualify for a +1 symbol, which would give the nurse free entry. So if mum and dad take Jonny to the zoo, or if its just 1 parent, or a party of 12 they all pay for their tickets, but the nurse goes free. This is the additional carer ticket. If the medical needs are relatively basic and it could reasonably be expected that the parent could provide it, then no +1 is awarded and there is no entitlement to a free ticket for the parent, based on the fact a 4 year old would have had a parent them regardless of disability, and said parent is sufficient support for the child's needs.

If the child is say 14, with care needs above what an average 14 year with no disability would require. But not so severe that they needed a qualified nurse, they may qualify, because it could be assumed a 14 year old without the condition could go without adult supervision, but due to their disability, they still need supervision, then a parent could be considered the essential carer and the child be entitled to the +1 symbol.

On another occasion a 14 year old would not qualify because a 14 year old would be deemed capable of attending without supervision, and even though this 14 year old also has a disability or health condition, it's is not deemed severe enough that the child could not still go without supervision, so they would not be given the +1 symbol.

This is where the evidentiary requirements and assessment tools for nimbus become problematic for me, because it risks becoming very subjective and open to both abuse and unfair refusal. And becomes more about who you can get you to write a letter saying what you need it to say and who can't.

Again, the criteria for PIP and the standing and queuing symbol on an access card are different. Being entitled to one does not automatically mean someone is eligible for the other. The evidence one uses to demonstrate eligibility for one may or may not be the same as someone uses to prove eligibility for the other.

Finding something difficult, or having a condition that makes something diffucult, does not mean i need help from someone else to do it.

Can you quote where I have said otherwise? Although actually you are saying you need help from someone else if you are saying you need an essential companion.

Adults can have social care paperwork. If you can’t go out alone it is worth requesting an assessment. EHCPs don’t cease until 25, or 26 in some cases, so can still apply to some adults.

Some diagnosis reports, OT letters, clinic letters etc. most certainly do cover the support required as well as needs.

But the explanation of' how it affects you' comes from you, and you alone

Completely incorrect. Evidence from others can also prove how a condition affects someone.

If I say have severe arthritis and I can't walk up stairs, I can prove I have the arthritis, I cannot prove it means I cannot walk up the stairs. No doctors letter or report would say that either.

This isn’t true either. Physio, OT &/or consultant letters would cover being able to navigate stairs.

I'd say it is reasonable. Purely as under 3's all need full supervision regardless.

As an adult, I do not have an EHCP or social care plan. All other documents do not prove the help you need. They only indicate the difficultues you have-thats not the same thing. Finding something difficult, or having a condition that makes something diffucult, does not mean i need help from someone else to do it. For DLA/PIP you're asked to explain the issues you condition poses, give examples etc in your own words- you back this up with medical evidence you actually have the condition you claim to have. But the explanation of' how it affects you' comes from you, and you alone-essentially they woulc just have to take your word for it wouldnt they? . If I say have severe arthritis and I can't walk up stairs, I can prove I have the arthritis, I cannot prove it means I cannot walk up the stairs. No doctors letter or report would say that either. So what do PIP do? They ask to physically see you to make the decisions on how you are actually affected-because they know there is no letter or document that could prove it. So, given that the fact I have the PIP award that has already done a thorough assessment, and insisted on a physical assessment on top of the paper work, what other 'evidence' do I have of the help need. Once again, they are not asking me to prove i have a condition, or even to prove what difficulties I have. they are asking me to PROVE how this translates into me needing help. How do I do that?

All of them could prove what help you needed. It would be incredibly poor of e.g. an EHCP or social care assessment to not state what help was needed.

You may have used the evidence for DLA/PIP, but the criteria for the symbols on an access card are differ from the enhanced mobility component of PIP hence needing to provide evidence (same or different) if you want to apply for an access card as well.

That would vary person to person. But it could be an EHCP, social care paperwork, diagnosis report, clinic letters, OT letters… all of these would simply describe my condition, and the difficulties it could pose, NOT prove what help I needed. Ironically all of those things would probably been exactly what was used to get the dla/pip in the first place

"Advertisement

Puzzles2
Talk
>
AIBU?
AIBU?
Follow topic
Unwatch
Save
Share
123
Carers ticket - is it reasonable
57 replies

Show more
OP posts:See all
Quote
Thanks
Add postReport
Am I being unreasonable?
51 votes. Final results.
POLL

You are being unreasonable
86%

You are NOT being unreasonable
14%
est1980 · Yesterday 21:51
KeepGoingThomas · Yesterday 21:25
You are misunderstanding the symbols the access card uses. Someone could well be in receipt of enhanced PIP but not be eligible for the standing and queuing symbol on an access card. For example, many who have the ‘level access’ symbol wouldn’t also be eligible for the ‘standing and queueing symbol because Nimbus state “We do not add the standing and queuing symbol for wheelchair users as if a queue is accessible this should present no problems. If a queue is not accessible then this will be addressed by each venue as an adjustment related to the need for level access.” Another example, some, but not all, who get enhanced PIP under the unable to plan and follow the route of an unfamiliar journey criteria would still be able to stand and queue..
Not what I said at all. What I actually said was that if enhanced rate mobility wasn't good enough evidence, what else could you provide? Also planning and following a journey could qualify for not queue as someone with that issue could not understand the concept of queuing, which is also a valid reason for the no queue/waiting symbol. The issue here is the quality of thr evidence they require is not something that always exists.
Quote
Thanks
Add postReport
Bookmark

KeepGoingThomas · Yesterday 21:57
Not what I said at all.

It is exactly what you said. You posted ”If enhanced mobility isn't evidence enough for a can't stand for long periods or can't walk long distances symbol what on earth is?”

What I actually said was that if enhanced rate mobility wasn't good enough evidence, what else could you provide?

That would vary person to person. But it could be an EHCP, social care paperwork, diagnosis report, clinic letters, OT letters…

Also planning and following a journey could qualify for not queue as someone with that issue could not understand the concept of queuing, which is also a valid reason for the no queue/waiting symbol.

I know it could for some. I said some but not all. Not everyone who cannot plan and follow the route of an unfamiliar journey will be unable to understand the concept of queuing"

Exactly, you are absolutely correct, so how do you PROVE which one you are? See my point?

Not sure if you accidentally tagged me in this response, or if you mis understood a comment I made to someone else. But I'm totally on your side mate, I'd trade every 'perk' as some like to see it as, if my kids could trade the reason they get them, in a heartbeat. X

I said one of my children didn't need the more help than i as the parent was able to provide, despite having a disability. You went on to say that the other must not have needed 1:1 care either or I couldn't have taken them out alone-not sure how you deduced that. But anyway. if you can't grasp the fact that a child will ALWAYS have an adult with them, regardless of the need for an additional adult or carer, (i have not ever argued that children are never entitled to +1) the base level of support a child will have is always 1 other person. They are NEVER going to go anywhere alone. Every child will start their day out with at least 1 adult. BUT the same is not true for an ADULT, every adult does not start their day out with another person as standard, who could assist them, so using the same logic that it has to be more than a parent or friend who was with you anyway could provide is flawed, because it assumes you already have 1 person accomanying you, in the same way a young child would, and so the only way you could need a +1 is if your 'person' couldnt give you the assistance you need. It assumes the presence of another person, which is not comparable to assuming a 5 year old will have a parent with them. If you still can't grasp this simple concept I really can't think of anyway to make it clearer. How you managed to make this pitting kids against adults is so ludicrous its almost impressive...At this point I'm not sure if you're just winding me up, can't read very well, have a low IQ or just like to argue and insult...🤔

The original post was about it not being 'automatic' it was actually, the entire point of it.

@est1980

Dsd has +2 because she needs 2 adults with her all the time, when we take her out this is obviously an advantage (not paying for us) but we would swop it in a heartbeat to have an adult that didn't need continuous supervision and support, a dozen or more seizures a day and a capacity of a 2 year old. Yes I suspect some try and work the system but for others it's essential

Well it is relevant actually because my child is young and does have the plus one for that very reason. Nobody said it should be automatic I don't know where you are getting that from. You are trying to pit children with disabilities against adults. Or rather saying as an adult you should be more entitled but it doesn't work that way it's based on carer needs and needing a plus one carer.
No I wasn't being rude or presume anything you said yourself your child did not need 1-1 care. because I didnt need the extra help, and obvioudly i was going to be there anyway as the Parent as any other parent of a 5 year old would be.

Not what I said at all.

It is exactly what you said. You posted ”If enhanced mobility isn't evidence enough for a can't stand for long periods or can't walk long distances symbol what on earth is?”

What I actually said was that if enhanced rate mobility wasn't good enough evidence, what else could you provide?

That would vary person to person. But it could be an EHCP, social care paperwork, diagnosis report, clinic letters, OT letters…

Also planning and following a journey could qualify for not queue as someone with that issue could not understand the concept of queuing, which is also a valid reason for the no queue/waiting symbol.

I know it could for some. I said some but not all. Not everyone who cannot plan and follow the route of an unfamiliar journey will be unable to understand the concept of queuing.

Not what I said at all. What I actually said was that if enhanced rate mobility wasn't good enough evidence, what else could you provide? Also planning and following a journey could qualify for not queue as someone with that issue could not understand the concept of queuing, which is also a valid reason for the no queue/waiting symbol. The issue here is the quality of thr evidence they require is not something that always exists.

You are misunderstanding the symbols the access card uses. Someone could well be in receipt of enhanced PIP but not be eligible for the standing and queuing symbol on an access card. For example, many who have the ‘level access’ symbol wouldn’t also be eligible for the ‘standing and queueing symbol because Nimbus state “We do not add the standing and queuing symbol for wheelchair users as if a queue is accessible this should present no problems. If a queue is not accessible then this will be addressed by each venue as an adjustment related to the need for level access.” Another example, some, but not all, who get enhanced PIP under the unable to plan and follow the route of an unfamiliar journey criteria would still be able to stand and queue..

I think in theory it's a good idea, but it definitely has issues, and I do question the qualifications of the people who make the decisions on which symbols to award.i couldn't find that information anywhere. Probablly all ex ATOS lol. Like a lot of things for disabled people they will ask for evidence that just doesnt exist for anyone like a letter from your GP or specialist detailing the help you need,??? I cant even get my GP SURGERY to answer the phone! Which in practice is not something anyone is ever given from anyone. It's unlikely your GP actually treats you anyway, and your consultant or specialist does not write letters like this. Even if they could, how would anyone KNOW what HELP you need? They can say what's wrong, what the condition can or could cause etc but there's no way to quantify these things in a real way, to prove that you need help. Which is where this scheme seems to be failing. Its like you have Enhanced rate PIP,? whatever, that proves nothing, we want a letter from your GP who last saw you about your condition 7 years ago before you were referred to a specialist-they will be the ones who really know how your condition affects you on a daily basis! Yes we know you have only one leg, but that doesnt prove you cant queue for a long time does it? OK I'm being silly now, but honestly this is how it feels sometimes. It's like you have to prove the unprovable. If enhanced mobility isn't evidence enough for a can't stand for long periods or can't walk long distances symbol what on earth is? 🙄

Yes a digital card would be good but i do know some struggle with digital and constantly having to show apps etc.
I think it would be easier if they had a blanket policy and had this clearly stated. Currently it appears they are charging some and not others, which doesn't make sense Nor is it fair.
It's just a really bad process and is not set out to help the disabled.
The issue is that now, many companies have signed up to it so the disabled have no choice.

Aah, I see, so it wasn't a total extra fee, just to cover costs of the physical card? Still seems a bit unfair though... they really should offer a digital one you can add to your Google wallet or apple pay like you can with things like clubcards/railcards etc.

Yes I was charged to add symbols, they explained that this was to cover reprinting the card for the symbol change.

Just interested re you saying you were asked for more money to add symbols? Was that from nimbus themselves? I applied for a symbol change, as it clearly states you can if you disagree with the initial decision, but was not asked to pay anything extra? I did pay the £15 because as you said, it's easier to just fill in 1 form, but it's works out at £5 per year, it's got to cost at least that in admin, wages, printing of the card and postage right? Also, compared to the Cea card which there is no free option for only last 2 years, only works for 1 thing and is on balance more expensive. I don't think the small fee is unreasonable, but asking for more to re evaluated an application, and I suppose if successful it could be seen as correcting a mistake, is not right? I would say it's well worth another email to question this. Good luck

Ok, you're clearly not understanding what I'm saying regarding child carers, the point was regarding the 'AUTOMATIC' award of the +1 sign for disabled children purely because of the fact that a child has A disability. Also, as unfair as it may seem to you, being able to care for your other children at the same time is not a relevant factor on awarding the +1 symbol, or relevant to disability rights laws in any way. It's a simple case of does the disability and associated needs of the child mean they need significantly more help than any other child of the same age without a disability would. Yes or no? The care needs of any other children in the family are not a consideration. You seem to be getting confused by what is relevant and or mandated by law and what you think is 'fair'. This is strictly about disability rights laws, and the legal obligations of business to make accommodations for people with disabilities.

But even though this was not even the point of my post. Your apparently need to rant about your own experience that is not related to my question at all, has actually highlighted the exact kind ableist attitude that my entire post is about by stating

"It is also much more likely a disabled adult would go to an event with friends"

This assumption is totally unreasonable, and is the ENTIRE point of my post.

Firstly, some people are very lonely and do not have friends.

Secondly, even if you could go with a friend is it reasonable to expect them to act as your carer, when they are supposed to be enjoying a day or night out themselves?

Also, given that you do not know the conditions my children have, the age difference between them, if I did ever take them both out alone if I had a carer or what either of my children are capable or not capable of, along with a multitude of other facts you are not in possession of, This was and extremely bold, rude and insulting statement to make.

"Clearly even your child with more needs did not need 1-1 care or you could not have taken both out alone"

I would be extremely interested to know what information you based this -entirely incorrect by the way-statement on? Or did you just feel the need to be rude? I have not once, nor would I ever, presume to make statements about your child's disability and needs, so I am entirely unsure why you felt the need to.

You did miss the point again. It's not about the five year old needing an extra carer it's that one carer can only look after that child and no others. A parent should be able to take two children age for example 2 and 5 put alone. Clearly even your child with more needs did not need 1-1 care or you could not have taken both out alone.
It is equally as hard for a parent with a child who needs one to one care that has sibling than it is for a disabled adult. It is also much more likely a disabled adult would go to an event with friends, than a friend of a parent with disabled children would choose to accompany them to peppa pig world and be happy to pay for themselves.

I didn't miss the point at all I clearly say that I agreed it shouldn't be "automatic" for a disabled child, not that a 5 year old would never required extra help over and above the help a non disabled child required. Having raised 2 children both with special needs, 1 needed more help than the average child of the same age, one didn't despite having a disability, hence why in my case not giving it automatically to child 2, simply because they had a diagnosis wouldn't have been something that prevented me from taking them to a particular place, because I didnt need the extra help, and obvioudly i was going to be there anyway as the Parent as any other parent of a 5 year old would be. Its cost me exactly the same as it would have if my child had no disability. And so the cost of taking help wasnt a barrier, which is the exactly the point of it. And why it's judged on a case by case basis. It's a legal argument, not a moral or ethical one. Accommodations have to be made law based on need. If you're disabled 5 year old does not need and extra carer to be able to access somewhere, then legally they are not entitled to it, and companies are not obliged to provide a solution such as a free carer ticket, for a carer you don't need.

My point was that as an adult, the idea that 'someone would be with you anyway' isn't a fact, it's an assumption.

You are missing the point re a five year old , yes they need an adult, but often they need an adult just for them. I could not have looked after my disabled child age 5 and their sibling at the same time completely impossible. So I needed to pay for a friend to come along as well.

Nimbus +1 for adults slightly ableist? I saw this post where it was asked if ppl thought it was unfair young children with disabilities, did not automatically get the +1 symbol, based on the fact that any child, disabled or not would need an adult with them- No 5 year old can go to legoland without assistance, I agree, as did most others. Only those with substantial extra needs, for example needing a qualified carer to administer medication, or needing a lot of extra equipment i suppose like oxygen tanks, whereby just mum wouldn't be enough help-would qualify, makes sense to me and seems fair.
However, for adults it gets a bit complicated as the rules are the same.
On the section about the +1 symbol it states that
"The support needed must be in excess of what could be reasonably expected of family/friends already accompanying you and must be due to disability-related needs.

The idea I guess being that your mate could carry your bag for and, or go to the bar to collect your food, you don't need a carer for things like that.
Which is all well and good...if you have a friend or family member to go with, or one that wanted to attend the same event as you, in the first place.
If you don't, but you still need someone to go with you due to your disability, you would eithee be looking to employ someone, say from a carers agency to assist you, or possibly paying for a full priced ticket for a friend family member to go somewhere they had no interest in, just so you had the help you needed. Given that the entire idea is to not get the cost of needing assistance be a barrier to you attending events, I thinks it's unreasonable to asume you would always have someone going with you anyway. Lots of people do not have friends and go out alone, many have become estranged from friends and family- by choice or circumstance, and this is especially true for many disabled people. I think this really should be based on whether you NEED assistance, not if you have a friend who can help you or not. I can prove I need the help, I can't prove I have no one willing, able and or available to provide it-should that exclude me from support? My social life will not improve unless I am able to go out and meet people, which I can't do because I need assistance, but nimbus thinks a friend or family member (because apparently all disabled people have huge support network?) should be sufficient. And you can see the catch 22 I find myself in.
Am I being unreasonable?

I have emailed nimbus explaining this and asking them to reconsider the +1 symbol on my card, just looking for others opinions?

I agree. Sending all this really personal medical data to some organisation is not tolerable to me. And DLA have already decided how much support you need but this organisation seems to think it knows better.

Privacy of my data is an issue.
Security of my data is an issue.
And this business model seems exploitative and like money for old rope.