To apply for DLA for DD when we have a household income of over 300k?

So you know first hand that a lot of this thread is based on misconception of disability, its cost and how the DWP assesses for it. It’s a flawed system - especially for PIP which holds working age claimants to a different standard and assessment criteria.

I work (part time TTO because of my own disabled DC) for an organisation who support parents of disabled DC. It isn’t all DLA/PIP applications but that is part of it.

I forgive you !! 🤣. I and a few posters here who have clearly worked in the field of disability support may seem a bit over the top, but for myself I’m aware that a lot of people come on to these threads for information so it really boils my piss when I see people posting absolute nonsense because some will believe it as fact and not claim the benefits they’re entitled to.

Exactly, as I said then, claimants’ payments don’t automatically stop when they go into hospital. It depends on the length of the admission. It also depends on their age because different rules apply to children.

Most working age adults previously on DLA have transitioned to PIP. Adults born before 9 April 1948 can’t swap to PIP, but then they aren’t working age, so my post clearly wasn’t aimed at them.

@pam290358 sincere apologies, I thought you were the other poster who is posting the rubbish.

Family and Pension Credit benefits are means tested and designed to raise income to those on a knife edge, which it rarely does.

Why are you posting nonsense ? My mother claimed pension credit at the rate of £23 a week until she was eligible for the higher rate attendance allowance after a stroke. This one change raised her pension credit to over £100 a week. Not exactly rare.

28 days. And if they have a motability car they can apply for an extension for up to three months. Many people who were over the cut off age in 2013 are still claiming DLA as a legacy benefit and will stay on it until the award runs out or circumstances/condition changes. This poster is either a troll or clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Nope. 1948 national assistance act has been superseded dozens of times to make way for welfare reform introducing different benefits. You still receive DLA because you were over the cut off age to be migrated to PIP in 2013 but that doesn’t mean you can stay on it for ever - if there is a change in your condition or circumstances you will be migrated on to Attendance Allowance because that is the only disability benefit available to those over pensionable age. And the NHS is free at the point of need to everyone, regardless of what benefit they claim. DLA, PIP and AA claimants DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT have to pay for treatment on the NHS. If they are in hospital for four weeks or more the benefit is stopped until they are discharged and then resumed. If they go into a residential home and are self funding the benefits continue - it’s only when the state starts to contribute towards residential care that those benefits are stopped. You have no idea what you’re talking about so I’d stop now if I were you.

Most working age claimants who received DLA before PIP was introduced have now transferred to PIP.

have to give it up if they go into hospital.

That depends on the length of the admission.

The benefit for children is still called DLA. I don't think I made that clear in my response. After 16 it is PIP now.

I receive DLA because I received it before the change to PIP. That will never change. Adults on DLA will receive it until they die, but have to give it up if they go into hospital. The 1948 NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT was passed at the same time as the NHS ACT. Anyone at that time who received any benefit, including the state pension, had to hand their benefit/pension books in when they were admitted to hospital. I believe that might still be the case. It means that THE NHS IS FREE AT THE POINT OF NEED TO EVERYONE EXCEPT THOSE ON DLA ,PIP & AA. They all pay for NHS treatment, and if they go into an LA residential home, the benefits get taken away then as well.

Family and Pension Credit benefits are means tested and designed to raise income to those on a knife edge, which it rarely does.

The OP wants to apply for the benefit which is now called PIP. Did someone tell her she should not claim taxpayer's money when they have a high income? I suspect someone did, someone with a similar attitude to some posters on this thread.*

Nope, sorry. Child DLA and PiP are two completely different benefits. PIP is for adults of working age, child DLA is for children under 16. Maybe research the different disabilty benefits and make sure you know what you’re talking about before you come on here and try to lecture people. All disability benefits are universal and should remain that way. The only qualification should be disability.

Students can leave school at 16 and indeed many schools don't have sixth forms and If they do not all pupils take Alevels

And can go onto to college to do other courses
However in many special schools go up to 19 year,,of age ,and even after 19 there are special colleges for some pupils with EHCP,s

I’m sorry if I upset you but the fact is that what you posted was wrong. You said that those claiming pension credit could get PIP/DLA and this is not correct. Pension credit is for those over retirement age and unless there is a claim established before pensionable age is reached, the only benefit that can be claimed is attendance allowance. I was a disability benefits advisor for a disabled charity for over twenty years so you don’t need to lecture me on the ins and outs of this subject. I’m on your side.

I understand completely what you have had to go through, and how proud you must be now.

You will always find people taking advantage of our vulnerability to make themself feel more powerful. They do not abuse able people - they might hit back.

I think all disabled people suffer from disability discrimination. I think those who are mentally challenged get a very much more raw deal, because many of them are unable to find words to protect themselves, and they must not try to protect themselves from physical abuse, having a disability, no one will believe you.

I now fear the phrase: ''No one will believe you'', because it is so true.

I was disabled suddenly, and people didn't understand why I could walk one day and not the next. I gradually recovered some use of my legs. I have been deliberately knocked over by people confident that I would be able to balance myself. I have also had people who think they have the right to take control of my wheelchair and to lay hands on a wheelchair is the same as physical assault. Hospital workers also offend in that way.

The OP wants to apply for the benefit which is now called PIP.

No, she doesn’t. PIP is not for children. It is DLA for under 16s.

If a child under 16 already has the non means tested benefit, it is rolled over

It doesn’t roll over. When a child turns 16 they or their appointee has to apply for PIP. If they apply on time, DLA will continue until a decision is made, but it absolutely does not ‘roll over’.

whatever they call it when you get it, you travel through life with,

No. Most working age adults who used to be on DLA have been transferred over to PIP.

It is no different to the cases where parents refuse to send their child to special education schools, because of publicity. That is child abuse too.

Legally, there is a parental right to a mainstream education unless the LA can prove a mainstream placement would be incompatible with the efficient education of others, and* *there are no reasonable steps the LA could take to prevent this. This is set out in law and is a much higher threshold than many LAs, schools and the general public think. The complexity of the child’s SEN or perception mainstream education is unsuitable are not lawful reasons to refuse a mainstream education in England.

The school leaving age is 16. Students leave then regardless of how slow they are, even in cases of mental incapacity.

Any 16 year old who lacked mental capacity should have an EHCP which can fund education until 25, or 26 in some cases. Parents don’t need to pay for another year of education.

Your comment predisposes that I am ignorant of benefits and of the benefit I have been claiming for decades: DLA. I know it is now called PIP. Did I say I didn't know?

Of course they are different. There are no new claimants to DLA for any age, but whatever they call it when you get it, you travel through life with, and if you are not getting the full amount, you can claim more when you need it, but there is a limit. The limit is not enough. Limits never are.

If a child under 16 already has the non means tested benefit, it is rolled over, but whether it is regarded as a new claim or not, I do not know now, and it is easily obtainable on google if I need to know, and yes, adults receiving DLA/PIP do not have to apply for AA. It is all there on google.

The OP wants to apply for the benefit which is now called PIP. Did someone tell her she should not claim taxpayer's money when they have a high income? I suspect someone did, someone with a similar attitude to some posters on this thread.

The fact is that regardless of how much money comes into the family coffers, if they do not claim it on behalf of a child who needs it, that child is entitled to appeal against the parents on the grounds that he/she is entitled to the money and that the parents must claim it on behalf of the child because THE MONEY IS THE CHILD'S and they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT not to take awau their child's opportunity to live as their peers without disability. That takes money: and the state helps with that, and it is the CHILD's RIGHT to receive it whether the parents want it or not. All those who say that the parents have no right to it if they are wealthy do not appear to know that.

Whether the state recognises the fact or not, it is my belief that if there is child abuse if children do not receive the benefits they are entitled to just because the parents don't want to.

It is no different to the cases where parents refuse to send their child to special education schools, because of publicity. That is child abuse too. There are parents begging local authorities to place their children according to need, yet there are other parents who cannot face their child's need for special education. I once heard a person in an authoritative position, with a Downs Syndrome child get up and say ''Spending money on these children is just chucking it down the drain because they cannot be educated to work as adults'', to which I replied ''Maybe so, but if staying on at school enables them to learn how to take care of themselves, then that is money more than well spent.''.

I am afraid that attitude still prevails in some places.

There are posters on this thread which obviously do not know how very expensive it is to have a child or adult who is disabled and needs help more than others.

An autistic child does not have the capacity for knowing/remembering, where they are 'at' at any time. You can 'train' - for want of a better word - a child to do simple things, but that takes patience and time, and involves paying someone to help the parents do just that.

I wish people would understand more about what 'care' means, whether in a residential situation or domiciliary care. One of the most important parts of care is being able to communicate, discuss things, according to the age and understanding of the client, of any age, from 0 to 90. Many, many people think that domiciliary care involves just physical help. It does not. Communication is paramount, yet that isn't even given in residential situations for all ages.

Autism is relatively new. That is because it was not recognised as being a disease. There are many disabilities like that. If autism was taken seriously, why is there such a high number on the waiting lists, and how is it t hat drug manufacturers cannot supply the drugs? Most of the answer is that the NHS is reluctant to make a diagnosis which will cost the country money. I think that is true even now, in the 21st century.

There are people who think that only the physically disabled need helpers. That is not true, and no matter that there is more understanding, wheelchair users are still what comes to mind when 'disability' comes up. I would be a very wealthy woman if I had a fiver for everyone who sees me on my feet, or walking and cannot understand why I need a wheelchair. The attitude is still prevalent among many people.

Take education, for example as where PIP/DLA is so necessary to the disabled child, whatever the disability. The school leaving age is 16. Students leave then regardless of how slow they are, even in cases of mental incapacity. If they could advance in their learning in an extra year just as students are studying for their A levels, their education stands a good chance of catching up, but there are few senior classes for them to stay on.

If DLA/PIP buys an extra year at school, then parents have no right NOT to claim for the child, even if they are 'comfortably off' because it is a child's right to education, even if they will not pass exams, and the child's RIGHT to enjoy a life made possible with extra help. Parents have a DUTY OF CARE (there is now an Act of Parliament) to make sure their children have every opportunity to education and welfare. Parents MUST NOT write off the child's rights by thinking they have enough money not to apply for non means tested benefits.

Where did I say it didn’t cost a lot? I have one. I know exactly how much it costs and I know it’s not cheap.

@karmakameleon don't be a dick . Having a disabled child costs a lot ! 🙄

Dear god some of the comments on here. The hatred towards ND kids on here these days makes me fearful for these kids future. Yes DLA is not means tested and all of us me included would gladly forgo it if it meant that our DC didn’t have their disability. Shame on all of you who begrudge a few quid to disabled kids.

Of course you should claim for your daughter. As PPs have said, it's a gateway that will let her access targeted help and services in the future. Anyone thinking it's somehow moral to deny her this just because you've got a few quid is ableist.

Spot on. Disability should be the only qualification needed for disability benefits. And for all those mealy mouthed posters telling OP she’s depriving others of benefit by claiming (as if), you might want to consider that OP and her partner will be paying well over £100,000 a year in tax and NI - the maximum annual rate of DLA is currently £9,583.60 a year. Are you really saying that high earners who contribute to the payment of these benefits to others shouldn’t claim it themselves if they’re entitled to do so to benefit their child ? Because of some bizarre perceived moral issue ? It’s batshit.

What I was going to say! Use it for anything that will help your child.

Yes, you should claim. The earlier you get her in to the system, the easier it will be as she gets older. You can always make sure you use it for therapy, a PA or similar for her. Don’t save it - once she’s an adult she’ll be penalized for having savings, get advice on trusts etc as she gets towards 18.

It’s really not. It’s offensive and indefensible - and l suspect that poster knows it.

Claim it OP. You need to think ahead. There is a reason it is non means tested. She needs the money. Your circumstances may well change in the future and you wont be on the same money. She needs it for when you are not around. I would be claiming it and saving it into a SIPP and a S & S ISA for her that she can access when you are not around. Also think about being an appointee for her when she moves to PIP and deputyship if she cannot manage her finances. When she retires she may only be able to access state pension and who know s what small amount that will be. Think very long term think about how she will be supporting herself when you are both gone and channel money towards that time.