Carers ticket - is it reasonable

[Rechargedfor2024]

my friend and I are taking both our children on a bunch of activities. There is 3 disabled children in the group. We applied for nimbus / access cards as one attraction only use these as form of proof.
when they came
1 child has plus 2 in the carers symbol
and the others didn’t get the symbol at all.
I then read up about it and had seen that many parents had said the same and it’s not always automatic that you will get a carers symbol especially in children.
there has been some negative comments about this online from what we could read.
it seemed like it was more younger children not getting them.
my friend said maybe it’s because say a 3 year old would beee to be supervised at all times regardless of disability and that so it doesn’t fill under prevents one attending because of disability.
do you think this is reasonable ?

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.

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.

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.

@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

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

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...🤔

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.