To be sick of all the newspaper articles saying lies about DLA and PIP

[elliejjtiny]

To get any DLA or PIP you have to be significantly disabled. To get the higher rate of either part you have to be severely disabled.

A motability car is not free, it's rented. To get one you need to either be unable to walk 50 metres or have a severe learning disability, which is very difficult to get.

It's always happened but since the stuff in the news about changes to PIP it's got worse.

Articles in the newspapers claiming you can get a free car for bed wetting, which just doesn't happen. There will be children like my ds who get DLA because they have a number of problems including bedwetting but nobody gets high rate mobility for bed wetting on its own.

There are other articles about people claiming PIP and DLA for various minor sounding conditions and I am so fed up with it. I know from experience that the newspapers will have talked to people claiming PIP/DLA and twist everything they say to make them sound like a scrounger.

All these articles are giving off the message that anyone with any minor disability can claim loads of benefits.

Motability isn’t a government program, it’s a charitable organisation.

If the vehicle costs more than the PIP payment, the disabled person has to pay the balance.

There’s zero difference to the tax-payer whether a disabled person gets paid their PIP as money or whether it goes to the Motability scheme.

That’s why it’s so bonkers that people get so ragey about Motability, in particular.

A motability car is not free, it's rented. To get one you need to either be unable to walk 50 metres or have a severe learning disability, which is very difficult to get.

These days most people claim based on their absolute "worst day", even if that scenario only plays out a couple of times a year. So i know personally people who can and do walk easily 95% of the time etc but because they have conditions where they have an occasional flare up, and are entitled to the higher payment as a result.

There's SO much information on pip descriptors and tests. Even on here there's a wealth of advice on exactly what to say to ensure you meet criteria, how to appeal, whats required for each descriptor, what to provide as evidence.

There's also (imho) too much perception that if you find something very hard to do, or it stresses you out, this means you "can't do it". You can, its just very hard for you to do it. It is physically possible for you.

The sheer volume of people successfully claiming PIP indicates it is simply not that hard to access. If it was, you wouldn't have 3.7 million people getting it.

20% of new cars are motability and 40% in Northern Ireland. You’re seriously saying that many people can’t walk 50m? Come off it. It’s obvious the scheme has expanded the eligibility hugely.

I think this is semantics as PIP can be viewed as 'free' money as it isn't earned by the individual but handed out by the state. It isn't the equivalent of someone using their wages to fund a car.

People get ragey because they don't want to pay taxes to part fund luxuries for rich people. Underpinning a lot of the support for disability benefits is the idea that disabled are more likely to suffer poverty and need additional money to access a reasonable standard of life. That's why generally people support disability benefits as part of a compassionate and civilised society. There aren't many people though that want tax payer money to part fund a BMW for anyone, disabled or not! It just highlights the some people don't actually 'need' the additional money provided by PIP. The obvious question is whether this is the best use of state money? Many people, including myself, think it isn't.

It really hasn’t

To be eligible for motability you have to get higher rate mobility on dla or PIP. Both are which are difficult to get and you have to have a lot of evidence to show that your needs are such to qualify.

For DLA (taken from disability rights U.K.)

For the higher rate of the mobility component, your child must meet one of the following conditions. They must:

• be unable to walk;
• be virtually unable to walk;
• have no legs or feet (from birth or through amputation);
• qualify for the highest rate of the DLA care component, be severely mentally impaired and show extremely disruptive and dangerous behaviour;
• have a severe visual impairment;
• be both blind and deaf and need the assistance of another person to walk out of doors; or
• the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to their life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in their health.

The PIP criteria can be found here www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/pip-points-system

Maybe you should look at the actusl criteria
My son gets HRM DLA under severe mental impairment
Yes he can walk for miles ,he can run ,jump even however at the age of nearly 15 ,his functioning level is that of a 2 -3 year old he cant speak at all and can only mske his basic needs known
He goes to a school for children with severe to profound learning disabillities.

That was tp @Blackcordoroys

Agree, I work with such a person. They don’t have a car but claim PIP.

So they dont qualify for the HRM then.?

I think it’s also worth remembering that unless you are the person with the disability, or you spend all day every day caring for them, then you don’t see the whole picture. You see a small part of their public persona.

Ds only gets LRM but does have a blue badge and a wheelchair. People may well see him walking, bouncing even (joys of adhd) along. What they don’t see is the agony the next day if he does too much, or the meltdowns and shut downs because he has become overwhelmed, or the sudden severe asthma attacks because he has dared to walk further than his lungs want. They just see the happy 15 year old bouncing along.

You have no idea if they do or don't based on what that poster wrote.

Which is why i asked the quetion .

It was hardly a neutral question was it? You were seeking confirmation of a statement you made. The clear implication was that the poster's colleague couldn't be on HRM which is wrong. If the poster didn't know better, they may well have just accepted what you were suggesting.

Well these two people managed to get it without significant medical evidence. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but I have no reason to lie about it.

You're right but people won't listen to you, they think that because they're not fraudulently claiming and have told the truth then everyone else must do the same.

The poster wssent clear though, there are two elements to PIP care and mobility
And as this thread shows loads of posters seem to have no idea of the criteria to qualify but are outraged anyway that others qualify.

It doesnt need to be medical evidence
For evidence we used my sons EHCP IEP
Statrment from learning disabillity team
Disabillity social worker ststement
Statement from class teacher.

Do you believe 40% of drivers in Northern Ireland fit one of these categories?

Do you believe every driver in NI buys a brand new car?

40% of brand new cars is astronomical. New cars have a premium attached to them because they are considered so desirable. They often depreciate the second you drive the car off the forecourt. This is why so few people can afford to buy brand new. They are a luxury in themselves.

so if motability was stopped overnight you would reduce the new car - and as such within a few years used car pool - by 20-40% which would push prices of used cars even higher. So who exactly benefits again?

Well, that’s a different argument. Giving billions of government money to keep used car prices lower might be something you would argue for - I wouldn’t. I think there are more important priorities

This is bonkers. The obvious beneficiaries are the people using Motability and using PIP to fund their brand new cars. An indirect consequence might be that the second hand market has more cars available but you can't even begin to suggest that this represents good value for the tax payer. Don't even pretend that they are somehow net beneficiaries of all of this because they aren't.