What do people actually expect DLA to be spent on??

[Whoknowshey]

This comes off a thread I read recently where a poster was being criticised for spending DLA on a fridge .

Im curious as to what people think DLA / PIP should be spent on ? Due to various circumstances I am aware of what people spend it on and I also have a child in receipt PIP so I know how theirs gets spent . Some differs to how my child’s is spent. Some I agree with , some I don’t but the fact is it’s for the individuals needs and that varies massively. Especially with non physical disabilities it would be hard to spend it on things directly related to their needs but there are many ways in which it affects their lives that it can help with .

Some I have came across;

• theme park passes- the child cannot do what others can , going out with friends etc . The passes give the opportunity to enjoy childhood safely.
• Toys/ things for hyperfocuses - a hyper focus is a form of regulation . To some it may look like an obsession with a character but it’s actually a way for the individual to regulate.
• Towards the family income because parents cannot work.
• Furniture - lots can get destroyed due to the individuals issues.
• Save it towards the child’s future . The child may not ever be able to get a job and adult social care is appalling .

I think all those things are justified . But I have seen comments against that.

My child has PIP as a young adult. They have a part of the money as theirs to do with what they wish ( which can be wasted hence why they do not have it all and I am their appointee - but also they have no way of having extra money as cannot work nor claim any benefits , have to stay in education to hold on to that EHCP and to help with their life skills etc ) A part goes into the house because I care for them financially as though they are a child - yet usually parents do not have to do this with an adult child. They know exactly what they are paying for with this - rent, shopping etc, social groups. It doesn’t really touch what I spend on them as the majority actually goes on a mobility car , because they have to be taken to most places . This way they are paying bills etc as they see it - an itemised of what they pay - because I know if they go in to supported living it will be eaten up by that and I don’t want them to get used to just having all that money, I think the way I do it is justified as it is for their needs ( food aversions so more expensive shop , get through clothes very quickly due to sensory issues , hyper focuses , social groups specific to their needs ) .

A bit fed up of seeing people attacked because someone doesn’t deem what they spend as “ for their needs “ yet those needs are so vast .

Interested on thoughts.

I can understand that too, in cases where life will continue to be extremely challenging for an individual once they reach adulthood. Not so much in the case of @somethingbrown who has admitted that their child will lead an entirely normal life, going to uni and doing whatever they want to do.

And if that ends up costing more in the long run?

Why would you post something like this when the vast, vast, vast majority of us on DLA/PIP/CA are just scraping by?

Even if it's true and you appear to have no ethical concerns with this, why would you inflame the situation for others??

Jesus Christ.

It will. No DLA/pip means no carers allowance. Which is a paltry amount. Kids will be turned over to the state because parents won't be able to afford to care for them.

I suppose people will be happy about that, because their almighty tax pounds will be going to the bare bones of survival.

The recent high very earning poster is unusual. I don't think extreme examples should be used to justify cutting DLA ( unless you are someone enjoying putting the boot in).

Would you be ok with even larger numbers of disabled people and their families living in poverty with only their "survival" needs being met?

I also think that, like the fraud claims, we should be a bit wary of these highly unusual cases on these threads.

It may be true or it could be a poster with an agenda, it's impossible to tell.

This thread isn’t about UC.

Some people won’t be happy until that is exactly what is happening.

It's extremely hard to get HRM under SMI too
I think it's a bit dismissive to say people with neuro divergence can apply under SMi its a lot more complicated than that as the spectrum is huge ,and the child has to actually be severely mentally impaired ,many people with autism will be of at least average intelligence ,however some like my son are severely mentally impaired
So he's 15,but cognitively around 2 or3 ,he's completely non verbal ,and can only communicate on a very basic basis he goes to a special school for children with severe and profound learning disabilities, exhibits extremely challenging behaviour, has zero awareness of danger ,you get the picture ?
That's SMi.

People don’t realise how much cheaper it is for the system to run like this.

I get under around 2600 a month in total that is the higher end and we live in London so rent elements are higher - if she wasn’t disabled and I was a person who didn’t work and was on normal
what I am trained to

IV fluids
IV meds including iv antibiotics
iv dressing changes
emergency care
taking bloods
physio
and more ….

if we didn’t get the help then I would be back at work full time meaning - she would either need to be in hospital / hospice care or a full time nursing at home which would need to be a team because one nurse can’t work 7 days a week
aswell as daily physio for chest therapy and other things

that would cost a hell of a lot more than 2600 a month

Well that depends, I'm.not disputing anyone's right to save their child's DLA if they can afford it however when the child is an adult if they have a large amount of savings that would make them ineligible for other means tested benefits

the child has to actually be severely mentally impaired ,many people with autism will be of at least average intelligence

I agree HRM under the SMI criteria isn’t easy to get. However, it can sometimes be possible to show a severe impairment of intelligence even if a child technically has average or above average intelligence (e.g. they have an average/above average IQ) if they have difficulty applying their intelligence in the real world or have no sense of danger. Although obviously many will still not be eligible.

Maybe they had a fridge that’s too small to store food drinks and medicine. I have an built in under counter fridge and it’s tiny - I couldn’t suddenly store a fortnight worth of insulin in there

Let’s not forget it was Thatcher who introduced Care in the Community in order to close down all the institutions where people with disabilities were destined to spend their lives. This was because running the homes was a massive cost. Paying people this additional benefit was meant to make it easier for them to live in the community. Thousands of unpaid carers now carry the burden of this cost. Heaven forbid they might use the money to buy a more suitable fridge or take their disabled person on a day out!

To be honest, my children's DLA goes in the household budget because their disabilities mean I have to take a heavy hit on what I can work and their disability costs are the impact on the household income and trying to stay afloat.

Maybe, but maybe they didn't. Maybe they simply needed a new fridge like everyone does from time to time....

Just before the thread ends, I just want remind some people to take a long hard look at themselves and how disgusting they are. 👍🏼

I would also like to remind people that forums like this are intended for important debates and discussions. This will include sensitive topics that some that people will find distressing. It is highly likely that disability benefits will be reformed in the medium term and who is elected next into power will shape this. Trying to create an echo chamber and shutting down alternative opinions with insults won't benefit anybody in the end and certainly not the vulnerable disabled people you are presumably trying to ultimately protect. Democracy will decide and it's currently looking clear which party is ahead. We need to navigate a sensible and sustainable path that meets the need of the most vulnerable in society. Insisting on everything for everyone is unlikely to cut the mustard and could simply dilute any arguments for vital support.

Insisting on everything for everyone is unlikely to cut the mustard and could simply dilute any arguments for vital support.

This sentence alone proves how little you understand the issue.

No one get's everything. Certainly not everyone.

What a load of tripe.

As has been stated several times you can judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable,

We are a comparatively weathy nation. The vast majority of claimants spend way more (or lose in income) than they claim on disability related costs.

Means testing or introducing vouchers will cost more than the current system.

No one decent would support this.

It is also ignorant of the fact that it will cost society, and the public purse ultimately, more in the long run. But who cares, eh? So long as we are kicking the most vulnerable.

Absolutely @lifeturnsonadime.

I don’t know why people think vouchers would be any better or prevent fraud. You only have to look at when Healthy Start vouchers existed to see that isn’t true. And they were much lower value. It is now paid via a pre-paid card, but was previously vouchers. It didn’t work. For example, some shops would accept the vouchers as payment for items they shouldn’t. Some would exchange them for cash.

Important debates about what you think DLA should be spent on when you’re not living someone else’s life and don’t face the challenges they face? That absolutely blows my mind.

It is possible to debate something without being ignorant or dismissive of children’s disabilities.