Please explain how you believe the Code of Practice has been breached
Section 1 ( i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
The article refers several times to a 'free car' the Motability scheme is not a free car, but a car paid for by an individual if they qualify for the higher rate mobility element of DLA - this money would still be paid to that individual if they did not apply for the Motability scheme.
It also states that 'Some doctors believe the big rise in the number of children said to have ADHD is a direct result of their parents? right to claim disability benefit of up to £10,000 a year.' A diagnosis of ADHD does not qualify a parent to any benefits, the care needs of a child with ADHD may entitle the child to DLA, but not just a diagnosis.
It goes on to state that To get the mobility element, families of sufferers must prove they need ?guidance or supervision most of the time from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places?. This is in fact the qualifier for the lower rate mobility component of DLA not the higher rate. The lower rate mobility component does not qualify and individual for the Motability scheme. this statement is then repeated in the box entitled 'HOW THE MOTABILITY CAR SYSTEM WORKS'.
This box also states that 'The claim should be backed up by a doctor?s reference.
More than half of claims are approved without further checks.'
To claim DLA a parent must outline a child's care needs, a doctor must also give their opinion as well as the child's school, at least one other professional involved with the child and another person who knows the child. Proof is also asked for in the form of any relevant paperwork.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.)
12 ( i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.)
The article starts 'Iain Duncan Smith has ordered a crackdown on thousands of families with youngsters diagnosed with ?naughty child syndrome? who get new cars paid for by the state.'
Naughty child syndrome is a prejorative reference. The article also in no way makes it clear that most Motability cars are hired and not owned at the end of the 3 year term.
that's my complaint - if anyone wants a read over it