INDEFINITE and/or LIFE TIME

[udaymorjaria]

Hi,

 

I was wondering as if I have private insurance and have award for life time or indefinite would private company/institue will able to change this like gov. has done with I.B? would that be legal by way of law?????:?::?:

[citizenB]

Do you have a copy of the policy - terms and conditions ?

[udaymorjaria]

Do you have a copy of the policy - terms and conditions ?

Sorry citizenB, I was thinking about I.B as I had an a life time/indefinite award and now it has change as we all know.

what gov. is doing is it legal?

[citizenB]

Ah right, I see you are making a comparison against a private company as opposed to the government award. Gotcha !1

 

TBH, I really dont know if it is legal or not - If you do have a lifetime or indefinite award, short of them providing absolute proof that you have no entitlement - then I am not sure how the "government" can renege on that.

[antone]

Sorry citizenB, I was thinking about I.B as I had an a life time/indefinite award and now it has change as we all know.

what gov. is doing is it legal?

 

Yes, it is legal. A life insurance policy is governed by civil contract law, and as CitizenB noted, the terms and conditions will dictate what each party to the contract is required to do.

 

Benefits are not governed this way. Parliament passes laws that define how benefits are paid.

[antone]

TBH, I really dont know if it is legal or not - If you do have a lifetime or indefinite award, short of them providing absolute proof that you have no entitlement - then I am not sure how the "government" can renege on that.

 

The key here is that while the government is bound by its own laws, it is also able to change the laws. So if the party in government doesn't like lifetime entitlement to IB, it just legislates it away. Simple, elegant and perfectly legal - albeit reprehensible.

[citizenB]

Thanks antone, that makes things a lot clearer

[Galeforce81]

Or creates new benefits like ESA and PIP so it can create different rules.

[Nystagmite]

It says on my DLA award that it's indefinite; but they may contact me from time to time to check that I'm on the right rates. Or something like that.

[Invalidation]

The key here is that while the government is bound by its own laws, it is also able to change the laws. So if the party in government doesn't like lifetime entitlement to IB, it just legislates it away. Simple, elegant and perfectly legal - albeit reprehensible.

I have stated previously that if the DWP/DLA have stated you are 'Disabled for life' and you then get denied the same rate of PIP, they cannot simply wipe that away with a few bits of paper. They may think they can but I suspect a High Court Judge and the ECHR will think differently.

People have had to change their entire lifestyles and made life changing decisions based on the DLA's statement that they were Disabled for life. I would go so far as to say that a Contract existed, though that would need to be tested. But they cannot get away with stating one thing then simply changing their minds without being challenged and facing the consequences should they then lose.

I will be quite happy to challenge them in court and then the ECHR should my DLA/PIP be reduced.

[antone]

I have stated previously that if the DWP/DLA have stated you are 'Disabled for life' and you then get denied the same rate of PIP, they cannot simply wipe that away with a few bits of paper. They may think they can but I suspect a High Court Judge and the ECHR will think differently.

People have had to change their entire lifestyles and made life changing decisions based on the DLA's statement that they were Disabled for life. I would go so far as to say that a Contract existed, though that would need to be tested. But they cannot get away with stating one thing then simply changing their minds without being challenged and facing the consequences should they then lose.

I will be quite happy to challenge them in court and then the ECHR should my DLA/PIP be reduced.

 

Go for it - I don't post these things because I agree with them, but because I think I'm reading the law correctly. I would dearly love to be proven wrong. I do think it's a stretch to say that a "contract" exists between a benefit recipient and the government, but if someone can make that view stick, heck, I won't be arguing.

[Invalidation]

Go for it - I don't post these things because I agree with them, but because I think I'm reading the law correctly. I would dearly love to be proven wrong. I do think it's a stretch to say that a "contract" exists between a benefit recipient and the government, but if someone can make that view stick, heck, I won't be arguing.

 

I do think a contract exists, on a basic legal basis there is offer and acceptance. I accept the fact that THEY state I am Disabled for life. They made that decision not I, their offer was Incapacity benefits and DLA. They would pay me those benefits based on a set of contractual rules which I had to follow. There are other issues which I consider form a contract but I'll pass over them at the moment.

But apart from the contractual argument:

Because of decisions THEY made, I was forced to make life changing decisions that I might not have otherwise made if they had not said that. By making that decision that I was Disabled for life they made me (and many others) enter into a mental state, that we effectively had no future, no hope, no chance and we had to change our life to meet those challenges.

There are many decisions that I had to make back in the early 90's that, had they not told me I was Disabled for life that I would not have made.

They cannot simply wipe those decisions away with a few pages of new rules, without some fists and strong words flying. If they now are moving the goalposts telling some of us we are NOT Disabled for life then someone is responsible.

[udaymorjaria]

I do think a contract exists, on a basic legal basis there is offer and acceptance. I accept the fact that THEY state I am Disabled for life. They made that decision not I, their offer was Incapacity benefits and DLA. They would pay me those benefits based on a set of contractual rules which I had to follow. There are other issues which I consider form a contract but I'll pass over them at the moment.

But apart from the contractual argument:

Because of decisions THEY made, I was forced to make life changing decisions that I might not have otherwise made if they had not said that. By making that decision that I was Disabled for life they made me (and many others) enter into a mental state, that we effectively had no future, no hope, no chance and we had to change our life to meet those challenges.

There are many decisions that I had to make back in the early 90's that, had they not told me I was Disabled for life that I would not have made.

They cannot simply wipe those decisions away with a few pages of new rules, without some fists and strong words flying. If they now are moving the goalposts telling some of us we are NOT Disabled for life then someone is responsible.

I can not agree more with you I am in same boat

[udaymorjaria]

Yes, it is legal. A life insurance policy is governed by civil contract law, and as CitizenB noted, the terms and conditions will dictate what each party to the contract is required to do.

 

Benefits are not governed this way. Parliament passes laws that define how benefits are paid.

Yes you are right but once it has agreed by law can this changed ?

i just read some where that once it is in writing it can not be changed however for new claiment it is new rule and new law dose apply.

I personaly think this is wrong