Jump to content


bedofweeds

PIP - Decision on distance for PIP

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2125 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

At last, the government have now finally decided on the distance that will be used to measure Enhanced mobility for PIP - it is agreed at 20 metres.

 

This will once and for all weed out those that can walk the width of a football field yet are deemed so disabled that their mobility is seriously compromised and were awarded the highest rate of DLA mobility element.

 

We are now going to see that only those that are truly the most disabled and vulnerable in society, mobility wise, being handed a free car.

 

I can't wait to hear the screams and shouts from those part time walking stick owners and crutch wobblers that you hardly ever see the bottom of the stick/crutch touching the floor. Those that appear to be on their last leg one minute and yet are able to run around with their children the next. What fun we are going to have.

 

As I have said before I will be the first in the queue to have my HRM & MRC taken off me when PIP goes national provided that the 10's of thousands of others do the same so that the money available in the PIP pot is directed only at those with the most serious of care needs and mobility issues.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251631/pip-mobility-consultation-government-response.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, the car isn't free. If you go by that logic, then those on benefits get a free house, free food, gas, electricity, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except, the car isn't free. If you go by that logic, then those on benefits get a free house, free food, gas, electricity, etc.

 

Those on benefits other than DLA get money from the government to be able to live a normal lifestyle. Those however on DLA and who receive HRM are given extra money to purchase their own car and pay no RFL or can exchange that money for a new car every 3 years with everything apart from fuel paid for. So to me considering that the HRM money never touches your bank, the government fund the car - which is deemed free to the claimant.

I would like to know where I can buy a new car costing up to £25,000 to include servicing, repairs, insurance, RFL etc for £55 a week - £8619 over the three year term?

 

Out of my HRM payments of £2873 a year, I have very little change left over after paying for all of the running costs excluding the loss of capital of approx. £3600 pa I have invested in the car. Insurance alone costs me over £1100 a year, not counting tyres at £185 each, brake discs and pads at £700 every 3 years, general servicing at £480 a year as well as the cost of the annual manufacturers warranty of £725 a year.

 

As this thread has nothing actually to do with mobility cars (which are free to the claimant in my opinion) I can foresee a lot of screaming and stamping of feet when the car goes back and people have to fund their own out of their own resources like the majority in this country currently have to do.

 

Being able to walk the equivalent of the width of a football pitch and be awarded HRM is to be honest a joke. Yes I too receive HRM, and have always felt guilty even though I qualify when I consider that I have been put in the same category of someone that probably couldn't put one foot in front of another.

 

Don't you too think that that is slightly ridiculous? 50 metres or 1 metre, both are under DLA said to be unable to walk.

Edited by bedofweeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 meters doesn't get you that far though.

 

164 feet? That's far enough to say that there is nothing wrong with your ability to walk! Yet the DLA criteria says that 164 feet is an acceptable distance to prove that you cannot virtually walk? Who's kidding who?

 

Now 66 feet is a more realistic limit to judge walking ability. But no doubt those that only a few years ago swore blind that they couldn't manage 164 feet without pain or severe discomfort will tragically find that when PIP comes about they will have the same problem with 66 feet. I have visions of claimants going back to their consultants asking for a rehash of their letter which originally stated that 164 feet was the maximum that they could walk - can you please substitute that figure for 66 feet? Yes I too have a written report from the spinal unit that 164 feet was my maximum, bit I am blowed if I am going to embarrass the consultant to vary the distance to suit the new regulations.

 

None of this actually deals with the new figure, so I presume that everyone is like me and thinks that it is reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm . . . not sure I agree with the 20m. For some people that's barley enough to get off there street never mind lead a full independent life! even at 50m most people can't get to a shop, bus stop or other facility. I am in favour of kicking benefit cheats off benefits, but not stripping legitimate claimants of resources that help them overcome the barriers which still exist in out society. When we have a barrier free environment (utopia) then we can move away from a benefits approach, as there will be no need for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm . . . not sure I agree with the 20m. For some people that's barley enough to get off there street never mind lead a full independent life! even at 50m most people can't get to a shop, bus stop or other facility. I am in favour of kicking benefit cheats off benefits, but not stripping legitimate claimants of resources that help them overcome the barriers which still exist in out society. When we have a barrier free environment (utopia) then we can move away from a benefits approach, as there will be no need for them.

 

The reason for the reduction is that the government want to target the most disabled in society. One way of doing this is to reduce it to 20 metres. Anybody that can walk further than that cannot be classed as the most disabled and deserving. I'm not saying that reducing the limit won't hurt some people, but with the limited resources that this country has isn't it better to give it to the most disabled?

 

I can walk just about 50 metres, 20 metres is easily attained. Would it be right for me to get the same enhanced rate as those who can't walk 20 metres? I don't think so.

 

Would I give up my award so that the most disabled can have theirs? Course I would and would expect everybody else to do the same.

 

There are only so many times that the government can divide the Welfare Budget into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...