|
Ethan - thats how it how it works. Basic cars require no upfront payment, if you want something better you have to pay towards it.
|
|
But how does one easily recognise a DLA car?, I appreciate if one inspects the "tax" disc one could estabilsh the status, but not easily.
I do know that there was a motion mooted to restrict the choice of car available to more basic models, i suspect that the otherwise affulent disabled were running Range rovers or Land Cruiser Amazons and thus getting the benefit of even more free " road tax"
One could reasonably surmise that if one can afford such a fancy vehicle one should not require any finincial assistence.
PS
A quick look along Royal Avenue in Belfast would be educational, nowt but blue badges, it is also remarkable how many young fit women regularly go shopping for their disabled granny,or other relative, and in such surprising shops too, judging by the bags being toted back to the car.
I was also the subject of much rude & intemperate language when I once enquired off such a young "lady" if she was actually disabled.
Gosh what made me so judgmental.
But that does not mean I am always wrong.
just a thought.
M
Edited by dieseldogg on 07/12/2011 at 13:54
|
But how does one easily recognise a DLA car?, I appreciate if one inspects the "tax" disc one could estabilsh the status, but not easily.
Good. Thats the point. You're not supposed to be able to recognise one because its none of your business. The whole point of providing help for the disabled is they can live a normal life, not stick out like a flourescent beacon. My mums tax disc will say Disabled on it but its not a Motability car, its bought and paid for.
I was also the subject of much rude & intemperate language when I once enquired off such a young "lady" if she was actually disabled.
Maybe you should keep your mouth shut and get on with your own life instead of interfearing with others.
You epitomise the sort of pigheaded prejudice promoted by the Daily Mail which disability charities fight every single day. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Good. Thats as it should be.
|
This would allow the general public who pay for these vehicles to moniter any misuse (ie their use as a taxi) & report same.
You do know that plenty of disabled people also go to work and pay taxes. Disability doesnt know a social class. You cannot seperate 'the disabled' from 'the general public'.
We dont want the 'general public' pretending to be the police, acting like busybodies sticking their noses in other peoples business. It doesnt concern them, its not their job to 'monitor' anything. How would you feel if you were disabled and every time you went out you had the general public 'monitoring' your movements and staring at you to find out if you're really disabled.
My mother's disabled and if 'the general public' did that to her i'd smash their faces in, quite frankly. She is eligable for a Motability car but chooses to not have one, instead she is VED exempt on her own car (The tax disc says Disabled £0.00 on it). She also goes to work and pays tax which damages your pigheaded theory.
While we're at it 'DLA cars' as you describe them are only offered to those on Disability Living Allowance with the Higher Rate of Care meaning theres several processes to go through before you'd get to it, its not like walking in a Job Centre and signing on, my mother had to wait four years to get approved for her Higher Rate due to all the 25-odd-page forms and assessments which are designed to stop people bothering applying and indeed for a long time she didnt bother as it was too much hassle. You could be decapitated and they still reject your first application by default.
DLA has an extremely low fraud rate and to get a half decent car requires quite a sizable down payment, ignore internet stories of 'my mate got an M3 on disability for £200' because its total nonsense. The terms and conditions are quite strict, you have it serviced when they tell you, it has to be spotless when it goes in for a yearly inspection, if its being used as a taxi and clocking up mega mileages they WILL notice, make no question of that.
Lastly as someone who spent nearly two years controlling finances for a disability charity and having a disabled parent i find your outlook to be pathetic. Every single day these charities work to make the life of a disabled person as normal as possible, we dont want to stick 'disability car' down the side of their vehicles and pigeon hole them, like putting a big sign on their head, thats not what we do in this country. Your mentality seperates disabled people from everybody else which is 100% against what we try to achieve.
Edited by Avant on 08/12/2011 at 22:55
|
|
Gee hi!, folks wind your necks in, a little, my wife is also disabled,& with a blue card.
And I do have to admit when pushing her about in a wheelchair that one realizes the difficulties involved in being disabled, and the general lack of disabled provision.
And I can emphatically assure you that Northern Ireland is a little out of kilter with the rest of the UK in respect of blatent abuse of DLA cars & the blue card system.
Perhaps the number of kneecapping has had some little effect.
But i doubt quite so much to account for the disparity.
As in even abused by an MLA = Member of Local Assembly
Fact.
So ya boo sucks!
Oh Ps
Both of my parents would easily have qualifed for DLA cars but refused to apply, such is the esteem in which a DLA car driver is held in the local community, mostly for good reason, there are the genunine ones too I am aware.
Edited by dieseldogg on 07/12/2011 at 16:17
|
|
Then it sounds like the problem is with the incompetant Northern Ireland administration and not with the appearence of the vehicles.
|
|
Jamie's comments in this thread are spot on.
DLA is a social security benefit paid to those with either or both care and mobility needs. For mobility its paid at two rates the higher of which is worth about £60 a week and is payable to those who are unable or virtually unable to walk. Its a general benefit paid without a means teast and irrespective of employment status. Which is right enough 'cos disabiity is no respecter of income or job.
Through the motability scheme recipients of Higher Rate can surrender their benefit in exchange for a lease car. Because Motability is not for profit and a very big player it gets very good lease rates. You can get quite a good car just by surrendering the benefit and a better one by paying a down payment, just like with PCP. As in the rest of the market lease rates don't just follow a bigger car = bigger cost formula. Premium brands with low depreciation are cheaper than you think. Thats why the scheme can supply BMW's at affordable prices.
Unfortunately a national newspaper has been running a mendacious camapign suggesting that taxpayers are directly supplying luxury cars to the undeserving poor. This is of course a lie but when did truth ever get in the way of circulation.
None of this of course justifies the relative who uses the Motability car for his own purposes or as a minicab. Fraud should be stamped on, but that won't be acheived by making life more difficult for the genuinely diabled.
To adapt the French parking space thing - If you take my car you should take my disability.
|
Unfortunately a national newspaper has been running a mendacious camapign suggesting that taxpayers are directly supplying luxury cars to the undeserving poor. This is of course a lie but when did truth ever get in the way of circulation.
This is part of a wide problem of misinformation. You say 'disability benefit' to people and they assume the recipients are poor, disability is not related to income and nor is DLA. Part of the reason why DLA has such a low fraud rate is that its not based on income or circumstances, it is based purely on your physical condition. Too many people confuse DLA with Employment Support Allowance - which has replaced the old Incapacity Benefit - which is a living benefit like Jobseekers Allowance based on income and employment status, ie thats what you'd claim if disabled without income.
Indication as to the purpose of Disability Living Allowance is to be found in the title, its to help disabled people live as normally as possible. It is not there just to be paid to poor people and encourage them to stay at home, its there to fund things to make their lives easier, ie as close to normal as the lives you and i live.
In terms of the cars themselves i know people who have a C-Max on motability and that was not a cheap downpayment. In fact sometimes the bottom-end premium makes are cheaper. Any company car driver will tell you how overpriced Ford are with their list prices, BMW's are more cost effective. In terms of abuse of the vehicle, the dealers would soon spot if it was being used as a long distance taxi. Its also worth mentioning that people can use the motability car (providing they're insured) to do things on the disabled persons behalf even if they stay at home so just because you've seen someone get out of a motability car and stroll into a chemist doesnt mean they're abusing the facility. My mother debated a motability car but she'd rather have the money instead, she didnt want it paying for a 3 year lease and not even owning the car at the end of it. It doesnt make sense for everyone.
|
|
Good - this thread has gone back to being a reasoned discussion. Please keep it that way.
|
|
I am aware of all the facts and supporting arguments as above.
I however have been offered a car for a high risk (but only because he is 19) Son on the disability, by reputable car dealers.
I know a gentlman who keeps his nutter of a grandson in a DLA Car, cos otherwise he would not be insurable. The grandfather basically has no access to the Car.
I know of another with a crushed foot (not badly) who gets a DLA car, but only on appael. He is 90 plus % fit.imho
I know a gentleman with a leg off below the knee, and astounding mobility who gets a DLA car, this despite a humoungeous payout from the NHS.
So there are "anomolies"
I know of a lowlife with a DLA car for his (genuninely) disabled Son, said son is ferried everywhere in a Social Services paid taxi, cos dad is too busy doing other things to take the Son out.Huh?
A good friend, who worked in car finance, had the facts relating to DLA car abuse in Derry/Londonderry , it was and probably still is rife.
These are all Motibility cars.
I could cite various others, sorry folks but here in NI the genunine cases appear to be mimimal.
But I accept they must Exist.
So whichever paper that is running this campaign is NOT WRONG, entirely,
PS
I only occasionally take the Daily telegraph, but no other Daily Wail or other rubbish.
|
|
But dieseldogg what have YOU done to report any of these cases? If you think there is fraud going on let the Authorities know. Motability do remove cars from those abusing the system, but unfortunately they can't have someone tracking every car 24 hours a day. If you suspect a fraud report it!
|
|
The issue is little to do with DLA cars, it's about abuse of the DLA itself.
The reason DLA is there at all is clearly justified for those who genuinely qualify, as indeed is any other state benefit for those who genuinely qualify.
Benefit fraud, in whatever form, is a cost to all of us and needs stamping out by a combination of:- deeper scrutiny during initial application, regular scrutiny during the period of payment and reporting by the public of suspected fraud.
Fraud is the issue, not DLA cars.
|
|
I have no issue with either comment as above, as yes, I agree fraud is the underlying problem, and I suspect that those In authority can only be too well aware of the glaring abuse of the system in N Ireland.
And as commented above, I have some direct insight as to some of the difficulties the disabled face on a daily basis.
Perhaps a FOI request or question in Parliment would prove illuminating?
Regarding the Northern ireland statistics.
But in the meantime, as they say over here; "the very dogs in the street know"
But nothing is done, that I or others are aware of, though I am also aware of the much published tightening up of the scheme elsewhere.
Cheers
M
|
|
DD, I'd happily take your word that there's a particular problem in NI. Part of a wider disrespect for law that is a legacy of the troubles?
The paper covering the subject was the Mail and the viewpoint 'middle England'.
I wouldn't read too much into somebody getting it 'only on appeal'. Initial decisions are made by relatively junior staff in the Benefits Dept. Appeals are heard by a Tribunal chaired by a Judge with medical and or disabilty 'wing members' sitting with them.
In England and Wales approaching 40% of appeals find in favour of the claimant.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 08/12/2011 at 12:46
|
I wouldn't read too much into somebody getting it 'only on appeal'. Initial decisions are made by relatively junior staff in the Benefits Dept. Appeals are heard by a Tribunal chaired by a Judge with medical and or disabilty 'wing members' sitting with them.
Its worth pointing out that since the Government launched its replacement for Incapacity Benefit the appeal success rate has shot up. You get assessed by someone no more qualified than a physiotherapist - the people who assess you arent even doctors - who declares people with no legs and brain tumours to be fit for work and wonder why they win the appeal. ESA has a 40% appeal success rate when the case is assessed independantly at Tribunal by qualified experts, the company who runs the assessments are obviously paid by targets, if they dont declare people fit then they dont get paid. The point is if a system works then your appeal success rate should be extremely low. These stats just prove the Government wants to kick people off sickness benefit whether they need it or not, if they do need it then they'll change the rules to make sure they dont.
The problem is we have a Government which believes the entire deficit can be solved by kicking the poor and disabled and David Cameron is happy to cut millions off of Adult Social Care in the same week he finds £40million to give to the Olympics lot to dance around in a funny outfit next year. The man makes my skin crawl.
|
|
Hi RT et al
The issue is little to do with DLA cars, it's about abuse of the DLA itself.
I disagree. The issue is about eligibility for the allowance which then triggers automoatic eligibility for the Motability car.
I also know a number of people whose close relatives qualify for the higher rate allowance & have a motability car which is used not exclusively, but in the main by the relative of the claimant & occasionally by the claimant or to transport him / her around.
Now just like everyone else on here, I do not know exactly how many people who are in receipt of the allowance have limited mobility, many do, but I for one know of some who have perfect mobility but qualify for some unknown reason.
What I do know is that there are many, many dealerships in this country who sell 50% or more of their new cars on motobility. One dealership I know sold 80% of their cars up to October this year on the scheme.
I believe wholeheartedly that the motability scheme is great news for those with severe mobility problem & I am happy that my taxes pay towards this. I am equally very unhappy that my taxes are used to pay for a new car every year (plus insurance & breakdown cover) to those with perfect mobility.
|
Hi RT et al
The issue is little to do with DLA cars, it's about abuse of the DLA itself.
I disagree. The issue is about eligibility for the allowance
I think that means we agree
|
|
How would you feel if you were disabled and every time you went out you had all of the degenerate ***** of the general public 'monitoring' your movements and staring at you to find out if you're really disabled.
. Your mentality seperates disabled people from everybody else which is 100% against what we try to achieve.
Jamie, I find the use of the term "****" as you have used it very very offensive. When some of your opinions are so very to the point, WHY OH WHY do you go and ruin it by contradicting yourself in the same article and being so damned offensive.
Moderators, Please ask jamie to be moderate in his comments!
Edited by Avant on 08/12/2011 at 22:58
|
|
I know we live in a country where 12 complaints get an advert banned entirely but dont you think you're making a fuss over nothing?
|
|
It is not nothing. it is offensive! sorry jamie, you need to engage brain BEFORE writing such stuff.
|
|
Its only offensive because you've decided to be offended by it in a pathetic attempt to reduce a thread to pointless arguing.
|
Its only offensive because you've decided to be offended by it in a pathetic attempt to reduce a thread to pointless arguing.
It's generally regarded as offensive because it derives from Mongol or Mongolism which are archaic descriptions for the condition we now call Down's Syndrome.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 08/12/2011 at 14:14
|
|
Well very little offends me.
Edited by Avant on 08/12/2011 at 23:03
|
|
No more argument please on this - I'm quite sure that ORB and Bromptonaut speak for the great majority of us. That particular expression, which I've asterisked out, is patently offensive to disabled people and those who care for them.
Jamie, you make plenty of good points, particularly from your own family's experience. Don't give a good pail of milk and then kick the pail over.
|
|
Our neighbour has MS and is so ill that she had a new extensio built by a local authority grant and has a Mobility supplied car.
A friend has astham which is so bad he gets DLA grant and a blue badge.
Point is if these people are so ill that they need blue badges and DLA grants, should they be driving?
Quote "ts worth pointing out that since the Government launched its replacement for Incapacity Benefit the appeal success rate has shot up. You get assessed by someone no more qualified than a physiotherapist - the people who assess you arent even doctors - who declares people with no legs and brain tumours to be fit for work and wonder why they win the appeal".
Why would someone with no legs not be fit able to work?
|
|
This thread will do well to concentrate now on the issue raised - controversially but fairly - by Skittles above.
My feeling is that provided that someone's disability doesn't make them unable to drive safely - and this can be medically assessed - then the independence given them by their mobility is something precious to them, even a lifeline.
|
|
Ok several point. The disabled person isnt neccessarily the driver and in probably more than half of cases they're not, the car is supplied to them and they get a family member to drive them in it. The disabled person also doesnt need to be driving to be able to use the blue badge. I know somebody with severe MS who has a Citroen Berlingo supplied by motability, adapted for wheelchair use and they have a relative drive them in it. As a short sideline, if you park 2 inches behind something which clearly says 'disabled vehicle, keep clear' its really not helpful.
There's several reasons why somebody may be granted a blue badge. You're entitled to one if you're registered blind so someone can drive you closer to places and reduce the roads you'd have to cross etc. Many people dont realise this and go 'that person is walking fine!!' when in fact they may be blind but of perfectly able mobility.
Why would someone with no legs not be fit able to work?
Im glad you've asked that question actually because for two years i worked controlling budgets and finances for a subsidy-reliant disability charity so i am in a position to know a few of the technicalities that maybe the uninterested average John in the street doesnt. In essence theres no particular reason why somebody with no legs couldnt do some form of work, theres triple amputees who were severely injured in Afghanistan who are on a Rally team for goodness sake which is proof that we should never tell people they cannot do things.
The problem arises when we consider basic practicality. First is the company enlisted by the Government to carry out assessments have a financially motivated remit - get people off the sick. This is not only crass but also a massive waste of money as the NHS should be doing this themselves, the people who will assess you for disability benefit are physiotherapists, they are not doctors. You can be signed off by an independant GP then some physio comes in and declares you fit for work, in my view thats ridiculous. As a result of this, 40% of appeals are successful. If your system works your appeal success rate should be extremely low.
This results in bizarre cases like one recently of a woman with severe mental, learning and lower body mobility problems was told she was fit for work because she managed to use one hand to type (incredibly slowly) on a computer so she was deemed fit to work in an office. Now you may argue thats technically fine but practically its pathetic. No employer is going to take that person on, that person is going to get switched from Incapacity Benefit onto Job Seekers Allowance which pays a bit less and they're going to stay there for the rest of their lives. It meets the remit of 'get people off the sick' but it just lumps them on JSA instead.
This brings me on to my biggest point, i support helping disabled people into work, ive met some people in wheelchairs who are incredible computer programmers for instance. However in the past if you were disabled and went for a job but needed specialist equipment like a certain kind of chair or table or keyboard etc to help you your employer could buy them and claim it back from the Government and this was vital in helping disabled people into work. This Government has scrapped funding for that sort of thing - at the same time they reduced disabled peoples looking-for-work income by putting them on JSA instead of the new disability benefit making it harder to fund things themselves. A major issue has always been making it economically viable for employers, subsidising material equipment meant employers could employ a disabled person for the same cost as employing anybody else, that is no longer possible. And some of the specialist office equipment some disabled people need is very expensive by the way. So to answer your question that is why they 'could' go to work but wont be able to due to this system.
What employer is going to pay extra to employ a disabled person when they could save themselves a stackload of cash and effort by employing an able bodied person? With unemployment as high as it is, employers have plenty of choice and nobody could blame them for taking the easy option. This Government is kicking people off the sick, onto JSA, telling them they're fit for work and then making it completely impossible for them to go to work and frankly they should be ashamed of themselves.
Apologies for the length of post Avant but there was alot to get through.
|
|
Extremely well written Jamie. now can you run for parliament, yuo would get my vote in this case!
|
that person is going to get switched from Incapacity Benefit onto Job Seekers Allowance which pays a bit less and they're going to stay there for the rest of their lives. It meets the remit of 'get people off the sick' but it just lumps them on JSA instead.
One of the reasons for the government wants to switch people over from Incapacity Benefit oe ESA as it's now called, to JSA is that JSA - unlike ESA - only lasts 6 months and is then means tested.
So if an ESA claimant has a working partner that will very likely mean the end of any benefit payment 6 months after being declared fit to work by the tribunals run by ATOS Healthcare.
That's behind the drive to move people over to JSA - The government knows there arn't the jobs available to employ the majority of these folk but they will be able to stop paying anyone with savings/working partner etc.
J
|
One of the reasons for the government wants to switch people over from Incapacity Benefit oe ESA as it's now called, to JSA is that JSA - unlike ESA - only lasts 6 months and is then means tested.
So if an ESA claimant has a working partner that will very likely mean the end of any benefit payment 6 months after being declared fit to work by the tribunals run by ATOS Healthcare.
And, if after appeal, someone is deemed fit to work in some capacity, and allowing for the fact that THERE ARE people cheating the system then they should lose those benefits. If the other "partner" is working, why should those of us who have worked all our lives pay for their "lifestyle choice". I firmly believe that as a society we should care about those who are in need, but the OP on this thread was trying to draw attention to the fact that there ARE abuses of the systems, and quite rightly that these things should be strictly monitored. The root problem is that those who were "encouraged " to be off the unemployed register by being declared unfit for work, in many cases then getting extra benefits because they were able to has poisoned opinion for those who genuinely need help.
Those who need help, give it to them, but punish the cheaters!
|
One of the reasons for the government wants to switch people over from Incapacity Benefit oe ESA as it's now called,
Im aware its called ESA now but most people have no idea what it is so i used the term Incapacity Benefit for the purposes of this thread.
to JSA is that JSA - unlike ESA - only lasts 6 months and is then means tested.
Even thats not strictly correct either. If you claim Contributions Based JSA - which you can claim if you've worked for the two years prior to claiming - then you get it for 6 months before its means tested based on income. However the point is the people they're shoving onto JSA from Incapacity have most likely not worked for years so they wont get 6 months 'free' JSA, they'll be means tested as 'income based' from the start and may lose everything straight away.
So if an ESA claimant has a working partner that will very likely mean the end of any benefit payment 6 months after being declared fit to work by the tribunals run by ATOS Healthcare.
Or it could push that family into poverty and force the working partner to give up work (removing income and making them eligable for JSA) and rely totally on benefits in order to live, especially if they're on a low salary. Hardly progressive is it?
That's behind the drive to move people over to JSA - The government knows there arn't the jobs available to employ the majority of these folk but they will be able to stop paying anyone with savings/working partner etc.
Exactly, thats just kicking disabled people for the sake of it so as the Government can show middle England how big and strong they are. Like the playground bully picking on the smallest kid. 'Lets kick and smash the vulnerable people who wont vote for us anyway, it wont save any money but hey it'll be fun and the Daily Mail will like us' will probably be the tagline of Cameron's book.
To add a bit of balance i think Work and Pensions Minister Duncan-Smith is a sensible person who's trying to do a fair job but he's being consistently undermined by those above him such as Clegg's decision over tax credits which IDS wasnt aware of until it appeared in the Autumn Statement. IDS' statement upon taking office was to 'make work pay' but decisions made by others is making that task of his very difficult.
|
So if a working partner that will very likely mean the end of any benefit payment 6 months after being declared fit to work by the tribunals run by ATOS Healthcare.
Just to be clear the bit run by ATOS is the medical assessment which in turn informs the 'DHSS' decision maker. The appeal tribunals are still comprised of a judge and (usually) medical and/or legal members adminstered by the Tribunal Service.
Those with an anorak's interest in the subject might like to read Professor Malcolm Harrington's reports on the Work Capabilty Assessment process.
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out Bromptonaut i forgot to mention Atos have nothing to with Tribunals which is why 40% of appeals are successful. You take Atos out of the equation and suddenly people are deemed not fit for work. Hmmmm. A Tribunal is comprised of a proper Judge and real medical experts, all of them independant of course and in 40% of cases they rule against the Atos hacks.
If that doesnt prove they're declaring people fit for work wrongly just to get their bonus then i dont know what does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
