[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

So far, 43% of disabled people have lost their adapted cars as a result of being moved onto PIP:

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/...-adapted-cars/

Meanwhile, it appears that Esther McVey is being called out again with her falsehoods. This time by a fellow Tory MP regarding the Motability Scheme (Lord Sterling who founded the scheme):

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/...on-motability/

And?

There recently was a documentary (on channel 5?) about problems with parking. One person was a Blue Badge holder. He didn't really care how far away from his destination he was, he just wanted priority. If the distance didn't matter, was he really eligible? If distance doesn't matter, then you're in the same boat as everybody else who doesn't have a Blue Badge or even a car.

Eg Amputation of one leg may make you eligible at first for PIP or DLA, but as the stump settles down, you may NOT be eligible any more. Nothing new about that. People incorrectly assume that loss of a leg means automatically eligible. That isn't the case and never has been. Loss of both legs above the ankle is another matter. That situation IS automatically eligible for DLA/PIP, and that is specifically set out in the rules.
DLA Decision Makers Guide

61255 The higher rate is payable to people who
1. are unable or virtually unable to walk because of a physical disability1 (see DMG 61276 et seq) or
...
5.have had both legs amputated either through or above the ankle7 (see DMG 61332) or
6.are for any reason without both legs to the same extent as if they had been amputated either through or above the ankle8 (see DMG 61332 - 61333).

PIP

‘Standing’ means to stand upright with at least one biological foot on the ground with or without suitable aids and appliances (note – a prosthesis is considered an appliance, so a claimant with a unilateral prosthetic leg may be able to stand, whereas a bilateral lower limb amputee would be unable to stand under this definition).

One awkward situation around this issue, is that they lose the car fairly quickly, when a reconsideration or appeal may reinstate entitlement. Not sure how you can get around that. Difficult to justify the DWP continuing to pay out for a car, but not paying non-car drivers the benefit instead. Especially if they lose the appeal, and then appeal to the Upper Tribunal etc which could delay things for more than a year.


Too many misconceptions about entitlement and the rules. There are errors and outright "misconduct in public office" issues with DWP staff, but it is important to differentiate between those and public misconceptions.