This website is no longer being updated
The Low Review reported back its findings in November 2011. This website provides links to the key information gathered by the commission and to its final recommendations.
On 1st December 2011 Maria Miller, the Minister for Disabled People issued a ministerial statement to Parliament announcing that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will not be removed from people living in residential care homes. Read the full statement here.
On 3rd November 2011 the Low Review reported back its key findings. The full report, executive summary and press release can be found below:
The Low Review Executive summary
The Low Review Executive summary easy read
The Low Review was launched in July 2011 as an open and independent call for evidence, to complement the Government’s own internal review into the proposed removal of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment, which will replace Disability Living Allowance from disabled people living in state-funded residential care.
Over the 12 week consultation period, the Low Review received over 800 submissions from individuals, disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, residential care providers, and local authorities, and held a number of oral evidence sessions with key witnesses.
If they are in residential care they do not need mobility payments. If there partners or family wish to visit them they should fund this themselves.
With great respect, I have never thought of mobility payments as being there for family and friends. The mobility payment has always been used to fund the disabled person’s own transport needs, such as adapted vehicles.
If you think this is what mobility payments are used for, you shouldn’t be commenting, totally ignorant!!! I think it is a disgrace that the government are looking at removing this allowance if living in residential care. This is an allowance based on personal needs and it doesn’t matter where you live, i think this is discriminatory and intend to fight this cause. I agree that there needs to be some reforms made, but mainly on reviewing, the assessment process is quite stringent, with medical evidence etc, however the criteria does need to be modified. Also what about children in residential schools??, some weekly boards still under LAC reviews. A lot of parents use the mobility allowance to fund vehicles, whether they live at home or in a school. These vehicles, help with vital equipment, wheelchairs etc. To remove this allowance, which is crucial to an individuals needs in accessing social activities, and being included, as set out in the Governments Green paper, would be a great barrier to their own proposals.
It is totally wrong to discriminate because of a person residential setting.
Jacqui hi,
I can confirm and agree that the UK through the DLA process has a stringen process and the requirment to submit evidence support a claim is paramount. I have submitted to the panel a consildation of the links and information which I have blogged and presented some additonal information collected from the NHS about the number of people in residential care, I have asked for this to be linked or will be published accordinly.
DLA and AA could be argued that is it a requirement under the Human Rights Act and other UK/EU legalisation. However the cost of residential care needs to be looked at seperatly and to see how this resource could be better managed, it may allow for the cost of travel to be incurred.
it is estamed that the UK has about 770,00 disbaled children out of a poulation of 12 million, of the 62 million people in the Uk, it is estimated about 10 million people have a disability.
Various actions, consultations, discussion are taking place to look at the overall coverage, support and assistance within the UK and guess that changes will happen as
part of HM Government plans for change and support. Of course support the needs of all who are in a type of care but with sight of the implication that this country needs to address to reduce it debt, though should not forget it obligations in law which Parliament has passed.
jacqui hi,
For your information.
Number of Residents Supported
Residential Care Age 18 to 64
Physical disability 5625, Learning disability 28980, Mental health 8750, Substance misuse & Other vulnerable people, 950 People aged 65 and over not allocated by client group Total 44305
Age 65 and over
Physical disability 70280, Learning disability 4200, Mental health 27425, Substance misuse & Other vulnerable people 1820, People aged 65 and over not allocated by client group 18730, Total 122455
Total 166755
Nursing Care Age 18 to 64
Physical disability 3445, Learning disability 1560, Mental health 2155, Substance misuse & Other vulnerable people 100, People aged 65 and over not allocated by client group Total 7265
Age 65 and over
Physical disability 32815, Learning disability 915, Mental health 10285, Substance misuse & Other vulnerable people 765, People aged 65 and over not allocated by client group 6765, Total 51540
Total 58805
Adult Placement Age 18 to 64
Physical disability 130, Learning disability 3195, Mental health 280, Substance misuse & Other vulnerable people 30, People aged 65 and over not allocated by client group, Total 3630
Age 65 and over
Physical disability 80, Learning disability 330, Mental health 75, Substance misuse & Other vulnerable people 5, People aged 65 and over not allocated by client group 85, Total 575
Total 4210
Total 229770
Date 29/07/2011 05:54 – Source https://nascis.ic.nhs.uk/
So, a person in a residential care does not need mobility payments. They have to stay indoors or walk, you have no idea what you are talking about. Independence is a word that maybe you have not heard of. If you are in residential care, it does not mean you are a cabbage, with no brain or needs. If you wish to go out, you should have some money to allow you to do this. Or are you saying that you have to stay at the home all day and evenings.
I agree. I have a friend who is 22, has virtually no social life and spends most of her days bored to tears due to lack of funding. She is a prisoner in her own home and we take small things like walking outside for granted. She is a ray of sunshine to those who know her and she deserves the chance to see the bloody sun occassionally with help and support from any funding body that will help her!!
Mobility payments are needed to to enable people to get out of their residential home not pay for relatives to visit. So people in reidential care do need the payments, their relatives do not
I do not live in residential care and am too ill know to work now after being fully employed for over 23 yrsbut need to get to different places ie for drs, dentist, shops and have never asked for help in over 38 years and do not normally ask for help but this little bit of money I receive helps me to get about where I need to and it does not go to my family members at all thank you very much!
I feel that they should take a closer look at those they are paying for incompas. benefits instead of working and have been for a long time for such as drink and drugs. There are other ways of helping people by perhaps rehab so they no longer need drink and drugs and I know of many people who are being paid for this issue and they only just spend the money on more drink and drugs. By giving the people the right support it is better than just to help keep fuelling their problems, I do understand that you can not force people but would it not be a better place if we tried to provide more of these ways to show help, understanding and that there is another way for people who really are crying out for help. I know in a the local town they have turned unused churches, hospitals etc into help centres for the homeless including a room scheme to help them have a bed and find work so why can we not do more in other areas instead of give them money because in the end there would be less people with said problems.
hi shree
In reply to your comments about incapacity this is paid to people who have paid national insurance contributions it is not unemployment benefit paid to all. And I know a man who knows a man who uses his money for drugs.And regarding the Question about mobility it should be paid to people in residential homes this is treating them like second class citizens but as dave said us multimillionaires are all in it together.
Have people forgotten these people are in care not because they want to be but they need the help and they still have needs and feelings too and I dont think it is too much to ask for them to have some independance of their own, maybe those who are saying they should not have this money should put themselves in these peoples shoes, I can guarantee they would have a totally different oppionion then! We all have the right to freedom and independance thank you very much!
If they are in residential care they do not need mobility payments.
Apart from there partners or family wishing to visit them they may need mobility payments to help them get around these payments are to help you to be more independent or perhaps you feel we should just give-up on life when we become a residential care person and have no mobility of our own.
Ah, Richard I wish you good health and that you enjoy all the mobility that you still have for many years and the same for your family as I fear that you may not have the strength necessary to be able to cope when it will be suddenly withdrawn from you! My mobility is gradually diminishing as my Multiple Sclerosis (MS) progresses. I know that it is very possible that I will be in residential care. I spent many years apparently not qualifying for the care necessary to help me go out of my house even if I had a motability car. After a shocking 15 weeks in hospital and a very poor understanding of MS from medical and caring staff my mobility deterioration progressed and I have for the last 3 years battled to prove “them” wrong to regain some mobility and recently I have been able to use a modified family car to get someone to drive me to the gym and I am buying a wheelchair with added power pack which I will have to maintain regularly with my allowance and a standing frame to help strengthen my back which got weaken by my stay in hospital because I very much suspect that it will be deemed “unnecessary” as it is an expense that my local authority will not afford…I imagine that I would need to stand and move in residential care! Read my blog standup4ms.blogspot.com
the mobility component for people in care is used to fund transport for people and their carers in their day to day lives – it is not there for others to use to make visits, etc – it goes towards funding such things as the use of the care home’s minibus for outings, shopping trips and without the mobility component many people would be restricted to spending their lives in one building with no possibility of getting out to do any of the normal things anybody else would expect to be able to do as a matter of course.
excuse me richard, but have you never heard of wheel chair accessable vehicles??????? for many people in residential care this is the only way they are able to visit family, friends, doctors, dentists, and attend hospital appointments – just because someone has a partner, relative or friend – this doesn’t mean the partner, relative or friend holds a driving licence, has any ambition to want to learn to drive, or even if they could drive would be able to afford a specialist vehicle
How old are you? How long it will be before you will need care? What will you tell then?
so there right to visit family, friends or go out of residence is taken away. Is this a prison then??????
richard well seen you have your health you or any memeber of your family could be in the same situation one day see how you manage especially when they have been placed out of county. where family can,t visit because they have no means to get there. that is why this country is in such a bad state when there is people like you.
Anne-marie, we won our son’s mobility component on appeal. After finishing his education during a seven year long stay in long stay hospital, there was still no inadequate provision for him to live near home, and when supported living was tried the community would not tolerate his presence in their neighbourhood. When the purpose-built and appropriately staffed residential care home was built and almost ready, he was moved in. All this time, there was the real possibility that he would be sent to state accommodation vis. another hospital, which would have most likely been over 200 miles away. There is nothing else out there. As it is, he is now 35 miles away and we visit him every month, But for fourteen years, every two weeks. For six years my wife has also had the mobility component, as she has primary progressive MS. As I say in a seperate blog, the providers have got used to using the money in this allowance to support residents’ community presence. Without that spending power residential care for these young restricted indivduals, who have not been totally imprisoned and institutionalised by the old regime of mental hospital, and recognise their place in the community, will become a constant challenge, as individuals struggle to achieve dignity and self-esteem, and express themselves outside the environment which cares for them.
Living in a residential home, and only having a small family who have there owns lives, the Mobility Allowance is used to fund any transport needs i have. As a young person, I wish to be as independant as possible and to mix with people within our community. Without the Mobility Allowance, I would be unable to do any of this and be trapped within my bedroom 24/7. Surely this is unfair. Being disabled , does not mean I cannot have some quality of life and without the mobiliy component, how am I mean’t to finance my own wheelchair as I cannot get any other financial help.
The residential home I live in has a few adapted vehichles which the residents are able to use but, we have to contribute towards the maintence and petrol of these vechicles. We are charges 60 pence per mile so without the mobility allowance, none of the residents will be able to afford to go out and they would be stuck in their own home 24/7.
The age range in our home is varied.so why should a person be stuck in their room because they do not have the finance to go out. If they do not get out, then they will just stay in their own home and watch the world go by and grow old without any contact to the outside world..
with the greatest of respect your comment shows just how little you are aware of the needs of indivials in care homes
People in residential care are just as entitled to go out and have a social life as much as anyone- what about doctors, dentist, shoppiong, sports/ social clubs? They may not have partners or family to visit them and I do not know ONE person in residential care whose family uses their benefits in this way.
Disabled people are not hermits!!! What do you think residential care is? a prison?
There is certainly a lot of ignorance surrounding mobility payments to disabled clients in care homes and I do not agree that the benefit should be stopped.However having had almost 17 years of caring for adults who have disabilities in my 30 year nursing career I feel that the benefit agencies should be looking at where the money is being spent. There are too many families who use benefits intended for mobility as part of the household income.This means that the disabled client in a care home does not always have the mobility allowance at their disposal. Many families use the mobility component of DLA to fund the use of a vehicle on the motability scheme ,which is fine if the vehicle is not used as the family transport and the disabled client rarely uses it. We like to think of most people as being honest, but the misuse of public money being paid in benefits is
staggering. Those who use the benefit appropriately ( the majority) would have nothing to fear from more scrutiny and any money saved can be re-directed to those most deserving.
I whole heartedly agree with Paul above. I have been working for over 15 years in resdiential care, and this is so true. I have come across so many families who use this part of a persons benefit to fund an adapted vehicle that the resident get limited or no use of.
This is financial abuse and even fraud. The disabled individuals are being used by thier families, If the government spent time taking the mobility allowance from these individuals and giving it back to the actual disabled person, this would go a good way towards redressing the balance.
But while we are ranting, please bear in mind that their are parents and relatives who do use the mobility allowance to fund transport for their relative and these people should not be forgotten.
With respect, that’s not what people generally use the money for. It makes such a difference to the lives of so many people. From where I’m standing it seems we’re back to the rich and powerful making decisions that affect everyone but themselves. This measure is just one example.
In residential car, a person is afforded their care and transportation to visit their family, pursue activities in the community and access shops, a library, and satisfy other needs like a haircut, appointment with a dentist, training, or coaching for a sport. Family who visit do so anyway at their own expense, but can claim remuneration for expenses incurred in care and transport, if their disabled relative spends longer than 24 hours with them, i.e. part of the disabled person’s allowance that is claimed by the purchasing authority. The disabled person’s expense allowance does not, however, realistically cover the cost of their presence in the community which their care plan and the residential home are supposed to support. Providers rely on the funds their mobility allowance provides to help an individual pay for the support and expenses they incur in their daily lives, newspaper or a magazine, holidays with staff supervision, (though my son has not been on a holiday yet in 6 years of residential care), Christmas and birthday presents, the odd takeaway, or a drink for themselves only, in a pub, ( usually a coke), and personal care products, e.g. shampoo and razors. Take away this basic and modest spending power of residents of a local care home, and then the communities around them; shopkeepers, librarians, ordinary folk, congregation in Church, people in a pub or club, and the gymnastic or fitness coach, riding instructor, swimming pool attendants,etc. will not see them, have their custom, and the person will lose their community presence, identity, and finally their self esteem. Your simple answer poses more questions, which I suggest even politicians shy away from, sooner than look for solutions. ‘Care in the community’, and the ‘purchaser- provider split’ are not old cliches for justifying the present system. It is justified by positive life experiences for the people affected, not political outcomes, or be wiped off the map by the sweeping negativity of statements like yours. Richard.
Richard-do you honestly think that people living in residedntial care only have the right to have friends and family visit them? Do they not have the right to go out like everybody else in the world?
Alison – people are afforded and placed in residential care because their need justifies round the clock staffing, their dignity would not be sustainable in community (supported living) placements, and the support they require needs experience and training in addition to the type of cover provided by staff who support individuals who are able to interact, and express their needs, in the community. Very few people in residential care are visited by friends or peers, other than their family members. Staff have discretion who can visit, and for what reason, and ultimately chose where the resident goes, and who the associations are they can meet, in the resident’s best interests, and for their own safety, and the safety of others. Residents’ rights are restricted, and this is what the argument about their mobility component is all about. The person in residential care is moved about in vehicles with staff supervision, e.g. to venues where they are reputably able to be supported by an economically justifiable ratio of staff presence, or by people who have some knowledge, tolerance, and understanding of their needs. Equally they can walk out with a staff member to guide and support them, and to make sure they return to the home, and – safely. The provider’s contract hangs on their ability to assess risk, record outcomes, and adapt to the needs of an individual in his or her best interest. Afforded in the care contract is all transport, including to a resident’s next of kin, or family, as well as shopping at a supermarket or to buy clothes, shoes etc. visits to the theatre, a social club, or a hospital for appointments, or to visit an ailing family member. Some residents can use train or bus for a change, but the criteria for governing the exercise of the rights of a person in residential care is their best interest, and the safety of a public who cannot predict, or have knowledge of need, behaviour, or ability.
Just in case ‘they’ are reading your comment, A visit by a relative is funded by the relative. Mobility payments have been claimed by a person to enable them to get around in the community. In residential care, ‘they’ are the same people who need to get around, and need their mobility augmented, if that is their need. Providers are contracted to transport a person, but this may only be practical if they have the personalised aid they purchased with their mobility allowance, and may continue to need for it to be upgraded or adapted. A person in residential care has very little choice, but has limited funds to pay for personal items. The presumption is that residential care is an end-of-life solution to a person’s needs, and that augmented mobility is no longer needed when a person leaves the community. Young people in residential care need a life. They do not attract other benefits they are entitled to, living in the community. Family visits can be a mixed blessing, but the prime importance to a young individual is that newspaper, or tin of coke at the weekend, the TV listings, and recognition by a shopkeeper, – and a new item of clothing. If the benefit itself was not such a humiliating struggle to get in the first place, benefit dependancy such a cheeseparing assortment, relying on assertions of negative life experience, – there was a straightforward definition of ‘continuing care’ entitlement from the NHS which is not abused by purchasing authorities, – providers were made accountable, and had their application of client money and benefits independently audited, the environment of residential care would not be the soup of suspicion, vulnerability, and constant anxiety of relatives, there might be reason to your argument. We harbour the eternal hope that some miracle will soon restore our dependant from this mire of exploitation and political soundbite, and never intend to stop claiming every penny we can for our relative to compensate him for the next cut, promoted by the heaving gut of British pride, to be seen to throw up unmitigated relief to an economy destroyed by incompetence and greed.
Hallo Richard.
The lack of appropriate care in the community is the main reason disabled, vulnerable adults end up in care, I speak from experience from both ends of the age range. The mobility element is essential to provide an external life for all persons that find themselves in a no choice situation of needing residential care. remove this and I would suggest the Human Rights and the Disability Rights bill are being totally ignored as they state all people have a right to leisure / social activities of their choice!!!!!!!! In fact just to participate in all things I suggest you take for granted.
Don’t feed the troll.
And if they wish to leave the four walls of the care home? They will become prisoners in their own homes.
Dear Richard My son and his wife were disabled in childhood illnesses and live miles away from us in a care home. I am now too old to care for them. Without mobility allowance they could never go out. Care homes do not provide free transport and they need to access community facilities for the good of their health. They need help with their care but they also need to live active lives.
Why oh why do our vulnerable people have to be the ones that suffer! If you are living in a residential home, having access to transport is paramount, By removing the mobility component of DLA, you are denying them the ability to go out and about in there communities…, How are residential homes meant to transport them? The mobility component is vital – without homes receiving it would mean they could not afford to provide mini-buses and clients would be confined to there homes ! obviously the person recommending this change has not seen or suffered the hardship of raising a child/adult with disabilities or vulnerable people have they? ….. Walk a mile in my shoes and then judge me !!!! Selfish greedy people who know nothing!
I PERSONALLY WOULD TAKE THE STANCE THAT IF YOU WANT PEOPLE IN “RESIDENTIAL CARE” TO ONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TOO SOCIALIZE WITH-IN THIER CURRENT SETTING ,NOT GO OUT TO VISIT RELATIVES etc, WHILST THEY HAVE THE HEALTH CAPABILITIES / FACULTIES TO DO SO ,YOU ARE TOTALLY TAKING THE IDEA IT’S GOOD TO STOP OR MINIMIZE THE BENEFIT THAT IS A “RIGHT” AND CHOOSING MONEY THROUGH GREED OVER BENEFICIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF FURTHER CARE.I WOULD BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE VIOLATING THE SIMPLISTIC HUMAN RIGHT OF BEING ABLE TO KEEP CONTACT WITH “NORMALITY.THIS IN MY VIEW WOULD PUT EVEN FURTHER PRESSURE ON NURSING/CARE STAFF WHO OFTEN ALREADY STRUGGLE WITH GAINING ACCESS TO FUNDS TO HELP THE PATIENTS TO LIVE A MORE REASONABLE LIFE-STYLE.I HAVE WORKED IN PLACES WHERE LACK OF FUNDING/GREED HAS LED TO PEOPLE NOT HAVING LEFT THE CARE ENVIROMENT WHERE THEY WERE AT THE TIME FOR AN INNAPPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME. IF THIS PAYMENT(S) WERE ALLOWED TOO CONTINUE I’D HOPE THAT TRANSPORT COULD BE LAID ON FOR THE LESS MOBILE AS SOCIALIZING IS AN ALMOST INTEGRAL PART OF MOST CARE PLANNING…
Of interest comments left at http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/removal-dla-mobility-component-people-living-residential-care-dbc , http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/disability-living-allowance-changes-spending-review-and-over-current-parliament-201415 and http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/reforming-disability-living-allowance-2010-201415-some-more-detail
Also relevant http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/charging-residential-accommodation-guide-crag-2011 , http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/new-commission-funding-care-and-support-setup-consultation-closes-28th-january-2011 and http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/inquiry-implementation-right-disabled-people-independent-living-closes-29th-april-2011 to suggest be incorporated.
What does the government propose to offer instead? Does the government feel happy that those living in residential accommodation will have no access to therapeutic or social outings? As an ex social work manager specializing in mental Health I know the importance of independence to people who lose a lot of their autonomy by virtue of the restrictions of residential care.it can be crucial in recovery from mental ill health to be able to get out and about.The benefits of getting out of a residential establishment to access community resources for people with dementia and learning disability are immense. Is the government willing to condemn these people to this enforced confinement.what about their human rights. How much money is spent on less important issues?who decides? Or are the government simply taking advantage of those without a voice? SHAME ON YOU !!!
Does anyone know if those in Residential Care have access to a Freedom Pass issues by their Local Council? This would help address the social mobility needs of either a Bus or Train. Those eligible on High Mobility are abale to access a taxi card (though each borough may be different) on average 1 travel per week is funded, this can be higher if the Freedom Pass is returned and re-negiotiged.
It is also cheaper to administer a Freedom Pass then if attending hospitial to seek re-imburstment if allowed.
I am to understand that the mobilty payment is about £20.00 per week? Also is this payment made in arrears or advanced?
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news/dla/ is seeking the views on PIP.
‘Freedom passes’ are only issued to those who have mobility needs recognised by the DLA’s mobility component – no mobility component in your DLA means no pass.
The system did provide Freedom Pass to those without DLA mobility, the application form does provide for this and supportive evidence from a consultant/GP is need to validiate it request.
you obviously have not researched about DLA mobility component this is higher or lower Rate dependent on persons mobility needs. freedom pass is no good for most people with learning disabilities or disabled as most would need a carer to assist them so as not to endanger themselves or others..
Nigel hi,
I am fully aware of the DLA mobility components and have shown the DWP figures by main disabling condition. I am aware that very serve people with Learning Diffuclties need community support and have used public transport, I would hope that society is more accomodating to these needs when in public. Other options as dial a ride, community transport are also provided to meet the needs, DLA is a independant choice to be used and it for each indiviual to look at what is best for them.
An interesting report by Counsel and Care which looks at the cost of residential care. http://www.counselandcare.org.uk/category/policy/pdf/the-real-cost-of-quality
freedom pass? accessible taxis? plentiful, accessible public transport?
we don’t all live in london, you know
I appricate that, my analysis covered London as the UK has about 412 Local Authroities.
A quick search under accessible transport/travel on google listed various local authroties and it is this that should support the needs of a person located in a rural/city centre or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Dear Kevin- it may all look very easy on the internet to access transport, but try living in the real world-i actually had support worker tell me that a bus driver chased her into a cafe where she had taken a service user with LD to insist that she go back to the bus and made her physically put the disabled ramp back in herself! You really have no clue- i suggest you go and work in a reisdential care home for a year and see how tough it is to get out and about on “free” travel!
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm maybe of interest or use.
fine there is local transport and pases but restriction on carers so they will still have to pay for care support to participate in activities and work experieance they will need to live normal lives, here is still poor acessibility in respect of mobility .
Local authorities are reluctant to offer additional support ( i have a prime example where the LA will not pay for night support even though the other people the other pepole are at risk , it has been down to the company to work at a minium of possily £1000 per week , we cannot complain as the funding has not been approved we have been consulting since december !!!! great use of LA finance
Sara hi,
This problem and solution may address some of the expected instead Hm Government wishes to seek through the increase in direct payments, currenly about 250,000 people receive support through this mean, it is hope that up to 1 million people will be provided with such support. This analysis is for London http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Kev%20PERSONAL%20documents%20submissions%20etc/PBDPanalysis1011.pdf and http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/personnel-budgets-direct-payment-london-borough-foi-request lists other related items. I have come accross a national collected other than the NHS figures. (If found I will link it for you).
Scotland and Northern Ireland also opperate Direct Payments and figures are made online to the public. Carers UK suggest about 3 million people care of those listed under the DWP its about 1 million and about 55% are entitled to payment and 45% not.
The report by Counsel and Care does give cost figures, it worth looking through. The ILF supports about 20,500 in England/Wales and this cost can be up to £961 per week (averaged)
http://www.in-control.org.uk/support/support-for-individuals,-family-members-carers/frequently-asked-questions/what-are-the-key-differences-between-personal-budgets-and-direct-payments.aspx
Sara hi,
The case of McDonlad http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=90860 maybe of interest. Community Care also covered this as well as http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/queen-application-elaine-mcdonald-and-royal-borough-kensington-and-chelsea and http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/tribunal-decisions
Various reports have been published by JRF http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/browse/category/h#health-and-care in particular http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/disabled-peoples-costs-living
I mean may be addressed by HM Government actions of increasing the number of people supported through direct payments
Disability Living Allowance – Cases in payment (5% sample) Caseload (Thousands) : Main Disabling Condition by Mobility Rate
Time Series=NOV10
Total Mobility Rate
Higher Rate Lower Rate Nil Rate
Caseload (Thousands) Caseload (Thousands) Caseload (Thousands) Caseload (Thousands)
Total 3,166.1 1,781.7 979.3 405.0
Main Disabling Condition 582.7 503.9 10.4 68.4
Arthritis
Muscle / Joint / Bone Disease 209.2 154.9 8.1 46.2
Blindness 69.7 7.0 59.9 2.8
Stroke Related 110.7 87.4 12.4 10.9
Learning Difficulty 371.3 58.7 270.6 42.0
Mental Health Causes 510.4 52.6 406.7 51.2
Epilepsy 73.7 12.1 55.9 5.7
Deafness 42.3 3.0 24.9 14.4
Malignant Disease 82.6 67.7 4.2 10.8
Chest Disease 94.1 86.3 2.3 5.5
Back Ailments 248.1 212.7 6.1 29.4
Heart Disease 136.0 123.7 4.9 7.4
Parkinsons Disease 19.0 16.3 0.7 1.9
Diabetes Mellitus 59.3 26.8 11.5 20.9
Renal Disorders 16.5 11.4 1.2 4.0
AIDS 8.7 7.0 0.9 0.8
Skin Disease 16.6 5.1 0.7 10.8
Frailty 2.7 2.4 * 0.2 * 0.2
Multiple Sclerosis 69.1 65.6 1.6 1.8
Other 443.2 277.0 96.2 69.9
CAUTION: The best statistics on benefits are now derived from 100% data sources. However, the 5% sample data still provide some detail not yet available from the 100% data sources. DWP recommends that, where the detail is only available on the 5% sample data, the proportions derived should be applied to the overall 100% total for the benefit. Users should refer to the ‘’Guidance for Users’ in the Useful Resources section of this Tabling Tool.
Definitions and conventions: “-” Nil or Negligible; “.” Not applicable; “*” Figures are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should only be used as a guide; Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and displayed in thousands; Average amounts are shown as pounds per week and rounded to the nearest penny. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Information Directorate, 5% sample.
State Pension Age: The age at which women reach State Pension age will gradually increase from 60 to 65 between April 2010 and April 2020. This will introduce a small increase to the number of working age benefit recipients and a small reduction to the number of pension age recipients. Figures from May 2010 onwards reflect this change. For more information see http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/espa.pdf
Notes:
Caseload (Thousands) Totals show the number of people in receipt of an allowance, and excludes people with entitlement where the payment has been suspended, for example if they are in hospital.
Main Disabling Condition Where more than one disability is present only the main disabling condition is recorded. “Other” includes 25 medical conditions, including “Obesity” from February 2010 (for claims to benefit from October 2008 onwards). Previously, “Obesity” was included within “Mental Health Causes”.
This table and different analysis can be viewed at http://83.244.183.180/5pc/dla/tabtool_dla.html (This analysis is to give an example of those in receipt of Mobility Componment)
The ILF currently supports about 20,500 people (the figures quoted are of June 2010 http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/sites/default/files/Copy%20of%20users%20by%20disability%20at%20we%2018%206%202010_2.xls )
Kevin, This regurgitation of statistical analysis really is of no interest to the real problem. Trying to dissect this, and on one hand, stating, that people may be more supported with direct payments, really is a bit of an insult. We both know that once an allowance is removed, the money saved will go elsewhere, and not back into supporting the vulnerable in our society. You talk about freedom passes and accessing public transport, have you ever taken adults with learning disabilities on an outing? perhaps a group of dementia sufferers, who have walking difficulties? How about, you getting involved in this and experience the difficulties that they face using public transport. Don’t forget their carers need to get on the bus/train as well!! You suggest a whole trip a week, well how generous. When you understand the difficulties from first hand experience, then your comments will be more valuable. Thank you
Jacqui hi,
I am classfied as disbaled, I have serve pain which affects my mobility, I am not in a resident care home but support my independance through different means.
Direct payments currently supports about 250,000 people in the UK, HM Government seeks to increase this to 1 million, so far the DoH has invested £520 millionon th cost of transormation of direct payment, in London £41 million currently supports 30,000 people of all disbalities and conditions (7.5 million people reside in London).
HM Government spend £19 billion pound on Tax relied to Pensions in the UK, the question and answer lays here http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/how-will-councils-spend-your-%C2%A353-billion-year , http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Kev%20PERSONAL%20documents%20submissions%20etc/PBDPanalysis1011.pdf .
With regards to the support to Carers, http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/no-breaks-carers-report-primary-care-trusts-and-carers-strategy-crossroadsp-trust should be looked at with interest and information. Carers UK I think suggest about 3 million people in the UK are Carers, of which about 450,000 receive a payment from the DWP (maybe at the level of £55 per week)
I should also add, I have volunteered for TCell and other to expereince the other side of the coind and it was my collected information and perspective of an inclusive dimention to support all is addressed. if the sum of 1.5 million people living with a learning difficulity is accurate, I submit that about 20% of this population is in some form of state support compared with about 9% HIV/AIDS, mean that the rest of the population are in meaning full employment and support by other means.
I have come accross the 3H Fund which has supported me in the pass and does for others, the sytem is complicated resources undefined and some excellent and some poor. When I do write, analyse it is from research, expereince, confidence that improvements can be made, support can be given on the level of need which is relevant to the person, even though the system has a different perspective, meeting the demands of all in it own right has its issues.
Can I also add, that my additional submission to the Panel is yet to be published which provide useful and additonal information. As to the generous comment, this statement was evidence that which Local Authroities provides and was not my suggestion, the system provides 1 journey per week, i have agued that there are 7 days in a week and 24 hours but that the system for you. My local community is uspport by KEEN which provides support to Learning Difficulity people and have intergrated and support then theough different means. I have also seen the higher complex needs of brain damaged and 24 hours needs of care. I have personnel family expereince of parkinson, stroke and other conditions, so speak from expereince and insite. I am not saying that I provide the answer but what I do is to encompass the wider aspect and numbers affected in which I seek to address.
well said, why is it some go out of there way with out firstly finding out first hand shore you can observer but your never 100% clear of the true difficulty’s as you are hands on, perhaps you should help out by becoming a car-era.
Community Care Statistics: Social Services Activity, England 2009-10 (further release)
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/social-care/adult-social-care-information/community-care-statistics-social-services-activity-england-2009-10-further-release
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
Physical disability, Residential Care, Number of Residents Supported
84795 83385 80260 77010 75905
Nursing Care, Number of Residents Supported
44310 43390 41110 37260 36260
Adult Placement, Number of Residents Supported
115 150 175 215 205
Total, Number of Residents Supported
129225 126925 121540 114485 112375
Learning disability, Residential Care, Number of Residents Supported
35170 35135 34410 33740 33180
Nursing Care, Number of Residents Supported
2440 2450 2315 2150 2475
Adult Placement, Number of Residents Supported
1790 2455 2475 3345 3525
Total, Number of Residents Supported
39400 40040 39200 39235 39185
Mental health, Residential Care, Number of Residents Supported
33315 32640 32710 34820 36175
Nursing Care, Number of Residents Supported
14100 13585 12775 12380 12440
Adult Placement, Number of Residents Supported
245 280 245 360 355
Total, Number of Residents Supported
47660 46505 45735 47560 48965
Substance misuse & Other vulnerable people, Residential Care, No. of Residents Supported
3490 2730 2600 2325 2770
Nursing Care, Number of Residents Supported
1275 820 780 680 865
Adult Placement, Number of Residents Supported
10 20 15 25 35
Total, Number of Residents Supported
4770 3575 3395 3030 3670
People aged 65 and over not allocated by client group, Residential Care, No. of Residents Supported
26360 23325 20685 21190 18730
Nursing Care, Number of Residents Supported
11365 9825 8480 8305 6765
Adult Placement, Number of Residents Supported
10 15 25 50 85
Total, Number of Residents Supported
37740 33165 29190 29550 25575
Total, Number of Residents Supported
258795 250205 239060 233855 229770
Date 25/07/2011 16:03
This information can be accessed at https://nascis.ic.nhs.uk/
Hi Kevin
Forgive me for asking this but do you have a probem with the concept of supporting some of our society’s weakest members?
Thank you for your suggestion of using public transport. If we could use it we would. However for many disabled people like my son (wheelchair user, complex needs, sensory issues) who despite his difficulties actaully wants to go out like other young people, there is no way he or myself as his carer can cope with the inadequacy of public transport. (We have a train station near us but cant use it as we cannot get from one platform to another – and this is a large station on a main line!)
Withdrawing the Mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will affect the 80,000 people in the UK who have physical and mental disabilities and live in residential accommodation. It will result in serious detriment to the quality of life of some of the country’s most vulnerable people.
In effect it will mean that parents of a child living in a residential care home will lose their grant towards the transport (usually specially adapted) that they rely on to take their child home at weekends, go to appointments etc.
Disabled adults under 64 and children with learning disabilities will lose their small grant to get the bus into town. (This is in stark contrast to the fact that anyone of pensionable age, irrespective of income, is given a free bus pass).
It will also mean that disabled people in residential care will be left with £22.00 per week personal allowance to live on. This will need to cover clothes, toiletries, mobile phone, gifts, entertainment etc – and the cost of any transport they might need in order to “escape” to the outside world. That of course will depend on whether specially adapted transport is actually available – which is very unlikely.
Putting it in financial context, this grant costs £ 135 million per year. The Winter Fuel Payment (not means tested) costs £2.7 BILLION a year. If, instead of paying the Winter Fuel Payment to rich and poor alike and was restricted to only those eligible for pension credit there would be a SAVING of £1.3 BILLION!
Believe me Kevin, life is hard enough brining up a disabled child and supporting them doesn’t just end when we can cope no longer and they have to go into residential care. It is precisely at this point when it is imperative that we have a specially adapted vehicle to take our children out and about and enable them to visit their home.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Susan, the issue here is for this review is to look at how the needs of those in residential care are met and funded which includes all possabilities. I am not sure how you have come to your conclusion in your opening remark. This then is a good reason for Local Councils to provide either a freedom pass then (currenlty both Disbaled and Eldery) are covered by this scheme which would help support the needs over a week/year.
The issue of HM Government budgets http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/how-will-councils-spend-your-%C2%A353-billion-year may be of interest. The issue is for the train station is comply with the DDA and make resonable adjustments which would help support the needs of disabled people. £19bn is paid a tax relief on pensions per year by HM Treasury, I have included http://www.cafamily.org.uk/professionals/research/statistics.html
For those who choice to live within the community and are supported by ILF (20,500 people) have different complications.
Thought this may be further interest http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/sen
As an advocate to people living in care homes, and a member of a family who has cared for someone with physical and learning difficulties for over thirty years, I am very interested while reading all of these comments.
I never ceases to amaze me the assumptions made by those in a place of power about those living in the wake of their decisions.
My Mother has NEVER had any financial help to look after her sister, first because she was working, then because she had to leave work due to illness…neither of these issues reduced the workload of being a carer, no matter how ill she has been it is still a 24 hour a day job. It has only been in the last decade that my parents have received any respite care, and this is at the mercy of the social services and they have to fit in with what they are given. So no, just because my Aunt is not in receipt of financial help, she is not in full time employment, she is ignored by statistics and cared for by her family.
My service users – One of the major and overwhelming issues faced by people living in care homes is depression, this is often caused by social exclusion, lonliness and the feeling of being ‘useless’. People who have previously led useful, hard working, sociable lives are suddenly flung into the abyss of the care system and forgotten. They are expected to live for a week on £22.00, and be happy with the ‘luxury’ of the appointed hairdresser once a fortnight (something which for those in the community is a very personal and pleasurable experience, at a place we choose, with someone we trust).
If you are unable to get out and about, you are confined to the same four walls, and if there are any activities provided at all, they are usually limited to bingo and ‘a sing-a-long’. So if you are getting near the stage when you need care, should you abandon any other interests, as this is all you’re allowed? I think not.
I have met fighter pilots from WW2, who gave us the life we have, left alone with nothing but the TV blaring programmes they hate at them all day, just because they cannot walk any more. A professional Ica Skater, who loved to watch the ballet and hold debates, and sit on committees, sat in the corner of a room while a singer belted pop songs in the lounge..her idea of hell…because she has dementia, she has no choice.
If anything, the Government should be looking at how they can provide more to our vulnerable and forgotten population who, through no choice or fault of their own have to live in residential care. If they had commited a crime or were an addict of any sort, there would be help offered at all costs. Please see this article for a different view http://jackfrost.blog.co.uk/2011/03/17/let-s-put-the-pensioners-in-jail-10847051/
I apologise for the lengthy reply, I just feel very passionately about this subject.
Great review! You actually touched some curious news in this post. I came across it by using Google and I’ve got to admit that I already subscribed to the RSS feed, it’s very great
DPOs boycott charities’ ‘independent’ review of mobility needs
Disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) are to boycott a review set up by two of the big disability charities into one of the most controversial parts of the government’s welfare reform bill.
Leonard Cheshire Disability (LCD) and Mencap announced this week that they were launching a new “independent review” into how the mobility needs of people living in residential care are met and funded.
The review will provide recommendations to the coalition by the end of October, running in parallel with an “internal review” being carried out by the government. The charities’ review will also be used to brief peers as they debate the bill this autumn.
The bill currently gives the government powers to stop paying the mobility element of the new personal independence payment – which is set to replace disability living allowance – to people in state-funded residential homes.
But DPOs have raised concerns about the independence of the charities’ new review and have questioned why no user-led organisations were told about it or asked to take part.
The review will be led by the disabled crossbench peer Lord [Colin] Low, former chair of RNIB and now its vice-president and also president of Disability Alliance.
The members of the review’s “steering group” are a disabled resident of a Leonard Cheshire residential home, the governor of a special school, a local government expert, the director of a think-tank, and an expert in care provision.
Jaspal Dhani, chief executive of the UK Disabled People’s Council (UKDPC), said he was only told about the review this week and was “surprised that there is no DPO involvement on the steering group and DPOs have not been approached to be involved or to comment”.
He said DPOs would need to consider “very carefully” whether to take part and that it was “unlikely” that UKDPC would do so, although a final decision would be made by its trustees.
Dhani said he was concerned that the review could be used to promote the need for residential services rather than disabled people’s right to live in the community.
Mark Harrison, chief executive of Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People, said he was “angry” with the decision to set up the review, which he said was “typical behaviour from two disability charities that are for disabled people, not of disabled people”.
He said the two charities had yet again “violated” the disability movement’s principle of “nothing about us without us”.
Sue Bott, director of the National Centre for Independent Living (NCIL), said NCIL would also not be taking part, while she was “ struggling to see what this independent review will achieve other than to try and raise the profile of the two organisations involved”.
She said the important question was whether the minister for disabled people, Maria Miller, was “really listening” to the evidence already provided by the disabled people and DPOs she had talked to.
Guy Parckar, LCD’s acting director of policy, campaigns and communications, said: “If the DPOs are not happy with the process, there is absolutely something we should learn from that.
“We did set this up rather hurriedly to make sure we had long enough to get people involved. We did rather rush it.”
But he said he “cannot remember” when the decision was made to launch the review or how long Mencap and LCD had been discussing the idea.
He added: “We wanted to encourage people to get involved and contribute whatever evidence they had on this because they didn’t have the opportunity through the government’s internal review. There was no attempt to try and exclude anyone.”
He said the intention was for the review to be “independent”, which was why members of the steering group were “people who were directly involved in this particular issue, which obviously relates to residential care”.
Disability Alliance said the review would be “genuinely independent” and had been launched because of charities’ “dismay and frustration with the secrecy shrouding” the government’s internal review.
Neil Coyle, DA’s director of policy, said that disabled people and DPOs should “all be engaged and make sure the Low review is more robust, more evidence-based and delivers strong recommendations to the Department for Work and Pensions that cannot be ignored”.
http://www.dls.org.uk/Rights/News/2011/july/18.htm
Good review! This is exactly the type of blog post that needs to be shared around the web. Sad on the Google for not ranking this post higher!
my daughter who is 30 and now lives in a care home, but comes home every weekend. only receives income support which leaves her with only appx £22 per week.this is for all her needs eg cloths toiletries, footwear outings treats. before going into care which i must say was the most awful decision we have ever had to make.she was getting DLA at the higher rate which included motabilty.my wife and I are both OAP’s we could never afford to buy and run a car ourselves,This is our daughter only real p;leasure in her awful life, being severley mentally handicapped.The care home she lives in is treated the same as an old peoples care home which this is not.The needs of the clients are totally different If this allowance is withdrawn it would mean our and our daughters life would be severley changed, she would be very limited to contact with ourselves and the rest of her family. I Think the government should take a very good look at what difference and hardship this is going to cause to people who find themseves in this position through no fault of their own.
I ALSO FORGOT TO SAY IN MY COMMENTS ABOVE THAT MY DAUGHTER IS DOUBLEY
INCONTINENT SO IS UNABLE TO TRAVEL ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT. WHEN OUT IN THE CAR I HAVE TO TAKE GLOVES PADS WIPES FRESH AIR SPRAYS AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO NEEDED TO CHANGE HER WHILST WE ARE OUT. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A VERY BIG PROBLEM FOR US.
Maybe people are missing a vital point here, what about the care providers responsibility to provide transport for those in their care? They are getting large sums of money for people in care and what are they doing with it? Mobility is about getting people out and about, with support. Those in residential care should automatically be getting out and about, if not why not? i feel the providers should be providing this, they are given money to provide care for people and they are often just providing a sitting service….. the mobility component is vital to those living at home with parents who need help with costs of transport, i think it should only be given to adults and not children as any child needs support not just disabled ones. This part of the disability benefits should be re-examined as it is not a fair system…the care providers i feel are the ones who should provide the transport. Yes, i do have an adult son with severe learning disabilities who has only the low rate of mobility allowance and yet he needs 24/7 care…. i know others who get high rate allowance and they are more able…. the system needs attention. I pay for my own car, and yet i use it for my son who is unable to go anywhere unless he is with another person.
My son has severe and complex autism. He attends a residential school Monday to Friday and comes home every weekend and holiday. I transport him to and from school, and as we are unable to use public transport due to his challenging behaviour and sensory impairments we rely heavily on our car. Without our own means of transport he would be unable to get out.
As residential schools are looked upon with the same criteria as residential homes, the proposed changes would affect us too and he would lose his entitlement to higher rate mobility, which funds our car throught the Motibility scheme.
I wonder what kind of life he, and we, would have over weekends and during the long school holidays when he would be trapped indoors without transport?
I’m in the same siutation
I am a welfare benefits adviser in Bristol south. The mobility component for people in care is their lifeline to friends & family & above all their self respect & independance!
I think the government should be looking at accessibility on a larger scale. I help care for a wheelchair user and I take him on holiday every year. I have to be careful where I choose because a lot of public transport doesn’t have facilities for wheelchairs, like railway stations without lifts, and the London Underground is a nightmare! The mobility allowance doesn’t meet his mobility needs as far as getting taxis is concerned. He shouldn’t need to have his options curtailed this much. This country is all about the rights of illegal immigrants and of gay people, so let’s start on the rights of the handicapped!
I am a voluntary driver for our local Dial-a-Ride, a charitable organization. I pick a lady up from a residential Care Home, I do not know if she receives DLA, the point I am trying to make is that residents are entitled to leave the home for a social occasion as well as for doctor or hospital appointments……..
The DLA should still be paid whether the person lives with relatives, independent or residential care…..it should not be about where they live but whether there disability qualifies them for this payment!!
My son is in term time residenital college, we use the mobilty allowance to collect him and return him to college every holiday . He is in Surrey where as we live in Somerset , the local colleges do not have suitable facilities for him. Petrol alone is over £80 . Although he can hardly walk and we have to drive most places when he is home, he recivies only the low banding and do not have an adapted car.
I have an authistic child and he has been deined the allowance
Thanks to the groverment been trying to get this for 3 years now. a–holes.
I agree with so much of what is written here-disabled peoples quality of life is at stake. The powers that be can have no understanding of life as a disabled person and the small and few pleasures we can experience are afforded by our DLA. We do not live “high on the hog” on this money but it affords us help and (costly) transport to enable us to be ” socially included” as opposed to being stuck indoors forever. Kevin, who has posted a lot here, sounds like a civil servant to me- and one who actually BELIEVES that what the government writes in these links is true. You only have to apply for DLA and fill in the form, only to be refused because they don’t tell you about the 20 minute rule or the main meal criteria which they secretly set, to be able to refuse the application-to understand the Benefits Agency’s agenda. The government trying to recover money for the national coffers -in which they dip their own hands liberally- by cutting disabled benefits is an insult to any right-thinking person. I quite agree that some people need to be “re-assessed”. People who choose to be ill-alcoholics, junkies etc-should be made to cean themselves up and sort themselves out. But who would employ them after seeing their CV? A lot of us have not chosen to be disabled but we try to bear our problems with as much dignity as posssible-enabled by DLA which allows me to stay in control of my life -not become a burden on othe. This is a very stressful and worrying time for all disabled people who are looking at a bleak future if their DLA is reduced. Please don’t take our DLA
Jan hi,
The links were researched from HM Government database’s was done independantly to Government, This information has been used in submissions to both the House of Commons and Lords. I have attended a RADAR meeting and intergrated with other organisations over the past few years.
My analysis shows the disparity of HM Government and local services through its provision and investment and the people it supports. Why then does HM Government now acknowledge it wish to see about 1 million people supported by Direct Payment than the current estimated of 250,000 people. It is because of these investigations, analysis and various other reports that these changes are coming about, which can also address the inequilities that exsists.
The UK has some 42+ different complicated legalisation for health and social care, something which the Law Commission, the Dilnot Commission and this review is looking at.
The UK population (62 million) retales to about 12.5m children + 770,000 disbaled children, 29 million working (Full or Part Time), 12.5 State Pension, 3 million Carers and 4.3 million on benefits.
Of th estimated 10 million people with disabilities in the UK, just over 3.2 million people are in receipt of DLA, pending the publication of the number of people in residential care , suggest will be about 230,000 people.
I would like to see them live for a week in a wheelchair with no money, they would go mad, but a lot of people are also in a lot of pain, so they wouldn’t feel the whole impact of what they are trying to do. When you are in pain constantly and trying to make life easier, it’s no joke. If I didn’t have the allowance I wouldn’t be able to go very far. I saved up to buy a little scooter to go in the car, to make going round town easier, but I had trouble getting it in and out of the car, so had to save up for a hoist to be fitted in the car. All costing a lot of money that we wouldn’t be able to have without the allowance. Some people think that because we are disabled we don’t need any thing. But we need more than the abled bodied person. We want to enjoy our life just like any one, so we try to do things that would take our minds of the pain and all the struggling we have to do. Come on think of what we have to go through daily and nightly, and give us a chance. We can’t even have a holiday because we can’t go too far because of the pain we are in, and worry if where we go are wheelchair and disabled friendly. So we make our life around us easier and more comfortable so we can make life a bit easier.
My God I can’t believe that a modern government is even considering reducing financial assistance to those most in need and their unpaid carers. Luckily for all of us the House of Lords tend to see the reality of any situation without the worry of following the party line. Common sense has to prevail. Prosecute the tiny minority abusing the system, help those that don’t. Is this the real Britain we are living in, or are we to draw assumptions certain members of government are looking backwards into past practices in other European countries?
Lord Low, common sense and decency must prevail, and rather than reduce any allowance, more should be given as a right especially to carers, who by their actions save the country and NHS untold costs.
Britain, like any old colonial power, has as much to be ashamed of as proud. Being British used to mean we had a real sense of decency, of fairplay, and of helping those less fortunate – wherever in the world they may be.
Maybe if the politicians tried a whole day walking with broken glass in their shoes, pins in their shirts, ear muffs, vision distorters, not being able to use one limb, being incontinent, and sat watching a television out of focus and in a foreign unrecognisable tounge, WITH LITTLE OR NO HELP, they may see things differently. Even if they lasted a day, would they choose it for the rest of their lives, or for a member of their family? Exactly. Would they hell.
its easy ? keep it as it is ? but employ all the doctors and nurse who are unemployed to run the assessments so its got right,you want to save money get it right first time your save money on appeals with judges that just dont have a clue but think they do.As just because someone don’t believe certain illness don’t exist but in the medical world they do !!! a pen pushing gov man/women just don’t have a clue and the answers is always im not qualified to answer that so who is ?, get rid of all government people and put human beings in there place
hello, i do not live in residential care but on my own in a housing association bungalow, i am on motability lower rate as i suffer from epilepsy and have back and hip problems , with the new rules proposed will i lose this benefit as it is my only means of getting to town to socialise with my friends and get shopping thats i need
The mobility component of DLA is used for the person getting around. As a disabled person who uses a power wheelchair I know how expensive it can be to buy a car big enough for my wheelchair and the hoist alone to lift it as it is 56kg was £450 on its own! The mobility component of DLA has allowed me to actually have a life outside of my home. I can go to the shops, get to work, go to my university and see friends and family. I think it is a shame that just because a person is in residential care that their mobility element would stop. Their mobility problems and the cost to keep them mobile hasn’t changed. How many families who have family members with disabilities in residential care can afford to provide the right vehicle, the hoist or lift equipment, the insurance on these wheelchair accessible vehicles, the maintenance of the car, the tax, the MOT, the servicing etc? I certainly don’t know any. So is it the case that their love ones are going to be left to stare at 4 walls all day? That the only thing these people will do is receive visits? What happened to the “handicapped” becoming “handicapable”?? By taking away their mobility element you are discriminating against them because of the fact they receive 24 on call care. That is all they are able to receive, because nobody from the care homes has the time or the necessary equipment for each individuals needs, weight capacity etc. It sounds more like a prison sentence for disabled residents to me rather than support to live, they will be left with the bare minimum support to merely exist.
I strongly believe that these sort of benefits should be left alone. Disabled people already have many problems, and to issue a warning that they may ‘lose benefits’ will only make matter worse for them. Rename them by all means, but these people have been deemed to need help, and were given it, often ‘for life’. To now take them away because successive governments have ‘overspent’ and ‘bailed out the banks’ is tough. Find somewhere else to get the money from, leave the poor alone.
As a nation we should look after the sick and needy, but for the grace of god…..
Just because people live in care does not mean they cannot try to be independent. Just saying family can come and take them out is disgraceful. Do you think they have no self respect? Do you think they want to feel a burden to visitors? Not everyone can afford to hand them money to go out, nor should they feel they have to. We give enough money to people abroad in need, try looking after our own!
How can they take away dla from the people who most need it. Most of us that claim it rely on it to keep our mobility. It is unfair and unjust. How would they like to be indoors 24/7 i believe if they took it off the people who false claim it we would be better off. Why are they punishing the disabled.
My mother is in residential care and without the mobility component of d l a I just couldn’t take her out because she has complex needs and is wheelchair bound I couldn’t just leave her there to rot she has rights to and I would fight tooth and nail to keep them. My son is also disabled but only gets the lower rate for mobility he can’t go out on his own because he is vulnerable plus other issues, I hate that both mum and my son may be penalised just for being disabled and unable to speak for themselves to let the powers that be know how much they value their independence.
yes keep the disability living allowance. But weed out the fakers.
Hi I am a disabled person and have had DLA since birth, I am disgusted that DLA is being threatened!! Disabled people have fought long and hard to get their needs noticed and the additional cost of disability recognize. My DLA goes toward my care as I have staff come in every-day to support me, my adapted van, my electric wheelchair, walking frame, to name but a few. People assume this is all supplied but its not. We have to pay extra for the privilege of getting out and about and that extra cost is there whether you are in residential care or not. And it does not disappear just because there is now a so called accessible public transport system. I would challenge any one to test it out as a wheelchair user and then see how accessible it really is!!
Its a scary time for us disabled people it reminds me of the days of Hitler where disabled people were hidden away and eventually eradicated from society. Talk about human rights and equality!! Well denying disabled people the financial means that they have relied upon to assist them to participate in society is a disgrace!!! Sheila
i work in a residential home and most of our residents have lost their mobility component and also their blue badges, we try to do activities with them, some cannot access the community without support but they are told they do not need the mobility component
The government do not understand what they are talking about. Just because one has to live in state funded residential homes (as I can foresee I shall be) it does not mean that we are vegetables and expect to have no quality of life. Independence is paramount in keeping a state of good mental health, and you people in government who have independence for granted, do not understant this. Your intentions are outrageous.
Being Scottish and living in Canada I have to say removal of any assistants to the handicap is a disgrace. having visited Scotland and England several times last time 5 years ago I was surprised to see the very little is done to accommodate the handicap, The majority hotel are not accessible. stores are not accessible and forget transportation..to take away ANY allowances from the UK Handicap is a disgrace and those people wishing to do so should hang their heads in shame. an allowance is given to those so that a better quality of life can be achieved. and Those that are in residential care do need the allowance as they have special needs and as we all know special needs do not come cheap. I know because I have been Handicapped for past 10 years. don’t ever stop fighting for their needs.
How will my autistic son get to university every day without his mobility allowance to pay for a taxi? – he cannot travel alone on public transport, he is far too vulnerable and needs someone with him at all times to manage his organisation, social interaction, behaviour, sensory issues, anxiety and communication. Without mobility he would be housebound and unable to study – he has a huge potential to contribute to society through his gift for physics and maths; his DLA with its mobility component is absolutely essential for him to have the opportunity to to achieve that potential and live the life he deserves to lead.
instead of hitting those who need the most help here is a way of saving millions of pounds stop giving drug addicts methadone and place them in prison until they stop taking drugs and millions of pounds away from the disabled and those who really need help, smack heads problems are self imposed and should not be treated as a special case, the same goes for drunks who get money from the system to go and get drunk, the system is fritzed and needs to get it’s act together, stop making the disabled suffer for the likes of smack heads and drunks
Just to add that he will need to be in residential care when he leaves home which will be in the next couple of years when he needs to move away from our home town to continue higher level study.
I’m been on dla from 6 year old and it helps me get things I need if I didn’t have dla I would not have anyway of helping me with my care and mobilty please don’t stop dla as people like me need it
my DLA ran out last Nov, we had filled out the claim forms yet again to renew it,initially we were told by letter that we would have a visit from an independant Dr who would examine me and send his report in to the DWP, he rang me on the 23rd Dec and said he would be coming to examine me at 10AM on Xmas Eve, when he arrived i was in my chair, he asked me some questions and when my wife tried to explain what effect my ailments were making to her ( she is my carer) she was told to ‘be quiet i am asking your husband’ and this was said on more than one occasion, he duly asked for me to stand up from my chair, my wife stood up to help, which was quite normal and he told her not to help, i did manage it but with quite a lot of pain and near breathless, he then told me to bend over as far as i could which i did try but was unable to move more that a couple of degrees, walk forward 3 paces and then it was ‘right you can sit now’ he filled in his forms asking me very little, after about 15 minutes he went and that was the last we heard until about 2 weeks later when we received a letter from the DWP which stated that i no longer qualified for DLA due to the doctors report saying basically there was nothing wrong with me, i did NOT need any help in getting in and out of bed, i was able to shower my self, and i could walk at least 800 mtrs, all this after i was asked just how do i manage when we do the family shopping, to which my answer was and i quote ‘ when we go to the superstore if there is NO electric trolley’s available then i will wait in the car until my wife comes out’ and yet he says i am able to walk 800mtrs just where does he come up with this figure, where i live my car is parked around 60 yds away and whenever we go out it takes meanywhere between 3 – 5 mins to get there i have to stop at least once and i always have to use my GTN spray, but he says i am capable of work, then o.k. give me back my HGV 1 licence and lets just see who is right and who is wrong, as far as the powers that be are concerned what there Independant Drs say is Gospel and we have to just sit back and take it, what recourse have we got, What right have they to tell ME what i can and can’t do when i have been ill for over 10 years and over that time i have developed other illnesses that will be with me for the rest of my life, as i now have to take Warfarin every day permanently because i have Atrial Fibrillation which i didn’t have 1o years ago, i am on Morphine for pain relief because i cannot bend due to spinal arthritis, these are just a couple ofd my ailments but i take each day approx 17 tablets and 2 sprays plus my GTN, so who is trying to play the system here, Certainly not me, so why is it that i am being penalised by the same system that tells everybody just how fair they are, i don’t know just who they are kidding but certainly NOT me…..
Hi Pete
Reading about what you went through made me feel ill. It makes me so mad that when a ‘medical professional’ doesn’t believe/ hasn’t heard of a certain condition they screw you over (has happend to me but not in DLA claim). It might be an urban myth but I heard you have to claim 3 times before you are awarded DLA. Regardless of that keep fighting mate, chronic pain is not fun- tiredness, drug side affects, not being able to sleep properly or concentrate on anything on top of physical impairment- I know how hard it is, diff condition though. How wrong is the system when stuff like this happens???!!!!
I am a severely disabled person and I am unable to walk more than 15 to 20 feet without the need to sit down because both my knees are shot due to a R.T.A back in 1982 my injuries were extensive because of the head injuries I sustained left my short term memory in a very poor condition I can not sit a highway code test I am aware of all road signs etc but questions on the highway code do not stick in my memory thus meaning I have to ride a motor tricycle on a provisional licence only if I am required to travel a further distance than a mobility scooter which has a very limited travelling distance and takes forever to get where you need to goth forms of to so I need both forms of transport to assist with travel it would help greatly if you could use a train to take mobility scooters on them but in the northwest our trains don’t allow this only on the eastern network as far as I know of. but it takes all my mobility money to get mot certs even on mobility scooters if you require insurance on them which any responsible person would take out plus the fact nearly every business dealing with mobility products rip the cash out of your pockets. so you see I’m not the only disabled person with his problem full disability access is still a futuristic dream too many disabled people who can not walk need these machines even those in nursing homes to grant them just a little independence. but remember this everyone disability can even happen to mp’s, councilors, and lords, and their families as well,illness takes everyone at some time of their life only a very few lucky ones will probably get away without illness and live a full life. but the odds are stacked well and truly against that happening, so politicians this may happen to you also remember that when you vote to cut our mobility allowance money you may just be cutting the throat of one of your friends or family members or even your own in the near future….
I’ll wager these decision maker’s opinions would soon change should they suddenly find that they are the ones in need of state help.
What has happened to the consideration once afforded to those less able to care for themselves that was once deemed an issue for this to be assessed through parliamentary processes and introduced in the first place? Why should this need suddenly not be a need now?
I always thought during the cold war if we stopped spending money on the military we could spend this money on improving society instead, now we have stopped spending money on the military and there is still no money left for society! What are those politicians doing to us? None of them ever seem to end up in situations where they need to be cared for, and none of them seem to be able to connect with the constituents they are meant to be representing unless they happen to be rich or large conglomerates. It seems to me that the big society expects people to care for each other by voluntary means without any means of support in return. How are people meant to be cared for if there is no funding for this care and no funding for voluntary organisations with even the care homes closing because of cash flow issues?
Hello . My initial reaction was it kind of makes sense on a basic level but residential care is by its nature a greater level of support . Does this mean that anyone is residential care is unable to go out in an independent manner . Most can walk and would be of great advantage for them to have mobility scooters y. I know certainly of 2 individuals in residential care with respiratory problems who use scooters to enable their mobility around the home as well as going out short distances . I think the mistake here is to assume residential care = end of active life in society . My experience in working in such envirions ( nurse before illness ) is those who get out out by whichever means are most happy . Mobility components are also used for having carers accompany the person on trips . I have to pay for the carers time and any admission costs . Getting some were is not the whole picture
I am currently living independently with care support . The thought that i may need 24 hour support, not care as residential care in itself is not 24 hour care . Individuals vary in their level of independence .
So classifying between residential care , nursing home care , and EMI care may clarify matters . Though managing a family members needs on spending time in other places ( family homes) can feel overwhelming and adding a taxi being a cost that can not be met , may be a tipping factor for families and individuals adding to social exclusion with its implications to that individuals needs .
Ultimately my DLA mobility component is used for a scooter now . I still need taxi’s , which I pay a premium because I need a wheelchair vehicle . I can’t use community transport often as my illness is unpredictable . I also tire quickly so need transport I can adapt to my needs . I have to do things when I can . I also need to use taxis home from appointments and for hospital appointments . Without my DLA my income was not sufficient to pay my rent top up and get back from hospital ( A&E admission ) None of my family drive . This caused me considerable distress and worry which aggravates my condition .
If I need 3 calls a day morning , lunch , tea and bed call , My local authority will not fund all the hours . So I could end up in residential care but want and need to get out in a suitable vehicle . Without my DLA mobility this would not be possible . Would this be flouting my human rights ?
So by removing this you could be trapping people in their own homes , increasing the risk of depression and increasing the effects of pre existing conditons . The money is not for families but by removing it you are reducing equality and increasing the gap between those who have and those who don’t . families may not be able to afford fuel for trips out , be embarrassed about this so avoid visiting and taking the person out .
Christmas day in residential homes will be a lot bussier .
Josie
Is this another attack upon the disabled It seems that this government are discriminating against us, why ? because they have nothing but conempt for the disabled. And.this from a man who had a disabled child. Still, it won’t affect those with plenty in the bank ( about 1 pent ) the other (99 p cent ) can suffer Typical….
Well the government seem to want to cut benefits but they attack the ones most in need whether residential disabled or otherwise its about time they listened to thes people im a transplant patient yet my dla has gone to tribunal twice each time ive wone yet i get no mobility component and fatigue and arthritis in my back is not sufficient for them to allow me mobility let alone pain stopping me from getting around they juge you but couldnt live like you have to yet they give immigrants more than our pensioners when are we going to take care of british people !!!!!!
I am not in residential care, I live on my own. I have Mental Health problems and Heart disease.
I am on the care element of DLA as I am on 24 hour supervision to try and stop me severely injuring or killing myself. I was detained under the Mental Health Act for just over a year, now have been left at home as Mental Health sufferers are rarely admitted to hospital. The supervision rarely works, as have done things to myself on many occassions – the Medics do not know why I’m still here inspite of what I have done.
I am also on low level disability allowance, because my heart condition has made it difficult for me to get around. I can walk a certain distance for exercise or to get to my nearest supermarket, but then have to get a taxi home as my legs become week and painful.
If the DLA is scrapped, we can only guess what will happen
my 23 year old fragile-x son lives 50 miles away in residential care, he did not choose the location – a small remote town and the only house available at the time. he lived alone for many months while the house was finished and prepared for other residents. his timetable was the tv listings. there is no phone-line in the house so internet access is impossible. without mobility he’d go insane.
wELL IF THE GOVERMENT TAKE AWAY MY DLA-MOBILITY then after being a disabled war veteran then i might as well do one of two things ,1. become a sitting muppet to wither away because goverment think I should not have any independancy because of my injuries which restrict me , or 2. should i shoot myself so i am of the books and be just another statistic crapped on disabled veteran and the disabled in general .
You people in goverment and the ridiculus twerps who write comments,such as,” well if they live in residential establishments they dont need it”, should really find out what disability is about , . For gods sake life is hard enough as it is take this away then your disabling the disabled even more ,discriminating them as well . and condemming them to being house bound.
Well thanks for all you anti disablement comments ,thanks for a goverment who couldnt give a toss really except line there own pockets and keep the fat cats in banks happy . wreck our countries Army by cutting man power ,so they can buy two bloody aircraft carriers we never needed and the money for them could of paid to help disabled or deaf ,deaf/blind .
again many thanks from a veteran who is proud to be british , proud to have served my country,proud to have been a soldier even if i am know disabled . so to you armchair politicians and MP’s get a grip and get out of your little bubble and get into real world .
CHRIS = IF YOU ARE A WAR DISABLED VETERAN WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING UNDER THE D.L.A. SCHEME ..IF YOU ARE IN RECEIPT OF A WAR DISABLED PENSION – AS MY MOTHER IS – YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR MOBILITY NEEDS MET BY THE WAR PENSIONERS MOBILITY SUPPLEMENT W.P.M.S. WORTH OVER £200 PER MONTH –IT IS MORE THAN D.L.A. MOBILITY MOBILITY ALLOWANCE AND THE W.P.M.S. IS NOT UNDER THREAT IT IS JUST FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND HAVE THEIR CARE PAID FOR THEM BY THE STATE ..CONTACT THE VETERANS AGENCY 0800 169 2277
Mobility allowance is granted to those people who need help to get around. They have to get through strict criteria to get this benefit. It should not matter where they live. To remove this benefit from people in care homes removes their right to independence,to choose where and when they wish to go, and it removes their dignity. Without it people in care homes would have to rely on transport arranged by the care home managers, their relatives(if they have any) to take them when it is convenient to them—not when they wish to go. Everyone has a right to personal choice. It is a disgrace to remove this benefit that gives disabled people a measure of independence.
I think the proposals to take away higher rate Mobility allowance for those in residential care is disgraceful, by doing this you are taking away their freedom and valuable outside and much needed contact and change of enviroment necessary for their own quality of life.
People with a disability already have their own physical limitations and we need to be making sure that they are provided for, they do not choose to be disabled and to deny them this allowance and the homes that care for them is to take away a valuable lifeline.
I myself have a disabled daughter but am lucky enough to be able to care for her in our own home, we ourselves have the higher rate mobility allowance, life is hard enough when you or a loved one have a disability without being told you have no rights to a facility to help make life easier for their day to day well being, I do not know what we would do without ours.
Surely the main objective of this exercise is to circumvent the existing legislation which prevents Councils from taking the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance into account when assessing the level of charges to be paid by those receiving social care? By removing the entitlement altogether, the mone (or, more likely, a fraction of it) can just be reallocated to Social Services. If this is the agenda, then debate should revolve around how to ensure that this money is ring-fenced to be spent on transportation and how individual choice can be built into the new arrangements.
I support this campaign to keep the DLA
Once again cuts are directed at the most vulnerable in our society. If I had to go into residential care because my care needs could not be met within the community, it would not mean that I wouldn’t need a social life, perhaps I might need it even more!
I currently get high rate mobility component and use it to fund a Motability car, which I use in conjunction with a powered wheelchair in order to get around. My life would be so severely impoverished should I no longer receive this vital money.
I do not qualify for income support because of a tiny pension I get from my late husband’s employer. Therefore, I only receive Incapacity Benefit and my DLA care component at the Lower rate (even though I believe that I should be getting middle rate).
My friend lived in a London borough and had several DLA applications refused, then she moved to the West Country and her application was allowed. She gets High Rate on both components, yet works full-time. I on the other hand am unable to work at all! So do I think things should be reviewed, well yes, but not in order to knock off a great chunk of the budget, it should be to make sure it is being used in the best way for the people who are entitled to it.
This Low Review may well be to do with the people in residential care and the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance that they get for helping them retain there dignity! And mobility! For everyone concerned, but this talk of public transport witch is fine if you can use it as many people do but for those with special needs who find public transport more of a hinderers than useful haw are they to retain there dignity and mobility, I personally feel the government members involved in this Review should spend a week or two in a residential care home with ever young or old doing the work of a career that way they could see first hand the difficulty’s and indignity they would be imposing on these people that they say there helping by making the right chose for these people and for those yet to come into the system, think about it one day your loved ones will need dignity! And mobility! To help them or yourselves.
The review frustrates me in a few ways as someone on DLA living independently. Firstly, many of the comments here demonstrates how disempowered disabled people feel and how others still pity them, DLA is not a god given right but a tool to support people which I feel no longer works as its simply fuels dependency and poverty.
I hear people talk about DLA like they are die a painful immediately death if they lost this allowance. Disabled people are rights but also responsibility, which is often sadly forgiving.
This review seems to assume residential care, eg locking away disabled people, is okay and mobility allowance is seem as the visiting rights of people in prison. It saddens me how people talk about disabled people as permanently vulnerable and the if a carer ‘put their loved ones in a home’ they automatic decide how the allowance will be spent to put light into misery.. come on, this is 2011! Where did ‘free our person’ go?
Everyone has its tough disabled or not, every parent/carer can say how hard it is as anyone else. I am fed up disabled people focusing on their ‘problems’ demanded other people pick up the pieces as they demand rights but expect charity. If you really want to do something, you will find a way of doing it!
Providers of residential care are responsible for transport needs. Many of the charities complaining about the mobility allowances run homes where they are failed to deliver transport. Councils also charge day care users redicious amounts for transport, stealing the allowance from them,
I feel as accommodation and care services split, this will be an non issue as residential care as it is now will cause to exist, as people become tenants of community living centres with add on packages. I also feel the whole anti-poverty measures and social care for low needs should be properly reviewed to empower people to be active citizens, not disempowering them in a model of dependency as they fight for a life on benefit which suits the charities which profit from it with well paid staff. And before someone asks, I have lots of difficulties, I am in chronic pain and I am a mental health user so I do know a bit about what I am talking about.
richard you really have no idea as to how people living in residential care are funded. my 30 year old daughter now resides in a care home, she is not in an old peoples home, but are funded as though she is. being a younger person and has severe learning dificulties,she uses more clothing food toiletries footwear to name but a few, after her care costs are deducted from her income support she is left with only £22 per wek this is supposed to cover all of those things. it goes nowhere near, we have to subsidise this out of our old age pensions, so please have a thought for those of us who do have to suffer not only the financial side of this, but alson the heartbreak of our daughter having to live outside of the family home.my daughter does not sleep at night only catnapse. my wife and i suffered 25years of very little sleep, you should try it and that is only part of it she has very challenging behaviour, she lived with us untill eventually it caused us both to suffer physically. would you really like to see her allowance cut?
We totally agree with the comments made by Michael Wilkinson as our daughter is very much in the same situation.Losing the mobility payment would create real hardship to us as pensioners if we have to subsidize our daughters travel expenses to travel home and to her social activities. The £22.00 left after fees does not even come close to covering her personal living which we now subsidize.
if you are “rich” and can afford to self fund your residential social care you can keep the mobility allowance , but if you are “poor” and the state pays for all your residential care you lose the mobility allowance ,,surely regardless of the resident being “rich” or “poor” their mobility needs are the same .at least the war disabled pensioners are out of this argument= a war disabled pensioner who is entitled to the war pensioners mobility supplement W.P.M.S. will retain their mobility allowance which many use for the hire of a motability finance car, be they self funding or have their residential care paid for by the state ..can you imagine the war disabled within the Royal Chelsea hospital, the Chelsea pensioners being forced to give up their WAR PENSIONERS MOBILITY SUPPLEMENT…..
I am lot happy with the nloisey nuisance neighbour about get on at me now from
19 Sycaome Close
Kettering
Northamptonshire
& What can you do about it for me day now
& Will like a better good new safe home for me to live with a better good looking new life
& A better good looing new social life for me in the community for me day now in
Kettering Northamptonshire for me day now with a lot of Friend and Friendship for me to day now in
Kettering Northamptonshire and better good choice for me day now in
Kettering Northamptonshire now
Yours sincerely
John Welsh.
People living in residential care need the money to buy things such as powered wheelchairs so that they can continue their independence as there will be no staff or volunteers to take them out.
Some of my comments may have been posted already, but are important and need to be reiterated.
People who live in residential care are there for a reason and often may not be able to speak out or voice their opinion fully; almost certainly not to the extent that they probably wish. I’m quite sure that many would much prefer an “ordinary” life, with choices and opportunities that most of us take for granted every day. Simple things like being able to choose what to eat, who to spend time with, where to go, with whom and for how long; a meaningful role in society, a loving relationship, their own house – even their own bank account are luxuries that so many people are unable to enjoy and probably never will.
As if life has not been made painful and utterly difficult enough for many of these people (which in most cases is no-one’s fault, but is no easier to bare), repeated indignities only compound these struggles and it is shameful.
Free money will never take away their struggles but it does help, in some small way, to open up just a few opportunities that otherwise would be simply unattainable.
The social care system in this country is going through some major changes, but is still woefully underfunded, under resourced and often completely misunderstood. The proposed cuts will ruin people’s lives – this is a fact and cannot be argued otherwise, however eloquant the government makes their statements. It is shocking how a blind eye can be turned to the super-rich and their greedy actions, whilst those living on so little face having even that taken away.
Not that I need to validate my comments, I will nevertheless add that I work with profoundly disabled people every day and I have multiple sclerosis. I have experienced everything written above first hand for a very long time and I am very scared for the future of these people and for myself, in Britain.
It is a good place to live if you do nothing for yourself and need financial help.
It is set to become a dreadful place to live if you cannot do anything for yourself and need financial help.
To anyone who feels that vulnerable and physically or learning disabled people do not deserve financial assistance; you must hope that you never find yourself in their situation.
I write on behalf of my foster son who now, aged 40, lives in residential care. He is severely physically disabled and can move only his left arm, slightly. He is therefore unable to work and any quality of life comes from being able to get out and about, see things, meet people…… he lies in a moulded shell in a reclined position and is tall, so his wheelchair only fits on some buses. His DLA pays for some taxis to enable him to get out, and also for the fares of the two carers needed to support him on trains and the few accessible buses. Without it he would be confined to his home and likely to suffer from isolation and subsequent depression / mental ill health.
My brother is now 44yrs old has severe learning difficulties (i hate that phrase) plus mobility issues requiring use of a wheelchair. The lack of suitable specialist nursing care facilities in Lincolnshire means that he lives over 80miles away from my disabled aged mother. The mobility component of his DLA pays for his visits once a month to see my housebound mother with his specialised carers in tow to make sure he is safe. It also pays for his annual holiday.
I can’t transport either to see each other because I am a 24/7 carer of my severely disabled tetraplegic husband. This means that I don’t get to see my brother or mother very often either, and love to hear my mum’s joy over the phone when she has had a visit from her eldest son.
This is why Jonathan needs his mobility part of his DLA.
Angela his sister.
I help to run an organisation which supports adults with learning disabilities in a rural area in the Midlands. Some of our services are registered homes and we also work with people who live in their own places. Many of our service users are unable to use public transport and, being a rural area, it is often not available to go when/where people need to go. We have invested in substantial provision of vehicles to get around this problem, and invite our service users to contribute to the cost using their Mobility Allowance. My understanding is that many other provider organisations make similar arangements. Through this we are able to help people go to their doctor, go to college and other daytime activities, visit their families and to expand their social horizons. The local authority who funds most of our service users makes no mention of transport (or transport costs) in contracts etc. and they are aware of the arangements we make. We are very concerned that, if the plan to remove Mobility Allowance from registered home residents is carried through, it will seriously impact on the lives our service users can live, as we will have to cut back on what we provide. It is easy to say that “the provider should fund and provide” but in the current economic climate this is not likely to happen.
Similarly I work for a service provider and we have the same arrangement. The local authorities who fund our service users quite specifically say that transport should be paid for through mobility component DLA and do not fund it.
We are a charity. We do not make a profit. There is no other money available to fund this. If the allowance is withdrawn or reduced it will have a serious negative impact on the lives of our service users, many of whom have profound and multiple disabilities – not only on their leisure but on their education, health care, and mental health.
Louise hi,
As you didn’t state whaich charity you worked for, so I have linked the main two associated published accounts for this review and consideration.
RNIB 2010 accounts its income was £135 million http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=226227&SubsidiaryNumber=0
Leonard Cheshire 2010 accounts its income was £155 million http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=218186&SubsidiaryNumber=0
I’m not sure what these links were for? I know perfectly well the situation in the charity I work for. There is simply no money available from elsewhere – other than the mobility component of DLA – for people with severe disabilities to get around when they are unable to use public transport.
Louise hi,
I have provided the links so people acessing the website/blog, can see for themselves the trading accounts of the RNIB and LC and other charities to make an informed decision on the collected information, views, data and experiences which are listed.
Like HM Government currently reviewing it accounts, so should every one else. Most charities probabably receive about 50-60%+ income, which is from a statotary source (HM Government) either through PCT, Central Government, Dept of ………. These budgets are being cut by 9% year on year for the next 4/5 years, income will still be there.
I know from my own expereince that outside trusts and charities have supported me and help is at hand from different resources.
I am very unhappy with this Government policy and have now set up an e-petition aimed at challenging it. We need 100,000 signatures to trigger a commons debate. Please take the time to add your signature. Thanks.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5349
Andrew hi,
A similiar petition http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/uk-disabled-community-against-welfare-benefit-cuts.html
Send this on to organisations eg Disabled Motoring UK and anyone who has signed it copy the epetitions address and email it to people- have you thought about putting it on face book or twitter?
I don’t use those things but a lot of people do
The Government need to stop picking on the most vulnerable people in society – leave DLA as it is!
Paul the current ILF budget is some £333 million pounds, about 1% is taken up in administration and on average cost £15,000 per person. For the most highest need, for which I have seen should receive this support. On average those receiving ILF receive about £50,000 net in income to support its needs. 770,000 disbaled children are in the UK. 3.2 million claim DLA of the estimated 10 million disbaled people in the UK.
The current ILF program supports at March 2011
Aids related disease 110
Arthritis (osteo-rheumatoid-still’s dis) 658
Blood disease (inc leukaemia) 3
Brain damage (inc head injury) 961
Cancers-tumours 70
Cardio-vascular(inc heart disease) 80
Cerebral Palsy 2981
Cerebro-vascular (inc stroke) 747
Dementia (inc Alzheimers) 86
Down’s syndrome 1045
Epilepsy 435
Friedreich’s ataxia 173
Huntington’s Disease 119
Hydrocephalus 55
Lung or respiratory disease (inc asthma) 61
Mental illness 123
Motor Neurone Disease 84
Multiple Sclerosis 2642
Muscular Dystrophy or Atrophy 534
Osteoporosis 55
Other 1577
Parkinson’s disease 123
Physical malformation limbs-Thalidomide 30
Polio damage 104
Severe learning disability 6099
Spina bifida 341
Spinal injury 1314
(blank) 169
Grand Total 20610
A person in a residential care do need mobility payments. They should not stay indoors or walk, you have no idea what you are talking about. Independence is a word that maybe you have not heard of. If you are in residential care, it does not mean you are a not a person, What if they wish to go out, they should have some money to allow them to do this. Or are you saying that they have to stay at the home all day and evenings. i have seen some families with children in care using the mobility vehicles for those in care, i think who ever dealing with the mobilty funds needs shooting in their heads as they allowed things like this to happen.
The issue here is that people cared for in residential homes, in receipt of the mobility component of DLA, spend their money in a variety of ways, but not necessarily on aids to mobility, or transport, but because they need to, to make their life humanly tolerable. The amount of this component is also assessed by the purchasing authority when the contribution people make to the cost of their care, is assessed by means testing. Remove the mobility component, and the purchasing authority is left with more tough decisions about who to exclude from services it can then not afford by having to pay more to purchase residential care, – without the additional contribution from people assessed for, but no longer receiving the mobility component. With apologies to people shot in the foot, the policy to kick out mobility components of those entitled in residential care will irreparably damage the policy maker when he answers for that action to every purchasing authority in England and Wales. Richard.
Hi Richard-i’m not even going to read your reply because you are so full of your own self importance you cannot seem to see past your own nose…
Quite Alison, because this blog is not about the self indulgence of some inflated egos, but about the relevance of an allowance to a system set up by government, which now relies on the funding that families have won for their dependants, to afford their care, and make a meaningful contribution to their lives. My reply to Anne-marie above, explains the background of my understanding. When you have chilled out, and decided to make a contribution less insulting to this topic, and more relevant to the facts, of which you seem to have little knowledge, we can continue to share our concern for the fact that a coalition is using its apparent strength to smooth out the wrinkles on the face of disability, and the benefits it attracts, without acknowledging that care providers can not enhance a person’s dignity, without the person’s means for self-expression and esteem.
Police and council ‘investigated’ scandal hospital concerns six times
Police and council officers had at least six chances to investigate concerns about the safety of disabled people in a private “hospital” in the two years before the abusive regime was finally exposed by the BBC.
The Panorama investigation uncovered serious allegations of abuse at Winterbourne View, a private hospital for people with learning difficulties, near Bristol.
But it emerged this week that there were at least seven “alerts” notifying the authorities of safety concerns at Winterbourne View between October 2009 and August 2010, nine months before the documentary was aired in May this year.
Six of the alerts were dealt with by the council’s safeguarding team and investigated by Avon and Somerset police, while a seventh was investigated by Castlebeck, the company that ran Winterbourne View. At least three of the alerts reportedly related to the use of restraint or physical abuse by hospital staff.
South Gloucestershire Council has already faced criticism for apparently failing to follow-up concerns raised by a whistleblower in October 2010.
But the new evidence raises fresh questions over why the council failed to uncover the alleged abuse that was later exposed by Panorama, despite the number of safeguarding concerns raised during those two years.
A South Gloucestershire Council spokesman admitted that the referrals go back even further than October 2009.
He said the council received 19 safeguarding referrals between the opening of Winterbourne View in 2006 and 12 May 2011, when it learned about the Panorama programme.
Of these 19 referrals, 17 came from managers at Winterbourne View and two from charge nurses, while 15 concerned the behaviour of members of staff.
The council spokesman said a serious case review set up in the wake of the Panorama documentary would “look in detail at each of these alerts and consider the appropriateness of the multi-agency safeguarding response to them”, while the council had also launched its own internal investigation.
Avon and Somerset police declined to comment because of its ongoing investigation into the alleged abuse at Winterbourne View, as well as the serious case review, which is examining the actions of all the organisations involved.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC), which regulates health and adult social care in England, said it was passed details of all seven of the alerts.
A CQC spokeswoman said it was “the job of the local authority or the police to investigate these incidents and to hold the provider or staff to account if necessary”.
But she added: “The issue at Winterbourne View was not what was known and reported, but what was concealed – the horrific abuse of vulnerable people which was exposed by weeks of secret filming by Panorama.”
CQC said that these kind of safeguarding referrals were “shocking but sadly not atypical” of such facilities. Last year, CQC received 11,000 “notifications” of serious injury, and nearly 3,500 notifications of police investigations.
Castlebeck has now announced the closure of three of its care facilities for people with learning difficulties, including Winterbourne View.
This week, the company agreed to close Arden Vale, near Coventry, another “hospital” that provides “care” for people with learning difficulties and mental health conditions, after CQC served a legal notice proposing to remove Arden Vale’s registration.
CQC had raised “serious concerns” about care standards at Arden Vale, including the inappropriate use of restraint, and took action when it saw no evidence of the necessary improvements.
Last week, a Castlebeck residential home on the edge of Bristol, Rose Villa, was closed following a string of concerns about care standards and the suspension of four staff members.
Castlebeck said it was “vigorously addressing concerns that have been raised about some of our services”.
It has also received formal warning notices relating to two other care facilities, Croxton Lodge in Melton Mowbray and Cedar Vale in Nottingham, where CQC has again raised concerns about the potential safety of people with learning difficulties.
http://www.dls.org.uk/Rights/News/2011/august/14.html
I am wheelchair bound due to motor neurone disease. Last year, due to marital breakdown, I found myself homeless. For 3 months I was placed in a residential nursing home until the social services found me a place in extra care housing. It was the worst 3 months of my life. I was cooped up in a small room [no room to even turn my wheelchair]. The communal lounge was a no go area as it was full of dementia patients shouting, endlessly repeating senseless phrases etc. What saved me from depression was the ability to escape from the environment due to mobility component of the DLA. Unfortunately, due to progressive nature of MND, at some time in the future I will probably have to return to residential care. I have been able to accept the inevitability of MND but what fills me with dread is residential care without the ability to escape to the outside world.
In 2009 the UK Government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Article 19 of the Convention (http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=279) concerns the right of disabled people to live independently in the community and requires government to put in place legal and practical measures to enable disabled people to exercise choice about where and with who they live and to overcome isolation through increased participation in community life. Clearly DLA/PIP as a key plank in the means by which the UK meets its obligations.
Personal mobility is not an end in itself. It is the means to a wide number of other ends. Having control over one’s own mobility is not simply about visiting family and friends. It’s about being in control, being spontaneous and free. Its about coming and going as one pleases. It’s about pursuing a life rather than just living. Its about having the flexibility to go to work, to go for a drink after work and to stay out all night if you want to. It’s about liberation. It’s why young people aspire to own a car. It’s why Thelma and Louise was such a popular film.
It’s also about being safe. Does government not recognise the relationship between power and what happened at Winterbourne View? Does it not understand that taking the power of free mobility away renders people vulnerable to abuse by dent of the simple fact that their tormentors know they cannot escape?
Hence, if we look at the proposed reforms through the lens of the UNCRPD, then our question concerns the effect of any proposals on enjoyment of the rights set out in the Convention, to which the UK is bound in international law. In doing so we should look beyond Article 19 at the effect on the enjoyment of other rights, whether general principles such as the right to dignity, autonomy and to full participation and inclusion in society or specific articles including freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse, personal mobility, access to education, health and employment, adequate standard of living and social protection and participation in cultural life, leisure and sport.
Those living in residential care generally face the greatest barriers with respect to the enjoyment of such basic freedoms by virtue of the fact that the support they require for daily living itself lacks mobility, is located in one place, behind closed doors and very often without the means to access the outside world freely.
Hence, justice dictates that those living in such situations have the greatest case to receive the support they need to overcome such barriers and to redress the lack of power they face.
This point is not simply a matter of having the means, it goes to the heart of how one accesses the means. Replacing a nationally defined entitlement to the mobility component of DLA for those living in residential care homes with a 21st Century form of Parish Relief can only be considered retrogressive. Mobility without choice and control is a dead end, not the means to the end it should be to accord with the rights set out in the UNCRPD.
Further, it is unclear how the government proposes to square its commitment to localism with a guarantee that disabled people living in residential care homes will receive mobility support from their local authority, especially when all evidence indicates that local services will soon resemble a skeleton at best. And if such a guarantee can be given, then why does it matter where the money comes from? Surely the (not negligible) costs of reform are then avoidable?
A key principle of international human rights law is non-regression. This does not mean that the UNCRPD prevents government from reforming public policy – indeed their may be aspects of the PIP proposals which accord more closely with the UNCRPD than the present DLA. And at a time of fiscal retrenchment such as now it also doesn’t prevent government reducing the amount it spends on particular programmes or benefits. What the UNCRPD does demand however is proportionality and transparency. Why is the proposed reform a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? What impact will it have – both positive and negative – and what mitigations will be put in place in relation to any negative effects?
The Low review has been launched precisely because the government has failed these tests. Hopefully the review itself can draw on the Convention as a key point of reference in its deliberations.
If my mother did not receive Mobility allowance then there is no way she could get out to family and friends on a once or twice weekly basis due to the cost of transporting a wheelchair bound person about. She would be stuck in the carehome 7 days a week as the taxi fair to my house is £30 return. It costs £10 return just for a trip into town for a couple of hours. As her family, we could not afford to pay for this out of our own money and so contact would be reduced somewhat. My mother is only 65 but has a spinal injury and so the only place the social could think for her to live was in a carehome. Cutting off her social contact would be detrimental to her wellbeing. BUT we know carehomes and the government operate on a £bottomline basis only.
I am a tetraplegic and currently live in a care home after my wife was taken seriously ill and am now a permanent resident as my wife needs as stress free a life as possible. I have had all of my benefits except the mobilty element plus half of my compulsory police pension, which was not a full pension, the other half goes to my wife, taken from me by Social Services, which I don’t object to. We struggle to keep our family home going. I am allowed £20 a week pocket money allowance of which I try to use as little as possible.
The nearest bus service to the residential home is approximately two miles away. I use the mobility element of DLA on the frequent occasions I go out to pay for adapted taxis to travel to my home and shopping centres etc..
As the government said they would protect the most vulnerable in our society this is a complete reversal of that statement. It will prevent myself and others from going out to visit my wife at ‘our’ home, leisure trips, also meeting friends and socialising in the local community as often as I would like to, in other words we will be confined to the four walls of the care home with £20 ‘pocket money’ to cover clothing toiletries and the cost of a telephone coming under serious consideration. Its clear that, the coalition definition of “fairness” and “dignity” and being part of ”The Big Society”. Regardless of your political belief. Is not extended to disabled members of our “civilised society”.
.
prosily southygirl1 there are people out there getting DLA and using that money for drugs or alcohol and it should be stopped DLA on any element should only be for people in real need of it, I can see the government one day making the NHS very much like the dentist where if you work et you pay for the treatment you get, its about time the government charged these people that come here on holiday instead of getting NHS FREE TREATMENT secondly once upon a time if you emigrated to this county you couldn’t get jobseekers aliens or DLA for up to 10 years but these days they more or less get it ASP witch is outrages to the British tax payer.
We recently had a meeting with our local MP Mrs Maria Miller, Disability Minister, who assured us “we had nothing to worry about”. We are not convinced.
We are the parents of a thirty-one year old daughter with severe learning difficulties who is wheelchair dependant. She has lived in a small group home for the last 11 years situated 20 miles away from the family home. We currently own a wheelchair accessible vehicle which is used every weekend for home visits in addition to regular hospital and other appointments. The use of public transport is not an option as she has epilepsy and frequent seizures and requires support at all times from a familiar person.
The Higher Mobility Allowance has assisted with the purchase of the vehicle and helps with the running costs. Although the home has a minibus, there are six other clients who all go home on a very regular basis. It would be totally impracticable to expect the residential home to be responsible for home visits. Even if the home could arrange to bring our daughter home she would then be housebound and unable to visit anywhere else. This would greatly restrict her freedom of choice and is totally unacceptable in a civilised society.
Once again the government is targeting the weak and the vulnerable to make cuts in spending. This would have a detrimental effect on the disabled persons who rely on those payments; for instance, when a young person goes into residential school, college or a care setting they automatically lose the care component of the DLA, which leaves only the mobility allowance. This allowance enables the disabled person to afford a taxi, and generally get out and about and do more things than just being stuck in a residential home every evening, week-end and holiday.
Many young disabled persons, because of their specific and specialist needs have to attend a residential school as all this ‘integration into mainstream’ does not work if a person has a considerable disability (totally blind/high spectrum autism). From experience I know only the basics are provided for at these schools, any extra curriculum activities have to be funded by the parents, such as music lessons, horse riding etc. Then there are the countless appointments the disabled person has to attend, often miles away from their home, to see specialists. Meeting up with friends in the holidays too is expensive, as young people who attend these schools are never local but come from all over the country.
The residential school week usually only lasts four and a half days, then return home mid-day Friday to return to school once again on the Monday morning, plus they have all the school holidays at home. How can the government even think that they do not need this benefit because they are in residential care? Why not go the whole hog and take it off every disabled person? This could even force some hard-up families take their child away from a specialist residential school and put them in a local mainstream school where their needs would not be properly addressed.
What if a person is older and has no parents? Will they be stuck in a residential setting, like a prison, with no means of getting out and about? Would relatives who live many miles away regularly come and take them out for the weekend? Probably not, therefore they need this mobility component, it is a lifeline. Taxis are expensive, but busses are not a suitable form of transport for most severely disabled persons. In fact, removing the mobility component would be like going back to Victorian attitudes towards disability:- ‘they are safely ensconced in a home, out of sight and out of mind.’ It is treating this vulnerable group the same way as prisoners, given a bit of ‘pocket money’ for sweets only.
Why does the government want to target disabled people to help the country’s deficit? Surely the obvious thing that no one dares speak about is immigration – the government would save an absolutely fortune if they did not give benefits and houses to the somewhat 200,000 per year economic migrants who come to Britain
I think it is unbelievable to think that the mobility part of DLA should be taken off people that have to stay in residential care. They have the same rights to be able to get out and socialise and get to shops etc. just the same as the rest of us.
Individuals have a right to get out and about. The days of care homes being institutions where individuals do little more than sit in an armchair and watch TV should be long since passed. Even the most generous of care services can only achieve so much before they have no choice but to think of the bank balance. As managers we may feel that every person has the right to go out and so we will have to ensure it happens but where the funds are not available what is the point of seeing them out and about for the short period before the company goes bust and individuals who were previously happy, settled and secure have their whole lives turned upside down. The idea of cancelling DLA for those in care settings could easily be seen as discrimination against those individuals on a national level. The government is quick to jump on other forms of discrimination are they forgetting that the law also protects the disabled from discrimination? Any leader(s) in the past that has committed mass discrimination has not been thought well of after and there is a very good reason for this. . . . It is just plain wrong and no amount of supposed justification can change that. Unless the government is going to look at all benefits, and in one go not just saying that they will look at another one in a couple of years, then they should not do so to those without a clear voice of their own. It is easy to dismiss providers as ‘money grabbing’ and most of those in care homes these days really cannot speak up for themselves on these matters and be heard. It has taken a great deal of legislation and white papers to bring care to a level where it helps individuals to be precisely that, individuals, and the thought of going back to the dark ages in such a supposedly enlightened time is absurd. Social services will not review care fees unless there is a change in ‘need’ not finances or preferences. Care homes are generally not paid the fees for transport and so without the money to get out how are service users supposed to? What means will be put in place to ensure that disabled people in care can still go out as much as they want to? And if another means will be put in place to ensure this then why change from DLA in the first place?
prisoners are treated better.at least they get day release and home visits
Government U-turn on scrapping mobility allowance expected
The government looks set to back down from controversial plans to remove up to £50 a week in mobility benefits from disabled people in care homes.
Charities are cautiously optimistic that the government will not now take away the mobility component of disability living allowance from 78,000 residents funded by the NHS or councils as envisaged in the Welfare Reform Bill, which is currently being debated in the House of Lords.
It is thought the government will announce its U-turn next month, though it is uncertain precisely what concessions the government is prepared to make on the mobility component.
The news follows disability rights campaigner Lord Low’s inquiry into scrapping the mobility component, which called for the benefit to be retained.
The government is holding its own internal review into the proposal, which would come into force in 2013 with the replacement of DLA with a new benefit, personal independence payment.
Steve McIntosh, policy and public affairs officer at Carers UK, said: “There are a number of areas, which the government is looking at again around the Welfare Reform Bill. We would welcome any move that the government would make to continue the mobility component in residential care and hope this represents a positive sign the government is looking to reconsider the decision.”
Simon Shaw, parliamentary manager at the deafblind charity Sense, said: “Over a year on, we continue to hope that the government listens to the concerns raised by deafblind and disabled people to reconsider its position, so that people living in residential care do not lose an essential lifeline.”
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “We have always been clear that we will not make any changes that stop disabled people in care homes from getting out and about.
“Our officials have spent the last few months gathering information and evidence, including visiting disabled people in care homes to find out from them and their families about their mobility needs.
“The Low review also looked at some of the same issues and so we will be reflecting on the outcome of this work before we announce the final decision shortly.”
What do you think? Join the debate on CareSpace
Keep up to date with the latest developments in social care. Sign up to our daily and weekly emails
Related stories
Charities launch review of disability benefit cut
Government threatened with legal action over disability benefit cuts
Ministers press on with disability benefit cut despite opposition
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/25/11/2011/117827/government-u-turn-on-scrapping-mobility-allowance-expected.htm
This year alone the Government have attacked the disabled no less than five times each time removing bital and essential elements of care, for those in care homes they have a majority of what is required to give them a comfortable standard of living, for those in the general populus it is becoming harder after each attack to services and financial benefits.
Although people think that disabled people get more than enough I strongly feel that unless they are fully aware of the Government scandle of Incapacity Benefit where the victim is the disabled person, they must pay towards everything including vital medication that people on income support get for free. As a result of this we need to fight the Goverment cutbacks by demanding the Government stop giving alchoholics extra money to get drunk and stop giving drug takers free Methodone before attacking the disabled any further, disabled are people too we deserve more respect than what we are getting……..
Ministers announce U-turn on mobility benefit cut
BBC news item http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15977291
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Slavin [2011]
Court of Appeal decision
This was the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision in CDLA/3638/2010. The Court of Appeal decision affirms that, in certain circumstances, claimants who are living in a care home wholly funded by the NHS may be entitled to the care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
The decision also discusses whether such an arrangement is considered a hospital for the purposes of DLA mobility component.
Background
The claimant was diagnosed as having the following medical conditions: severe learning disability, Fragile X Syndrome (autistic traits), challenging behaviour, hay fever, gingivitis, sensitive skin and epilepsy.
As a result of his condition his behaviour could be extremely challenging, such that he needs to be continuously supervised by at least one, and sometimes two care staff, who needed to be ready to intervene in order to attempt to prevent him causing damage to property or injury to himself or others.
He lived at home until his behaviour eventually became too challenging for his parents. On 26 November 2007 he moved into a privately owned and run care home -“The Lodge”. Although it was staffed by appropriately experienced and skilled care staff, it did not have any staff with medical or nursing qualifications.
The fees for the claimant’s accommodation and care there were paid by the Health Authority i.e. in effect by the National Health Service. The Health Authority agreed to pay the whole of the cost of the Claimant’s accommodation and care following assessments under the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded nursing care.
The claimant was in receipt of the higher rate of the mobility component and the highest rate of the care component of DLA while living at home. However, on 18 February 2008 a decision was made that neither component of DLA was payable from 26 December 2007 on the ground that he was -
“being maintained free of charge while undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient ……. in a hospital or similar institution under the [National Health Service Act 2006]”
– within regulations 8 (care component) and 12A (mobility component) of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 (“the 1991 Regulations”).
The claimant appealed against the decision, contending that the fact that The Lodge did not have qualified nursing staff meant the claimant was not in a “hospital or similar institution” and therefore that neither reg. 8 nor reg. 12A applied.
A tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal, finding that The Lodge was a “hospital or similar institution”.
The Upper Tribunal decision
In reaching his decision, Upper Tribunal Judge Turnbull identified the issues in the appeal as:
(1) is the fact that the Claimant’s accommodation and care in The Lodge is paid for by the Health Authority, and that The Lodge employs appropriately experienced and skilled carers, sufficient to cause regulations 8 and 12A to apply, notwithstanding that The Lodge has neither medically qualified nor nursing staff?
(2) if not, do regulations 8 and 12A apply:
(a) on the ground the claimant received treatment from doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals elsewhere than at the Lodge?
(b) if the claimant received treatment from doctors, nurses or other healthcare professionals at The Lodge, but who are not employed or engaged by the Lodge?
Judge Turnbull held that -
a claimant is not in receipt of “medical or other treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution”, within the meaning of Regs. 8 and 12A of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 merely because his accommodation and care in a care home without medical or nursing staff is funded by the NHS by way of NHS Continuing Healthcare, and he is cared for there by appropriately skilled care staff.
the fact that, in addition, the claimant receives what is undoubtedly medical treatment or nursing elsewhere than at the care home makes no difference (save possibly in exceptional situations where there is some strong link between the care home and the institution where the treatment does take place).
it may be sufficient if (i) the claimant receives a significant level of treatment from a doctor, nurse or other healthcare professional on the premises of the care home, notwithstanding that the relevant professionals are not employed or engaged by the home and/or (ii) the care staff at the home can be said to be acting to a sufficient extent under the supervision of doctors or other healthcare professionals (e.g. in giving medication, applying restraint procedures etc).
Judge Turnbull therefore set aside the tribunal decision and remitted the case to a new tribunal to investigate the type and nature of care provided to the claimant at The Lodge.
The DWP appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal judgement
The Court dismissed the DWP’s appeal. Lord Justice Richards held that:
“55. The Lodge is registered as a care home only, not as a nursing home, and it does not purport to provide nursing care. Its staff are trained to handle challenging behaviour and to support in other ways the particular needs of residents; they are given an initial induction and ongoing training and are encouraged to work towards NVQs. But they do not have professional qualifications or training as nurses, nor do they work under the supervision of qualified nurses. It is true that they look after residents who, in the case of the respondent at least, suffer from a disability of the mind amounting to “illness”, but it does not follow that the care they provide is nursing care; and in my view it can fairly be described as domestic care (or “personal” care, within the meaning of s.3(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000) rather than nursing care. There is nothing in the nature even of the “palliative treatment” referred to in the Leamington Spacase. The management of challenging behaviour is no doubt a demanding aspect of the care provided, but of itself it does not seem to me to constitute nursing. The support of residents in the administration of their medication is not sufficient to give the care a nursing rather than domestic or personal character. The situation is therefore materially different from that considered in the three main authorities.
56. If I am right that the care provided at The Lodge does not amount to nursing, it follows on the analysis above that the respondent is not undergoing “medical or other treatment” by reason of his residence there. Even if, contrary to the view expressed above, “medical or other treatment” has a wider scope than medical, dental and nursing treatment, I still do not think that the care provided at The Lodge amounts to “treatment” within the meaning of the expression.
58. … If the respondent is not undergoing “medical or other treatment” by reason of his residence at The Lodge, no useful purpose is served by separate consideration of whether The Lodge is “a hospital or similar institution” within the meaning of the regulations. I do not think that it is, but that is largely because it is not providing medical or other treatment to its residents (and for much the same reason I do not think that its residents can sensibly be described as “in-patients”). I might, however, have taken a different view of the matter if I had concluded that it was providing medical or other treatment to its residents. I stress in any event that, as indicated above, the issue falls to be considered on the assumption that the respondent does not receive treatment from doctors, qualified nurses or other healthcare professionals at The Lodge.
59. That leaves the question whether the receipt of medical or other treatment from healthcare professionals away from The Lodge can bring the respondent within the scope of the regulations. In my view, it cannot. The whole tenor of regs. 8 and 12A is that the person is undergoing treatment “in” the institution where he is maintained free of charge. That is underlined by the words “as an in-patient”. Treatment away from the institution would be treatment as an out-patient. I reject Mr Buley’s contention that the words “as an in-patient” should not be read as qualifying “medical or other treatment”. They are an integral part of the condition and qualify “medical or other treatment” just as much as they qualify “maintained free of charge … in a hospital or similar institution”.
Lord Justice Davis also held that:
“60. In my view it is legitimate to stand back and ask oneself, on the facts as found or as are required to be assumed, whether one would expect the answer “yes” to the question: “Is the respondent undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution?” I do not think one would expect such an answer.
67. In my view, on the wording of the Regulations and consistently with the authorities, for there to be medical or other treatment provided to the respondent, an element – which must be not insignificant – of care provided by, or under the supervision of, professionally qualified doctors or nurses at The Lodge is required. There is no doubt that the respondent suffers from a mental disorder or disability. Quite possibly, in times gone by, he would have been placed in a mental hospital. There is no doubt that he needs, and is being provided at The Lodge with, skilled and specialist care. But that is not enough. Mr Buley emphasised that the staff, whilst not professionally qualified, were trained in management of aggression and violence. Skilled physical restraint undertaken by a mental health nurse in a hospital or similar institution would be capable, I accept, of amounting to part of the “treatment” provided. But it does not follow that applying such restraint techniques is “treatment” for all purposes. It is not difficult to think of institutions – certain educational establishments, for example – where some staff are trained in such techniques; but no one would style use of those techniques in such a context as “treatment”.
68. Since, as is my view, the respondent is not “undergoing medical or other treatment” it also really follows that he is not “an in-patient…in a hospital or similar institution.” In truth, it is very strained to describe the respondent as an “in-patient”. Further, The Lodge plainly is not a hospital; and by reason of the complete lack of treatment being provided by or under the supervision of professionally qualified doctors or nurses at The Lodge, in my view it is not a “similar institution” either. But all this really underlines the need to consider the wording of Regulations 8 and 12A as a whole and not to break it down into separate or prioritised parts.”
The case was largely concerned with the mobility component and whether the Lodge counted as a hospital. However, the Court of Appeal highlights the fact that the definition of care home in Reg 9 of the DLA Regulations excludes “services provided pursuant to the National Health Service Act 2006”, and accordingly the claimant would be entitled to the care component as well, despite being in a care home.
More information
secretary of state for work and pensions v slavin – BAILII website
http://www.disabilityalliance.org/slavin.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter