Disability Living Allowance (UK)

Post Reply New Topic

They do it all off checklists anyway. Psychological exam by checklist. The best way to find out if someone needs help.

No but another poster did.

When I said high functioning, I used the term to mean people who could function pretty much as normal. If you are unable to live and travel by yourself, then I wouldn't call that particularly high functioning. High functioning means that your are able to perform the basic functions of life.

I would say I am high functioning. I can go to the toilet myself, I can dress myself.

Well that isn't true. I went to a grammar school and one of my collegues got a DLA allowance. They don't base it on intelligence, they base it on what extra costs you incur. The collegue at my school had a disability that meant he needed a wheelchair and mobility assitance around the home etc. So he was indemnified againsts the costs of retaining normal mobility.

That's a physical disability though.

But being able to support yourself and being able to travel independently are major parts of life.

I didn't say that you were particularly low functioning, just that you don't have as much function as needed to independently sustain yourself. That is just as much as you said yourself.

If you could fulfil all of the basic functions of life without assistance then you wouldn't require help or DLA assistance.

Last edited by JakeG on 04 Jun 2007, 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly. PHYSICAL. The DLA simply dont account for mental disability. I refuse to believe that the decision taking officer is in any way a trained psychiatrist or psychologist, and i know for a fact that the doctor who did my medical was just a bog standard GP (because he told me.) How are they in any position to judge the effects of a relatively recent neuro-disorder that they couldnt even diagnose properly in the 80s, despite having been found in the forties?

So?

My uncle also got DLA as he had very bad schizophrenia. He was on heavy doses of drugs and was unable to function normally. He lived in a special boarding house which was subsidised and run by people able to cater to the needs of those with mental disabilities.
He wasn't able to function enough to support himself so was paid enough assistance that he could live in his special house and get help with things like shopping etc.

Rubbish. I knew someone who worked in special needs education and most of the kids she taught had parents who recieved DLA/carer's allowance and many of the kids went on to recieve DLA when they left school.

A large percentage of these kids had autism too. My whole point here is not that people with AS aren't entitled to DLA just that they aren't in general. They are only entitled if their autism incurs them extra cost.

Here it is from the DWP themselves:

To get the care component of Disability Living Allowance, your disability must be severe enough for you to:

need help with things such as washing, dressing, eating, getting to and using the toilet, or communicating your needs, or
need supervision to avoid you putting yourself or others in substantial danger, or
need someone with you when you are on dialysis, or
be unable to prepare a cooked main meal for yourself (if you had the ingredients), if you are aged 16 or over


If you have mobility needs
To get the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, your disability must be severe enough for you to have the following walking difficulties, even when wearing or using an aid or equipment you normally use:

you are unable or virtually unable to walk, or you have no feet or legs, or
you are both 100% blind and 80% deaf and you need someone with you when you are out of doors, or
you are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and qualify for the highest rate of care component, or
the effort of walking could threaten your life or seriously affect your health, or
you need guidance and/or supervision from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places

i.e. DLA is to indemnify against specific costs caused by disability. It isn't paid out just because someone has a recognised condition that makes life harder; it is paid to people who aren't able to function enough to take care of specific care and mobility tasks.

If you have AS/Autism or any other disability but are still able to accomplish these tasks then you aren't entitled, simple as that. That is why people with AS aren't automatically eligible, why most people with AS wouldn't be eligible and why if Bill Gates had AS he wouldn't be eligible.

In case you missed it, I did mention earlier that I have two children, both with autism. I'm well aware of the process, and it is much easier for children, as they can call upon the support of a network of teachers, professionals, care workers, support groups, playgroups, the social services.. the list is endless. That network for an undiagnosed adult is much much harder to breach. Also, in the current climate of everything having a syndrome where kids are concerned (Naughty child syndrome, ADHD and so forth) its a lot easier to get a child seen for things than it has been in the past. Parents, teachers, and doctors are all raging to diagnose something wrong with children. Once you're in, its far easier. The DLA do not provide medicals for adults by trained mental health professionals, simple as that. They expect the onus of responsibility to lie upon the claimant for evidence. Fair enough, to a degree, if you're not crippled by social anxieties etc etc.

Also, we are rather assuming that Bill Gates DOESNT wet himself when hes out etc etc. Stephen Hawkings makes a shite load of money, and he would certainly qualify as disabled.

I don't dispute that claiming is a difficult process; in fact I know it is. I just don't see the relavence; we were discussing entitlement which is a seperate issue.

This is a perfect example. Yes, Stephen Hawkings makes a lot of money but he would be entitled to DLA. The reason? Well it isn't because his disability is physical as opposed to mental, it is because his disability means that he requires extra nursing care and incurs extra costs in retaining his mobility.

We are assuming that Bill Gates doesn't require care but I think it is a fair assumption as if someone as high profile as Bill Gates required care or mobility assistance then we probably would have heard about it. On the other hand, if it did turn out that he required extra care, then maybe he would be entitled to DLA. I am just saying it is unlikely because we have seen that he can travel unaided and we know that he lived by himself for a while and was able to look after himself.

The central point here is that DLA entitlement isn't on the basis of having a certain condition or not; AS doesn't automatically entitle you to DLA but what does entitle people is the costs they incur because their disability permits them from fulfilling the basic care and mobility functions of life.

By my reckoning, thats a pretty broad subject. I dont recall anyone saying we could ONLY debate entitlement.

Further to that: The relative ease of a child gaining a diagnosis and the support network they can then access means that they are in a much better position to claim DLA.. experts will fill in the forms for them, give them all the information they need, what sort of pills they are taking, the works. Trying to gain access to this network, never mind the DLA people, for an undiagnosed adult, is much much harder. As I said.. as far as the DLA are concerned, unless you are a complete "mong", the DLA will ALWAYS assume that you are higher functioning than you actually are. The DLA are overly obsessed with the physical aspects, and have little comprehension of the mental. I imagine that the main reason your uncle gained as much support as he did is because his drug intake made him physically unable in some area or other. The number of people with advanced mental disorders who recieve no help or attention until they actually murder someone shows how much notice the DWP actually take.

Thing is, depression isnt particularly physically debilitating, except in extreme cases, and yet i know people who have been awarded way higher than I have for problems barely a tenth of mine. If the DLA had a little more standardisation about it then it might prevent people taking advantage of it so badly, and people who need the money in question actually get it. The system as it stands is a) too easy to abuse and b) not representative of the needs of the "disabled" populace as a whole. In fact, Ill bet there are people who are disabled who will argue the toss that they are just "differently abled" and just as capable as everyone else who get a crapload of money from the DLA.