FREE cars.

[smokinggun]

Yes some people do abuse the system and they should be rooted out such as your example but the op stated people walk to their cars and go to bingo etc which is very ignorant as you don't have to be crippled and unable to walk to be disabled. People can be disabled with a condition which cannot be seen on the outside. And yes they can go to bingo and go out to enjoy themselves as they still have the right to have a quality of life and by the op commenting on something he clearly knows nothing about he is just showing how stupid he really is.

[ph5172]

I think what the OP is referring to is the abuse (if you would like to call it that) of the system through either a family member being a named driver, and becoming the main (if only) user of the vehicle, or a vehicle not being used and still claimed for - although i am sure you can retain the payment as ££ instead of getting a car and use it for taxis or buses as you see fit - it can also be used for Mobility Scooters.

 

 

As far as i am aware it is now a lot more difficult to get any form of mobility payment (unless you are a carer for a disabled child or are over 65) as it is now tested under the new scheme

 

But it could be argued if you had an unseen disability and are still managing the 3/4 of a mile walk to and fro do you really need a funded car?

I am sure if you struggled to walk (for whatever reason) or required one for a decent quality of life people wouldn't begrudge a car

 

 

The blue disability badge is as rightly been said not an indication of a 'mobility scheme' vehicle

 

Forgive the copy and paste but it looks like (as of 09APR17) its difficult to actually get a mobility allowance so i should imagine a few people will be disappointed come renewal time

You might get the mobility part of DLA if, when using your normal aid, you:

• can’t walk
• can only walk a short distance without severe discomfort
• could become very ill if you try to walk

You might also get it if you:

• have no feet or legs
• are assessed as 100% blind and at least 80% deaf and you need someone with you when outdoors
• are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and get the highest rate of care for DLA
• need supervision most of the time when walking outdoors
• are certified as severely sight impaired and you were aged between 3 and 64 on 11 April 2011

Edited April 16, 2017 by ph5172

[Lloyd90]

Yes some people do abuse the system and they should be rooted out such as your example but the op stated people walk to their cars and go to bingo etc which is very ignorant as you don't have to be crippled and unable to walk to be disabled. People can be disabled with a condition which cannot be seen on the outside. And yes they can go to bingo and go out to enjoy themselves as they still have the right to have a quality of life and by the op commenting on something he clearly knows nothing about he is just showing how stupid he really is.

 

If you want to debate something like an adult then you'd do well to reign in personal insults and digs.

Ruins the argument.

[ph5172]

you don't have to be crippled and unable to walk to be disabled. People can be disabled with a condition which cannot be seen on the outside. And yes they can go to bingo and go out to enjoy themselves

 

To warrant the use of a mobility car (in a majority of circumstances) you do....... this is what the OP was referring to

[Vince Green]

With all benefits, the genuine cases are often too proud or too ill to claim but people who know the system know that no matter how many times they get turned down, if they keep coming back and kick up enough fuss they will most likely get it all in the end.

 

My OH's father would easily qualify for all sorts of benefits but he won't apply

[wandringstar]

To me, a disabled person is someone who cant walk unaided, or whose disability means they have no way of earning money, these people should qualify for a decent 2nd hand car every 5 years, unless they have substantial assets. The car is not for family members to enjoy.

 

Whats wrong and unfair with that?

[panoma1]

To me, a disabled person is someone who cant walk unaided, or whose disability means they have no way of earning money, these people should qualify for a decent 2nd hand car every 5 years, unless they have substantial assets. The car is not for family members to enjoy.Whats wrong and unfair with that?

Probably just as well you're not making the decisions then!

[hawkfanz]

having read all the posts,i might add my 2 peneth i had my left leg amputated below knee 45 years ago,i went back to work after 6 months,in the glass works on shifts,after that i did commercial tyre fitting,breakdowns etc,then took hgv test held licience for 25 years,now i,m 67 and now suffering arthrytis in good knee and hip,with other problems,none of this shows apart from my limp,sometimes not very noticable,i have blue badge and my mondeo is bought by myself but i do get free road tax,because this doesn,t show would the op regard me as a scrounger on the make.

[smokinggun]

 

To warrant the use of a mobility car (in a majority of circumstances) you do....... this is what the OP was referring to

No I'm afraid you are wrong as my wife can walk slowly short distances and to a untrained eye would look fine but is in severe pain and discomfort and although she may well enjoy a day out will then pay for it for days afterwards. She also has a motability car and has done for 6 years.

[smokinggun]

 

If you want to debate something like an adult then you'd do well to reign in personal insults and digs.

Ruins the argument.

I don't want to debate the issue I was just letting the op know how small minded and ignorant he is as clearly he knows nothing about disabilities or he wouldn't have such a stupid opinion. Seems all to common for the keyboard warriors on here though and you have to remember the battles these people face every day and a new car every 3 years doesn't change that it just makes things a little easier for them to get around.

[wandringstar]

Probably just as well you're not making the decisions then!

 

instead of your silly remark, answer the question.

[ph5172]

No I'm afraid you are wrong as my wife can walk slowly short distances and to a untrained eye would look fine but is in severe pain and discomfort and although she may well enjoy a day out will then pay for it for days afterwards. She also has a motability car and has done for 6 years.

I dont think you read my previous post....

 

You might get the mobility part of DLA if, when using your normal aid, you:

• can’t walk
• can only walk a short distance without severe discomfort
• could become very ill if you try to walk

you said..........

Yes some people do abuse the system and they should be rooted out such as your example but the op stated people walk to their cars and go to bingo etc which is very ignorant as you don't have to be crippled and unable to walk to be disabled. People can be disabled with a condition which cannot be seen on the outside

But if you look above, whatever is hidden needs to fulfill the criteria for making it difficult to walk

we are referring specifically to conditions that fulfill the criteria for Mobility Allowance and not hidden disabilities that do not fall into that bracket

Edited April 16, 2017 by ph5172

[aldivalloch]

A lot of ignorance from fools on here thinking that you have to be crippled to be disabled. Some disabilities don't show on the outside such as heart and lung conditions etc and as I've said before they would all trade the car for the chance to be a normal healthy condescending idiot like you lot seem to be.

One of the few sensible comments so far.

 

Sadly, this is another thread by and for the mean-spirited, sanctimonious, omniscient Pigeon Watch experts-in-all-things.

 

Ironic that it's about disability given that so many posters seem to be a bit disabled in the caring and thinking departments.

 

A friend of mine has a "blue badge" because, although she looks fine, she has a chronic bowel condition that forces her to stop in inconvenient (!) and sometimes illegal places so that she can get to the toilet quickly.

 

My sister has a "blue badge". At 70, she looks the picture of health but she has a degenerative condition of the lower spine that necessitates regular and very painful lumbar injections, and she can't walk any distance.

 

Both own their own cars - they are costing you miserable individuals ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

Those who have Motability vehicles pay for them with their Disability Living Allowance. As for giving them second-hand cars, well, wit and logic should persuade even the hard-of-thinking that new cars come with manufacturers' warranties whilst used vehicles come, all too often, with a whole variety of problems. Can you imagine the extra workload and, therefore, expense Motability would encounter in resolving these?

 

There was a story in the local press here recently (and I know it to be absolutely factual) about a young woman who was harassed and verbally abused by one of you "benefits police" for parking in a disabled bay. She looks well, but in fact has suffered for years from a form of cancer which will undoubtedly bring her life to a premature end.

 

Do you get my drift? I don't have much use for the bible, but it does contain the excellent advice, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Food for thought for some people on here.

[smokinggun]

Yes so the op seeing people walking the short distance to their cars without discomfort fulfills the criteria then so he was wrong as I stated.

The point is the peoples conditions only needs justifying to the person deciding if they qualify not the op watching from behind his curtains and then running back to his computer to make a smart remark about the so called gravy train.

[ph5172]

 

 

Those who have Motability vehicles pay for them with their Disability Living Allowance. As for giving them second-hand cars, well, wit and logic should persuade even the hard-of-thinking that new cars come with manufacturers' warranties whilst used vehicles come, all too often, with a whole variety of problems. Can you imagine the extra workload and, therefore, expense Motability would encounter in resolving these?

 

 

 

I agree, the lower maintenance / warranty costs and the resale value of a low mileage car make sense

 

On a side note i don't think people are referring to the Blue Badge scheme

[wandringstar]

point is, the motability scheme shouldn't be for 'getting old' ailments, the scope is too wide, like the nhs scope is too wide and too giving, there has to be a point when you have to say no, like the nonsense of paying ex-pats in spain a cold weather heating allowance.

 

But you see what happens whenever things get questioned, or other ideas get touted, you are labelled as an uncaring bigot, its always the way.

 

We live in a system where everyone is so bloody entitled, save it for the real needy and give them more.

[panoma1]

instead of your silly remark, answer the question.

Why? It's pointless trying to reason with a closed mind!

[aldivalloch]

point is, the motability scheme shouldn't be for 'getting old' ailments, the scope is too wide, like the nhs scope is too wide and too giving, there has to be a point when you have to say no, like the nonsense of paying ex-pats in spain a cold weather heating allowance.

 

But you see what happens whenever things get questioned, or other ideas get touted, you are labelled as an uncaring bigot, its always the way.

 

We live in a system where everyone is so bloody entitled, save it for the real needy and give them more.

Why shouldn't it be for "getting old ailments"? Are the old and infirm not worth caring about? Most of them have made their contribution to society.

 

And what do you mean by "the scope is too wide and too giving"? Please tell us, because if you disagree with the way things are just now then you will obviously be able to offer us a well-reasoned, persuasive alternative which you can take to the government as a lever for social change.

 

I don't know how old you are, Wandringstar, or what your state of health, but I hope that if you ever become needy and dependent yourself you'll take the time to reflect on the views you've just expressed. Or perhaps not, because, with all due respect, far too many of your posts suggest that you're not terribly good at being insightful.

[wandringstar]

a lame excuse no less.

[old man]

One of the few sensible comments so far.

 

Sadly, this is another thread by and for the mean-spirited, sanctimonious, omniscient Pigeon Watch experts-in-all-things.

 

Ironic that it's about disability given that so many posters seem to be a bit disabled in the caring and thinking departments.

 

A friend of mine has a "blue badge" because, although she looks fine, she has a chronic bowel condition that forces her to stop in inconvenient (!) and sometimes illegal places so that she can get to the toilet quickly.

 

My sister has a "blue badge". At 70, she looks the picture of health but she has a degenerative condition of the lower spine that necessitates regular and very painful lumbar injections, and she can't walk any distance.

 

Both own their own cars - they are costing you miserable individuals ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

Those who have Motability vehicles pay for them with their Disability Living Allowance. As for giving them second-hand cars, well, wit and logic should persuade even the hard-of-thinking that new cars come with manufacturers' warranties whilst used vehicles come, all too often, with a whole variety of problems. Can you imagine the extra workload and, therefore, expense Motability would encounter in resolving these?

 

There was a story in the local press here recently (and I know it to be absolutely factual) about a young woman who was harassed and verbally abused by one of you "benefits police" for parking in a disabled bay. She looks well, but in fact has suffered for years from a form of cancer which will undoubtedly bring her life to a premature end.

 

Do you get my drift? I don't have much use for the bible, but it does contain the excellent advice, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Food for thought for some people on here.

Absolutely correct IMHO.

 

Just the same abuse of the system as in all other areas.

If you think someone is extracting the water please do something about it.

[wandringstar]

Too wide and too giving, in the sense that the welfare state bankrupts us all in the end, but to you, this is a price worth paying.

 

We are talking about a car here, something that most families have access too, there is no need for someone to be receiving a brand new top of the range car because he has arthritis from playing rugby 40 years ago.....its not sustainable.

 

Basic maths alvidollach, maybe you should look at your views and see the dogma in them, and show a bit of level headed flexibility that I am espousing, instead of belittling mine.

 

 

p.s I am getting on.

Edited April 16, 2017 by wandringstar

[aldivalloch]

Too wide and too giving, in the sense that the welfare state bankrupts us all in the end, but to you, this is a price worth paying.

 

We are talking about a car here, something that most families have access too, there is no need for someone to be receiving a brand new top of the range car because he has arthritis from playing rugby 40 years ago.....its not sustainable.

 

Basic maths alvidollach, maybe you should look at your views and see the dogma in them, and show a bit of level headed flexibility that I am espousing, instead of belittling mine.

 

 

p.s I am getting on.

Your response makes next to no sense.

 

You state no facts, you have no "evidence" for your assertions other than your imagination and your mean-spirited resentment that others may be receiving that which you've taken it upon yourself to begrudge them.

 

It's so ironic that you allege that "the welfare state bankrupts us all in the end" because your curmudgeonly views suggest that you are already morally and spiritually bankrupt yourself.

 

I'm relieved to learn that you are "getting on", though, because I can attribute your Alf Garnett-esque irascibility to your advancing years. It's grumpy-old-man syndrome, in spades!

[wandringstar]

I edited my response as I felt it would have been out of order and against the forum rules, i am glad i did as your follow on response continues in the same insulting vein, all aimed at a post or posts that were very tame and reasonable.

 

I wont get thrown off for you, so i wish you a happy easter, and suggest you read whats written, and not what you are imagining.

[aldivalloch]

I edited my response as I felt it would have been out of order and against the forum rules, i am glad i did as your follow on response continues in the same insulting vein, all aimed at a post or posts that were very tame and reasonable.

 

I wont get thrown off for you, so i wish you a happy easter, and suggest you read whats written, and not what you are imagining.

I refute your allegation that my response is insulting. If you're going to make controversial comments, you must expect what I gave you (and others have given you on other threads) - a robust response.

 

I wish you all the best and remain hopeful that you may see a way to regard your fellow human beings in a more charitable light.

[hawkfanz]

where is red dot in all of this considering he started this debate,would like him to respond to my post and tell me whether he thinks i,m a scrounger.