Someone explained a situation to me the other day: a young man whose autism prevents him from using public transport (he doesn't deal well with crowded places) has been told he can only get lower rate mobility component DLA, because he can walk fine.

If this is right (and the DWP haven't just badly advised him), it struck me that this is open to a challenge under the relatively new Section 21B of the Disabiity Discrimination Act. This section deals with the functions of public authorities, and effectively makes any disabilty discrimination by a public authority potentially unlawful.

So my questions are: 1) is this interpretation of the DLA rules correct? and 2) if so, does anyone know of a test case, or is anyone up for taking one?

Just skimmed this link re S21 DDA (http://www.fenwickelliott.co.uk/articles/self_help/dda.htm) from which I think not but as I'm not a lawyer I'm not infallible so if you've got the funds it might be worth getting a legal opinion.

Hi andco,

the link predates the new section 21B, so doesn't cover it. Text of the Act is here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050013.htm

The definition of discrimination by a public body is For the purposes of section 21B(1), a public authority discriminates against a disabled person if—
(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, it treats him less favourably than it treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and
(b) it cannot show that the treatment in question is justified under subsection (3), (5) or (7)(c).


I'd argue that making decisions about benefits based on the type of impairment or disability rather than the level of the claimant's need could be discriminatory.

p.s. Got in late tonight, and OH now on phone, so can't call you tonight. Will try tomorrow.

as far as I understand it, low rate mobility has always been intended for people who need help to go out maybe because they have a LD (learning diffs) or soemthing else , but can physically walk.

it is quite common for kids with ASD ( autistic spectrum disorder) to get low rate mobility DLA with either low or middle care.

as far as I understand it, low rate mobility has always been intended for people who need help to go out maybe because they have a LD (learning diffs) or soemthing else , but can physically walk.

it is quite common for kids with ASD ( autistic spectrum disorder) to get low rate mobility DLA with either low or middle care.

But surely the decision as to whether you get high or low rate mobility should be based on the effect your impairment has on you, not on the label or diagnosis you've been given? If you can't use public transport because of your autism, why shouldn't you be able to get high rate mobility to pay for a Motability car for e.g.?

Hi, sorry if this seems a silly question, but, what exactly is the issue? Is it that anyone who has difficulty using public transport should be able to claim and receive higher rate mobility allowance? Or is it that the decisions are taken/made in the wrong way?

Unfortunately, i don't think this is a goer: the DLA rules are set by an Act of Parliament and so s. 21B quoted does not apply - see section 21C(2). Sorry.

DLA is not an area which I know a great deal about but I think BB is mooting that when applying the legislation and regulations in their DLA assessments, DWP decisions are being unfairly reached without due consideration and full regard to the impact which the disabled person's disability and related requirements has on their ability to live.

I'm trying to think of a suitable example to illustrate what I'm trying to say and will post back when I;ve thought of something.

DLA is not an area which I know a great deal about but I think BB is mooting that when applying the legislation and regulations in their DLA assessments, DWP decisions are being unfairly reached without due consideration and full regard to the impact which the disabled person's disability and related requirements has on their ability to live.

I'm trying to think of a suitable example to illustrate what I'm trying to say and will post back when I;ve thought of something.

I understand what you mean, but DLA only has regard to a person's capabilities; not to whether those capabilities can be met in the surrounding areas, or by companies who need to comply with DDA. The DLA rules will have been correctly adhered to; any subsequent action must be brought against the carrier, who may not be complying with the DDA.

...when applying the legislation and regulations in their DLA assessments, DWP decisions are being [potentially] unfairly reached without due consideration and full regard to the impact which the disabled person's disability and related requirements has on their ability to live.

Again, excuse me for possibly appearing thick, but - I thought that the decision process undertaken as to whether DLA is appropriate was entirely based upon the impact of a disability on an individuals ability/inability to do things in their everyday life?

Hope this isn't straying off the point too much! I never sent my own DLA application off so I don't have a personal interest, just curious.

Again, excuse me for possibly appearing thick, but - I thought that the decision process undertaken as to whether DLA is appropriate was entirely based upon the impact of a disability on an individuals ability/inability to do things in their everyday life?

Hope this isn't straying off the point too much! I never sent my own DLA application off so I don't have a personal interest, just curious.

You're not being thick Bonny - it's complicated. My gripe is that mobility component DLA is for help you need in getting around. Some people with Autism need as much help in getting around as a full-time wheelchair user, for example, but in a different way. So it seems unfair that if you have a physical impairment you are more likely to get the help you need than if your level of need is the same but the nature of your disability is different.

But I guess Douglas J is right - as DLA is governed by Act of Parliament, we just have to hope that DLA rules are changed.

You're not being thick Bonny - it's complicated. My gripe is that mobility component DLA is for help you need in getting around. Some people with Autism need as much help in getting around as a full-time wheelchair user, for example, but in a different way. So it seems unfair that if you have a physical impairment you are more likely to get the help you need than if your level of need is the same but the nature of your disability is different.

But I guess Douglas J is right - as DLA is governed by Act of Parliament, we just have to hope that DLA rules are changed.

So are you talking about the 'virtually unable to walk' law, which, when used in this context, would mean that the claimant would have to be in receipt of higher rate care anyway?

One of the things about the mobility component is that it's not 'timebound', as the care component is. When there are mental problems in getting about, then it could be argued on three counts, for DWP.

Firstly, they would say that in order to receive higher rate mobility on the grounds of 'severe mental impairment', the claimant must be in receipt of the higher rate care component.

Therefore, someone should be with them at all times (in law), and should s/he have to use a crowded bus, or whatever, the carer would be there to help, or wait with them, or even carry out the task in question.

Secondly, if the problem is with crowded areas/vehicles, then the problem isn't constant.

Thirdly, they could say that if the person weren't working, or didn't have regular medical trips, etc., would it be appropriate to make the award for trips which could be deemed as unneccessary? By the same token, if someone were working then funds could be made available through Access to Work.

Now I've thought about it more, it's food for more thought. I think if a challenge were to be made, it would have to be angled quite specifically.

Let me dig some legislation out and have a trawl through it.

So are you talking about the 'virtually unable to walk' law, which, when used in this context, would mean that the claimant would have to be in receipt of higher rate care anyway?

One of the things about the mobility component is that it's not 'timebound', as the care component is. When there are mental problems in getting about, then it could be argued on three counts, for DWP.

Firstly, they would say that in order to receive higher rate mobility on the grounds of 'severe mental impairment', the claimant must be in receipt of the higher rate care component.

Therefore, someone should be with them at all times (in law), and should s/he have to use a crowded bus, or whatever, the carer would be there to help, or wait with them, or even carry out the task in question.

Secondly, if the problem is with crowded areas/vehicles, then the problem isn't constant.

Thirdly, they could say that if the person weren't working, or didn't have regular medical trips, etc., would it be appropriate to make the award for trips which could be deemed as unneccessary? By the same token, if someone were working then funds could be made available through Access to Work.

Now I've thought about it more, it's food for more thought. I think if a challenge were to be made, it would have to be angled quite specifically.

Let me dig some legislation out and have a trawl through it.

Thanks for those helpful points HH. I suppose the thoughts that occur are: although the problem isn't constant, it's always there when he needs to get somewhere! If you wanted to be pedantic about it, you could argue that for people with a physical impairment, their mobility problem isn't constant either, in the sense that it's only a problem when they're awake! For him, it's not a problem when he's at home, but it instantly becomes a problem when he wants to go somewhere.

He does get higher rate care, which his family have fought very hard for. The journeys that he does are mainly to attend college, and although college will offer support when he's there, they won't offer it for the journey there and back. I would say those are no less essential than journeys to work - he also meets social services Fair Access to Care Services criteria, which means that they recognise that he faces risks to a community and family life, so some journeys for social reasons would also count as "essential" in that context.

I realise though, that you are not the DWP personified! I know it's not your fault :)

think a great deal of the problem, particularly in relation to getting the funding entitlement approved is the growing shift towards increasing the level of disability to meet the specifcation for entitlement to reduce how many people are entitled to benefit payments.

Cases refused initially are often granted on appeal, a mechanism that's deliberately exploited to deny access to essential financial support.

I think it's vital to find the right way to present the information to ensure the case is perceived correctly. For example I cant beleive anyone would expect someone with chronic aggrophobia to go out on their own without support.

I remember a case of parents with a child who had severe epilepsy and behavioural problems being denied a mobility component so they could get a car as public transport was not really feasible. Is it my imagination or is it getting harder to claim disability benefits? My niece is partially sighted, has a weakness down one side which affects her balance, severe asthma and hearing problems and yet getting the care component she needs has been nigh impossible.

Cases refused initially are often granted on appeal, a mechanism that's deliberately exploited to deny access to essential financial support.


Absolutely agree. The percentage of Incapacity Benefit claims in particular which are initially refused and then agreed on appeal is staggering - it smacks of the system deliberately trying to deny benefits to people who are entitled to them, on the assumption that most people will be too ill/tired to challenge it.

hi i have narcalepsy and have had two strokes
but because i can walk unaided i only get the lowest rate mobility
dont know if anyone here has heard of narcalepsy
but its a form of sleep apnia and i can fall asleap while i am walking
so i need someone with me 24. 7. two years ago i fell asleap with a chippan full of hot fat and was hospitalised for three weeks
but dss told me i dident qualify because my illness was not a recognised illness and therefor doesent count is their anything i can do?

hi i have narcalepsy and have had two strokes
but because i can walk unaided i only get the lowest rate mobility
dont know if anyone here has heard of narcalepsy
but its a form of sleep apnia and i can fall asleap while i am walking
so i need someone with me 24. 7. two years ago i fell asleap with a chippan full of hot fat and was hospitalised for three weeks
but dss told me i dident qualify because my illness was not a recognised illness and therefor doesent count is their anything i can do?

try contacing :
http://www.sheffieldadvicelink.org.uk/index.php

Contact the main helpline on
08451 23 23 50
(Textphone 0114 278 2795)
Mon-Fri 9.30am - 3.30pm

do you get a care component of DLA?

try contacing :
http://www.sheffieldadvicelink.org.uk/index.php

Contact the main helpline on
08451 23 23 50
(Textphone 0114 278 2795)
Mon-Fri 9.30am - 3.30pm

do you get a care component of DLA?
yes i get the higher amount of the care componant
because of a weekness on my right side
i also am diabetic on insulin and cant inject myself

GL Note

Threads merged.

think a great deal of the problem, particularly in relation to getting the funding entitlement approved is the growing shift towards increasing the level of disability to meet the specifcation for entitlement to reduce how many people are entitled to benefit payments.

To be honest, I can't think of too much which has changed in the last ten or so years at least. What did come in was the Benefits Integrity Programme (BIP) in about 1998/9 which brought about a huge review of long term DLA awards, but that's about it apart from minor reform here and there.

Cases refused initially are often granted on appeal, a mechanism that's deliberately exploited to deny access to essential financial support.

I'd be a bit careful here; that's almost libellous! Should appeals be granted, they are granted from the day of the first contact with DWP as well, so although help may be woefully late in arriving, it is fully paid.

I think it's vital to find the right way to present the information to ensure the case is perceived correctly. For example I cant beleive anyone would expect someone with chronic aggrophobia to go out on their own without support.

And that is the nub and the gist of it all. This is why I've always advised that they don't fill in a form without expert advice. What gets forgotten is that a decision maker will always use medical advice/statement (from the visiting GP), over evidence from family members ("Statement from someone who knows you best"*), or even the claimant.

It's only at the appeal stage that the decision makers (by this time a tribunal) can actually see the person who's suffering.

*always, ALWAYS, get your GP or specialist, etc., to complete this part; NEVER a friend or family member, no matter how good they are at writing!

I remember a case of parents with a child who had severe epilepsy and behavioural problems being denied a mobility component so they could get a car as public transport was not really feasible. Is it my imagination or is it getting harder to claim disability benefits? My niece is partially sighted, has a weakness down one side which affects her balance, severe asthma and hearing problems and yet getting the care component she needs has been nigh impossible.

Compared to, say, 20 years ago, probably.

What often gets forgotten is that at the end of the day, it's about opinion, as much as fact. Take the four problems you've stated your niece has in a positive light (she CAN see enough, she DOES balance, with help she CAN breathe easily, she CAN communicate).

Now do it negatively (she CAN'T see enough to keep out of danger, she REGULARLY falls, she NEEDS help with inhalers and/or other breathing apparatus, she CAN'T hear to keep out of danger)

It's easy to see how opinion can be swayed. Andco is right; it's not what you say, but how you say it.

To be honest, I can't think of too much which has changed in the last ten or so years at least. What did come in was the Benefits Integrity Prorramme (BIP) in about 1998/9 which brought about a huge review of long term DLA awards, but that's about it apart from minor reform here and there.



I'd be a bit careful here; that's almost libellous! Should appeals be granted, they are granted from the day of the first contact with DWP as well, so although help may be woefully late in arriving, it is fully paid.



And that is the nub and the gist of it all. This is why I've always advised that they don't fill in a form without expert advice. What gets forgotten is that a decision maker will always use medical advice/statement (from the visiting GP), over evidence from family members ("Statement from someone who knows you best"*), or even the claimant.

It's only at the appeal stage that the decision makers (by this time a tribunal) can actually see the person who's suffering.

*always, ALWAYS, get your GP or specialist, etc., to complete this part; NEVER a friend or family member, no matter how good they are at writing!
its all well and good saying get your GP to coplete this part of the form but i dont know about others but my GP charges me £35 to fill in a form and on my income if it is or is not a success i cant afford it

its all well and good saying get your GP to coplete this part of the form but i dont know about others but my GP charges me £35 to fill in a form and on my income if it is or is not a success i cant afford it

Get an advice centre to help. No GP should charge for filling that part of a form out. Before I joinrd the Civil Service, I was a welfare rights adviser, and we never ever had to pay a fee, mate.

It's only the part which says "Statement from someone who knows you well", which really needs to be done by a GP or specialist.

The point is you then have qualified medical advice, as opposed to a layman's opinion.

thanks for your advice happy hippy

You're not being thick Bonny - it's complicated. My gripe is that mobility component DLA is for help you need in getting around. Some people with Autism need as much help in getting around as a full-time wheelchair user, for example, but in a different way. So it seems unfair that if you have a physical impairment you are more likely to get the help you need than if your level of need is the same but the nature of your disability is different.

But I guess Douglas J is right - as DLA is governed by Act of Parliament, we just have to hope that DLA rules are changed.

I think it's got a lot to do with understanding the nature of these conditions and how it impacts on the affected person. Just been browsing this website and I'm quoting a brief extract which reads:

....it was the first time I'd ever come across facilitatied communication and you opened my eyes to so many possibilities and realities of people labelled as having a learning difficulty. I was so amazed by the presentation you and your colleagues made and despite having worked with people with a learning difficulty all of my working life, your presentation was a real slap round the face for me and made me wake up to the reality of what people's worlds are really like. Indeed,up until that point, I'd never considered that autism is a physical disability.
... (my emboldening)

So a person apparently involved in the decision-making process has demonstrated the point I was arguing earlier on this thread that it's a case of understanding the condition. Clearly this is not happening, which I must presume is due to the evident lack of education, awareness and understanding on the part of decision-makers in relation to the nature of the conditions about which they are taking decisions - decisions which affect the quality of life for the person who is the subject of the decision.

I think it's got a lot to do with understanding the nature of these conditions and how it impacts on the affected person. Just been browsing this website http://joshuasplanet.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=21 and I'm quoting Janette a brief extract of which reads:

....it was the first time I'd ever come across facilitatied communication and you opened my eyes to so many possibilities and realities of people labelled as having a learning difficulty. I was so amazed by the presentation you and your colleagues made and despite having worked with people with a learning difficulty all of my working life, your presentation was a real slap round the face for me and made me wake up to the reality of what people's worlds are really like. Indeed,up until that point, I'd never considered that autism is a physical disability.
... (my emboldening)

Janette has recently joined the direct payments team in Salford and taken the lead advocacy and development role for people with a learning difficulty.

So Janette, who is apparently involved in the decision-making process has demonstrated the point I was arguing earlier on this thread that it's a case of understanding the condition. Clearly this is not happening, which I must presume is due to the evident lack of education, awareness and understanding on the part of decision-makers in relation to the nature of the conditions about which they are taking decisions - decisions which affect the quality of life for the person who is the subject of the decision.

Right, let's bring this back to reality. All you've done is quote a single post from another forum. The decision makers are not doctors. The decision makers rely on qualified medical evidence to susbstantiate claims. This is a crucial part. If a visiting doctor states that the disabilities stated aren't there, a decision maker has nothing else to go on, bar that evidence.

I could say on a form that I'm deaf, mute and blind, but a visiting doctor would be able to tell otherwise. This is why I always say get a doctor/specialist to complete the the parts which require an expert opinion.

The reason why the forms are worded as they are is to weed out those who shouldn't get the benefit.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly with you, there are umpteen upon umpteen who should get help who don't, and it takes a long time to sort it, but what is a true travesty is that there isn't a single, universal disability advice centre any more in Sheffield.

There isn't even a DIAL.

Right, let's bring this back to reality. All you've done is quote a single post from another forum. The decision makers are not doctors. The decision makers rely on qualified medical evidence to susbstantiate claims. This is a crucial part. If a visiting doctor states that the disabilities stated aren't there, a decision maker has nothing else to go on, bar that evidence.

I could say on a form that I'm deaf, mute and blind, but a visiting doctor would be able to tell otherwise. This is why I always say get a doctor/specialist to complete the the parts which require an expert opinion.

The reason why the forms are worded as they are is to weed out those who shouldn't get the benefit.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly with you, there are umpteen upon umpteen who should get help who don't, and it takes a long time to sort it, but what is a true travesty is that there isn't a single, universal disability advice centre any more in Sheffield.

There isn't even a DIAL.

The reality, as I understood the OP is that decisions taken about an autistic person were taken and based on an ill-informed report which were no doubt also based on the misapprehensions, misunderstanding and dare I say it the prejudices of the medical experts instructed and paid to provide their expert reports.

The poster on this other forum I referred to is dedicated to autism, the site founder being autistic with the added credentials of having produced a DVD which is now used nationally and internationally for training purposes in the range of services which are available for autistic people.

You have now also raised another equally important issue, ie the lack of any single appropriate advice centre dedicated to disabled people and their wide range of needs. This is a funding issue. My understanding is that Sheffield City COuncil pulled the funding because the Disability Forum on the Wicker was far too effective. :confused: I think this must mean that they were forcing the council to cough up dosh to implement changes for disability needs.

Right, let's bring this back to reality. All you've done is quote a single post from another forum. The decision makers are not doctors. The decision makers rely on qualified medical evidence to susbstantiate claims. This is a crucial part. If a visiting doctor states that the disabilities stated aren't there, a decision maker has nothing else to go on, bar that evidence.

I could say on a form that I'm deaf, mute and blind, but a visiting doctor would be able to tell otherwise. This is why I always say get a doctor/specialist to complete the the parts which require an expert opinion.

The reason why the forms are worded as they are is to weed out those who shouldn't get the benefit.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly with you, there are umpteen upon umpteen who should get help who don't, and it takes a long time to sort it, but what is a true travesty is that there isn't a single, universal disability advice centre any more in Sheffield.

There isn't even a DIAL.

I think you've hit upon a very important point in this post. The fact is that the DLA criteria are very medical. Many of them deal with diagnoses, with what doctors and other medical professionals think and say. But the fact is that these medical descriptions are often totally inadequate to describe the barriers and difficulties which people face. For example, there is currently a campaign to do away with the term "schizophrenia" because it's a fairly meaningless term - no-one can agree what it means, which effectively results in it meaning nothing.

I appreciate that it's difficult to have a system which prevents fraud and which at the same time provides an equitable system for those who need assistance. I think it highlights the need for a total overhaul of our benefits system, involving proper consultation with ill and disabled people. Our current system has been added to piecemeal, and this throws up all sorts of quirks and conflicts which make no sense to the average person.

The reality, as I understood the OP is that decisions taken about an autistic person were taken and based on an ill-informed report which were no doubt also based on the misapprehensions, misunderstanding and dare I say it the prejudices of the medical experts instructed and paid to provide their expert reports.

I think we broadly agree, but are looking from different angles. The visiting doctors who complete the reports (which are just forms prepared by DWP) are normal GP's who work in the area.

The poster on this other forum I referred to is dedicated to autism, the site founder being autistic with the added credentials of having produced a DVD which is now used nationally and internationally for training purposes in the range of services which are available for autistic people.

Fair enough, but to go right back to the OP, DLA as it stands would view those needs as a care issue, not physically a mobility problem, but I'm sure the 'virtually unable to walk' law could be used.

You have now also raised another equally important issue, ie the lack of any single appropriate advice centre dedicated to disabled people and their wide range of needs. This is a funding issue. My understanding is that Sheffield City COuncil pulled the funding because the Disability Forum on the Wicker was far too effective. :confused: I think this must mean that they were forcing the council to cough up dosh to implement changes for disability needs.

I'm not entirely sure that they were that effective, but then as I used to work for the infamous DIAL Sheffield (without pay for ages, though I should have been paid, but that's a different matter), the conspicuous lack of a focal point for disabled people is a grave concern of mine.

I've been trying to set something up for ages, but funding is indeed the stumbling block.

FAO Post No 30 directly above.

Visiting Doctors: I had been led to believe that although they are GPs they are appointed to specific cases because of their recognised experience and expertise of the medical conditions they were examining.

Post on other Forum: I provided the link to ensure that my quote was referenced and could be checked. It would have been useful to have checked the source before having a pop at me for no good reason.

Virtually unable to walk law - I am not qualified to comment on this.

Funding:
a) Disability Forum - when I needed to contact them only to find they had ceased to exist, I was eventually informed this was the reason for their having been wound up and a reliable contact recently said they were indeed effective. I have only stated what I have been told and believed to have been from reliable source.

b) Sheffield DIAL - I have had no dealings with it so can not comment other than to say I had understood it was based at Sheffield Hallam Uni and SCC again withdrew funding.

That no suitable facilities exists any where in, am I correct in stating - the FOURTH largest City in the UK??? - to provide appropriate support and advice for disabled people is an absolute disgrace and I do wonder what our Council has in mind for its so-called inclusion policy if this unacceptable situation is allowed to persist.

FAO Post No 30 directly above.

Visiting Doctors: I had been led to believe that although they are GPs they are appointed to specific cases because of their recognised experience and expertise of the medical conditions they were examining.

Post on other Forum: I provided the link to ensure that my quote was referenced and could be checked. It would have been useful to have checked the source before having a pop at me for no good reason.

Virtually unable to walk law - I am not qualified to comment on this.

Funding:
a) Disability Forum - when I needed to contact them only to find they had ceased to exist, I was eventually informed this was the reason for their having been wound up and a reliable contact recently said they were indeed effective. I have only stated what I have been told and believed to have been from reliable source.

b) Sheffield DIAL - I have had no dealings with it so can not comment other than to say I had understood it was based at Sheffield Hallam Uni and SCC again withdrew funding.

That no suitable facilities exists any where in, am I correct in stating - the FOURTH largest City in the UK??? - to provide appropriate support and advice for disabled people is an absolute disgrace and I do wonder what our Council has in mind for its so-called inclusion policy if this unacceptable situation is allowed to persist.

Whoa, whoa, down tiger!

The GP's aren't neccessarily chosen as to their expertise in certain areas. My only point about the quote was that it was a single quote, from a poster who had posted once on that forum.

As for DIAL, it was actually on Duke Street, in it's last incarnation, having led a very nomadic life under some, er, suspect management.

During my time with DIAL, the Disability Forum did a lot of good stuff, but not neccessarily in this field.

Anyway, that's enough finger pointing, and if you want to continue that line of discussion, you can always PM me.

As regards the lack of a single focal point for people of all disabilities, it's not the Council's remit to provide one. While I agree that if someone were to look in the Yellow Pages under 'Disability', or 'Advice' they'd find nowt, there are other points of advice.

I personally think it's woefully inadequate; many don't provide home visits, for example. It's down to like minded people to start it and keep it going. I've been trying for years, but funding is the main problem.

Anyway, this isn't the Happyhippy recruitment thread either, and we're getting off topic :thumbsup:

Well we've got this forum which is a start. Even when there was the forum in the Wicker it didn't deal with all issues that disabled people are involved with. My problems with access to schools was a case in point because I asked them. I suppose what we could do is
1. Have a permanent list of websites and organisations which people might find helpful.
2. Possibly leave permanent advice on some matters eg How to apply for benefits.

To be honest, I can't think of too much which has changed in the last ten or so years at least. What did come in was the Benefits Integrity Programme (BIP) in about 1998/9 which brought about a huge review of long term DLA awards, but that's about it apart from minor reform here and there.



This link You're Able (http://www.youreable.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=43762&tstart=0) which appears to be a credible website on all things disability related seems to substantiate my earlier report re changes to payment of disability benefits - which I had heard from other extremely reliable sources.

If that source is correct which I believe to be the case, then the rules governing disability payments ARE changing. This is not to dispute happyhippy's advice that the rules affecting these payments have remained unchanged over the past 10 years.

Oh, they are definitely changing. From next August there will be a huge welfare reform (assuming everything is agreed in time, and the policies written.)

Good find with the website, too.

As a very brief summary of what was said, and owing to personal reasons I am unable to expand any further on the issues covered.

Returning to the OPs queries, I believe the person to whom I had referred earlier does indeed receive Independent Living Fund financial support and related benefits. Based on other postings this would suggest to me that their autism is treated as a physical disability.

The co-author of a report on various communications disorders which includes autism, recently informed me that what tends to happen with autistic conditions is that applicants are often fobbed off at an early stage and do not receive benefits to which they are entitled.

I would therefore be strongly inclined to appeal and push those concerned very very hard to reconsider their decisions.

As a very brief summary of what was said, I am therefore unable to expand any further on the issues covered.

I would, personally, be very interested to speak about this confidentially.

I would, personally, be very interested to speak about this confidentially.

What did you want to know?