× Members

Legallities

More
7 years 2 months ago #177511 by ken
Legallities was created by ken
First of all has anyone challenged the government on the legalities of changing the benefit from DLA to PIP and scrapping the initial benefit by calling it a different name through simply changing the goal posts slightly (so to speak).
As I understand it people who have a lifetime or indefinite award will not be called to apply for PIP if they were born before 8/4/2013 if that is correct then all the people who were born after that date are being discriminated against purely because of their age, is no one taking the government to task over that.
I would have thought that if someone was awarded something for life then it could not be taken away unless because of some gross misconduct or circumstances have changed but if the latter applies then the same criteria must apply for reassessment as in the initial assessment.
I think the government are getting away with murder just by renaming an existing
benefit,where will they go next.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 2 months ago #177529 by Gordon
Replied by Gordon on topic Legallities

ken wrote: First of all has anyone challenged the government on the legalities of changing the benefit from DLA to PIP and scrapping the initial benefit by calling it a different name through simply changing the goal posts slightly (so to speak).
As I understand it people who have a lifetime or indefinite award will not be called to apply for PIP if they were born before 8/4/2013 if that is correct then all the people who were born after that date are being discriminated against purely because of their age, is no one taking the government to task over that.
I would have thought that if someone was awarded something for life then it could not be taken away unless because of some gross misconduct or circumstances have changed but if the latter applies then the same criteria must apply for reassessment as in the initial assessment.
I think the government are getting away with murder just by renaming an existing
benefit,where will they go next.


There have been a number of challenges to the introduction of PIP, both in Westminster and by the public, none have been successful.

I am afraid it is a done deal.

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 2 months ago #177545 by kayk
Replied by kayk on topic Legallities
if people born after 8/4/13 are being dicriminated against ,that would only make them 3 years old have you got the dates right x

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 2 months ago - 7 years 2 months ago #177558 by Gordon
Replied by Gordon on topic Legallities

kayk wrote: if people born after 8/4/13 are being dicriminated against ,that would only make them 3 years old have you got the dates right x


It's actually claimants who were over 65 on 8 April 2013. :)

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Last edit: 7 years 2 months ago by Gordon.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 2 months ago #177708 by ken
Replied by ken on topic Legallities
Yeh I rushed the info but obviously what I meant was people reaching the age of 64 on or before 8/4/2013, still are the government leaving people over the age of 64 on 8/4/2013 and get a lifetime award alone if so, then I would say that they are discriminating against the younger appellants on the grounds of age.
I would imagine that the government will not stop at the current level, over 65's watch out, people who are on AA watch out.
Trying to save money by hitting the sick and disabled and then giving away billions of pounds to other countries, disgraceful !!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 2 months ago #177742 by Gordon
Replied by Gordon on topic Legallities
Ken

I realise it's not the point that you were trying to make, but it is "65" not "64".

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.