- Posts: 28
Legallities
- ken
- Topic Author
- Offline
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.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 50959
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.
- kayk
- Offline
- Posts: 20
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 50959
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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ken
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Posts: 28
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.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 50959
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.