On my original DLA award it states "For Life"

Rob Roy wrote:

The government took my NI contributions and thats what it was for, insurance against me not being able to work amongst other things.

Thereby in English contract law there has been an "offer" and an "acceptance" and a contract exists " for life" according to the piece of paper I have. I can understand them doing this for new claims but to do it retrospectively must be illegal
not to mention immoral.

Rob

Working on your same theory, pensions were set a a particular level when you started paying your NI as well. Would you like your pension 'frozen in time' to be paid at the same rate as when you started paying NI?.

Every year parliament votes to increase pensions/benefits by such a percentage. Just as if parliament wishes, they can vote to ammend old legislation, repeal it, update it etc, which is what they have done with life awards being changed to indefinate awards.They can also vary the amount of NI one pays.

As CD has said, if there had been any chance of changing the 'life to indefinate' awards situation, I am sure disabled groups etc would have tried to challenge it when it occurred.

Pete

Are you really considering suing the government? I can see that one running and running.

Survivor wrote:

Are you really considering suing the government? I can see that one running and running.

There are many things you still can't sue the government for under the crown agents ACT

yes years ago this act was set up for over seas uk land but its dragged out when you try to sue DSS NHS DWP MOD ect ect

one common use is to stop NHS kitchens being done by local councils for being dirty

originaldave wrote:
one common use is to stop NHS kitchens being done by local councils for being dirty

That loophole was shut years ago.

Following on from this discussion I was drawn to the indefinate DLA, I was awarded the highest rate last month, what does this meen for me? will I get DLA indefinately, or is that going to change?

I thought that natural justice or the doctrine of legitimate expectation would be a good argument here. Perhaps the doctrine of estopel may assist where reliance is placed upon a promise, however that promise or goal post has been changed and the recipient of such promise has lost out and suffered a detriment to it. I think a beach of legitimate expectation is grounds for a judicial review.

In Lay term. dLa was issued to persons for life. The expectation is that provided your condition does not change you can EXPECT(ATION) for that arrangement to stay. Now therefore a person would therefore adapt there life to that expectation, in not training, not working, and focusing on managing a disabling condition. However if someone comes along a tears up that arrangement and says no no no we changed it, because you never anticipated that you would need to suddenly start looking for work you have suffered a detriment because you are in a weaker position because you relied on the for life agreement. It offends the principle of Natural Justice in my opinion. Parliament says that any changes should not be retrospective, so suddenly Parliament cannot say actually the retirement age is 95 and we are making it retrospective so all persons under 95 now need to go and find a job. parliament usually say from this day new claims will be at this rate. So my opinion is that a for life dLa arrangement should be honoured under the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and new claims under new legislation if that is the case.

I am sure Gordon will correct me if I have barked up the wrong tree, it's not my area.