- Messages
- 103
The recent changes in legislation for over 65's is inherently unfair on disabled people above this age who have decided to follow the government suggested route of working longer. The biggest benefit that employed people over the age of 65 have lost is the right to claim Motability support. The government did protect this for people already in receipt of this before they reached 65 but there will be people like myself who have developed diabetic complications after 65 but whilst still working.
Having developed a sever ulcer on the back of my ankle over a year ago - I have been unable to drive a manual car or walk far enough to use public transport. I was extremely fortunate that my employer has allowed me to work largely from home for over a year and has arranged for me to attend meetings using video links. However as the ulcer was taking so long to heal I investigated the possibility of claiming motability allowance to assist with purchasing a new automatic car to replace my manual one. I have now realised that driving an automatic will not be an option again because the clutch operation has a bad effect on the ankle which has not fully healed and even when it has will be somewhat weakened. If a similar problem developed in my other leg I might even need hand controls. I was met however with "no way" - you cannot claim this once you are over 65 and the fact that I am still in full time employment is simply not taken into account.
In the end I managed to afford a second hand automatic car a process that itself was difficult because I couldn't use my existing car to drive around dealers to find a suitable car. In the end I bought an "old banger" through a friend and then used this to search for the car I am buying now. If I had been 64 then I could have qualified for the motability purchasing arrangements and support for tax etc. But despite continuing to work full time that was all denied to me. Surely this is the government practising age discrimination which for anyone else would be an offence.
Then there is the dreadful assumption that because someone has retired, they no longer have mobility needs - are we expected to just stay indoors and vegetate so that we die quicker and reduce the pensions deficit? I am quite surprised that no one has challenged this inequality of benefits in the European court but this would be daunting process for an unsupported individual. I feel very aggrieved that someone who has never claimed significant benefits is suddenly deprive of the possibility once they reach a certain age.
:twisted: well that's off my chest now!!
Having developed a sever ulcer on the back of my ankle over a year ago - I have been unable to drive a manual car or walk far enough to use public transport. I was extremely fortunate that my employer has allowed me to work largely from home for over a year and has arranged for me to attend meetings using video links. However as the ulcer was taking so long to heal I investigated the possibility of claiming motability allowance to assist with purchasing a new automatic car to replace my manual one. I have now realised that driving an automatic will not be an option again because the clutch operation has a bad effect on the ankle which has not fully healed and even when it has will be somewhat weakened. If a similar problem developed in my other leg I might even need hand controls. I was met however with "no way" - you cannot claim this once you are over 65 and the fact that I am still in full time employment is simply not taken into account.
In the end I managed to afford a second hand automatic car a process that itself was difficult because I couldn't use my existing car to drive around dealers to find a suitable car. In the end I bought an "old banger" through a friend and then used this to search for the car I am buying now. If I had been 64 then I could have qualified for the motability purchasing arrangements and support for tax etc. But despite continuing to work full time that was all denied to me. Surely this is the government practising age discrimination which for anyone else would be an offence.
Then there is the dreadful assumption that because someone has retired, they no longer have mobility needs - are we expected to just stay indoors and vegetate so that we die quicker and reduce the pensions deficit? I am quite surprised that no one has challenged this inequality of benefits in the European court but this would be daunting process for an unsupported individual. I feel very aggrieved that someone who has never claimed significant benefits is suddenly deprive of the possibility once they reach a certain age.
:twisted: well that's off my chest now!!
