PIP

AngusMcCoatup

Why do you have to be under 65 to apply for PIP. Most people become disabled in later life

mikekewell

Hi there, I think it's because once you reach retirement you then claim DLA.

Littlefatfriend

That's an interesting question thanks AngusMcCoatup

I'd never really thought about it.

I'd guess that the mobility allowance aspect of PIP was agreed by the government on the basis that the goal was to enable people to gain and maintain employment. Literally a (tax) buck for their buck. Pensioners are unlikely to seek work (or were then!) and as you note many might be entitled to it. These things have to be affordable.

Attendance allowance is available for pensioners to help pay for care.

That's my guess

Scooby222

Pip is a working age benefit, so you can only make new claims up to state pension age.

If you are already claiming PIP at SPA, then it can continue to be paid if you still qualify at reassessment.

If it is an new claim after SPA, you can only claim Attendence Allowance instead, which doesn't have a mobility component.

I think that is correct?

Trevor_PIP

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/140327/pip

After State Pension age you cannot claim PIP. It is Attendance Allowance you claim. There is no mobility element either. If you have a current PIP award at State Pension age you will remain on PIP and your award is automatically switched to an "indefinite" award (10 years) There are 700,000 State Pensioners on PIP currently to figures I have seen recently.

AngusMcCoatup

The big problem is you can get a mobility car with PIP but not with Attendance Alowance.

Trevor_PIP

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1087825#Comment_1087825

Correct. Also, if you are on the Standard Mobility Element at State Pension age and your award continues - you cannot increase your Standard Mobility award to Enhanced either!

theme79

The original concept of the mobility element/allowance PIP previously DLA previously car allowance was to recognise that people who had a major mobility impacting disability on their life were not part of the normal expected aging process that all are subject to - admittedly not evenly - but had substantial disadvantages that impacted over their lifetime and accumulated over their adult years - so that meant that even once we reach older age we arrive there with severe extra and substantial impairments and (in those days) physical mobility issues that compound and increase the normal issues that face older people. There was a cut off which yes worked around probably employment and the reduced ability to work and build up over a lifetime reserves, pension or other finance, family and other opportunities that the non disabled community had POTENTIALLY even if they didnt - so they set it 65 - this was only for mobility not care.