If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Saving for disability related equipment ignore in means tested benefits

About me. T4paraplegic, bunch of other issues. Own house paid for,
and adapted. I use a US built drive fro wheelchair minivan. Its 13 years
old. I want a new one. I do not want loans, motobility, etc as I do few
miles, and look after vehicles. Because I need a DRIVE FROM WHEELCHAIR
van, for a normal full sized rehab style chair theres really only around
2 solutions. In both cases about 50 to 65K... So I need to save for a
few years. At least!
So... I get direct
payments for care (means tested). I get the usual PIP, and ESA support
group. I get council tax discount, and pay some towards my care.
I
realise savings of 6k or higher would cause me to lose various benefits
etc. But I read somewhere that savings for a disability adaptation,
disabled adapted vehicles could be ignored if agreed in advance. So the
savings for that would be ignored. Question is who do you ask, is this
correct, and how exactly do I deal with it. Because they have no problem
with you getting ripped off for finance, and so doing the thing
sensibly obviously works out better for everyone other than the lender!
So any advice?
Replies
Scope
Tell us what you think?
Complete our feedback form to help us to improve your community.
I have had a read through the DWP information about what counts as capital for benefits and I can't find anything that says money saved for a vehicle can be disregarded. If there is something it would be really useful to know.
Scope
Scope I think has figures on the cost of disability. The o.p. mentioned a secure roof, the adaptations, wheelchair that does N O T come from n.h.s., and that merely for a vehicle, replacement needs £65,000 to be set aside. That would leave out other disability related extra living costs such as heating, costs of requiring an accessible holiday or outing, not the cheapest, and suitable clothes and food, not the cheapest.
Then there is the cost of assistance, which is N O T covered by the council. Older frail disabled people will be terrified of care homes, but need ample savings if they have no private pension and cannot be sure if they will live another five years, or twenty five.
It is a strange notion that people count as rich, at various levels starting, o.p. states, at £6,000, and with apparently a cut off at £23,000, making people ineligible for applying for council housing, or for housing benefit, or for legal aid.
There must be instances for a test case, where absolutely nobody, not even a court, could agree it is reasonable to count someone with a dedicated savings account for vital medical need, as if they are exactly equal with some healthy person who wants to keep every penny of his lottery winnings.
I'm trying to remember some comparison with people who have criminal injury compensation or similar disregard in some legal situations, possibly in divorce?
Firstly because if money cannot be squandered, the cost may work out as nearly twice what it would for the same thing bought after being saved up for.
Then, there is the fact you are the owner and in control. Your relationship is between yourself and the supplier. That can work out worse, orr can be better. Its a gamble. The thing you desperately rely upon, because of your disability, belongs to Jones. It breaks. That makes all the world of difference to you. Jones, however, couldn't care less if the repair takes 24 hours or three months.
The thing you hired may be perfectly fine at the end of the contract. If you owned it yourself, you could decide to sell or to keep it, and even when you do replace it, you may choose to store it as that vital emergency spare, if the next one breaks down.
But the biggest obstacle to renting, hiring, or getting loans is that very often, people don't want to trust a disabled or old unemployed person to repay.