Eligibility criteria for mobility benefit reviewed
28th July 2014
This news article is from Handicare UK. Articles that appear on this website are for information purposes only.
The High Court has ruled against the review of a new eligibility criteria for mobility benefit. As a part of the move from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a new eligibility criteria has been put in place that has had many mobility restricted UK residents concerned that they may lose their benefit under the new rules. With many reliant on such products as level walk in showers that can be purchased with the help of the benefit allowance, the changes to the benefit criteria could prove quite damaging to some.
A judicial review challenge to the fairness of the new eligibility criteria has been rejected as the High Court found the new criteria to be fair and lawful. The Personal Independence Payment is something that can affect people across the country and, much like the introduction of mobility aids and stairlifts in the home, it can seriously help improve the accessibility they have to everyday things others make take for granted.
The Judicial Review of the introduction of the 20m distance that forms a key part of the mobility assessment (Activity 12) was rejected with the High Court finding that the 2012 consultation was “mind–bogglingly opaque” as reported in this article.
The challenge was brought forward by a man who was concerned that he may lose his Motability car that he was able to lease under the previous criteria for the Disability Living Allowance. He is able to walk a few metres with the assistance of a walking stick, but is otherwise restricted to a wheelchair, and he is concerned that he and others like him may fail to qualify under the new criteria of the PIP assessment and the 20m distance criteria.
With the judicial proceedings launched in March of last year arguing that the 2012 consultation was unfair as the government had failed to mention the new 20m criteria, the High Court found the consultation to be “mind–bogglingly opaque” and therefore rejected the challenge.
Image Credit: Seth Anderson (flickr.com)
This content was written by Emily Bray. Please feel free to visit my Google + profile to read more stories.