× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Satisfying DLA mobility conditions pre 65

Nick Vaughan
forum member

Money Advice and Community Support Service, Brighton

Send message

Total Posts: 6

Joined: 1 November 2012

Hi,
My client was awarded HRM and Low Care in January 2004 when aged 61. She moved to Greece in Sept 2004   and lost entitlement to both components. Due to a change in EU Regs the care component was reinstated but mobility still not payable. Client is now back in UK and wants to supersede DLA to include mobility as was satisfying disability conditions before 65 years of age.
DWP refusing because she didn’t satisfy the residency conditions pre 65. Is is the residency conditions at 64 that count or can she argue that she met the residency conditions at 61 - feels like I’m clutching at straws….

Ben E Fitz
forum member

Welfare Benefits Caseworker, Manchester CAB Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 162

Joined: 17 June 2010

As DLA supersessions are now replaced by new claims for PIP, and she is now over 65, it may be that her only options are to stay on her current DLA award or claim AA.

Welfare Rights Adviser
forum member

Social inclusion unit - Swansea Council

Send message

Total Posts: 163

Joined: 23 June 2010

But surely that would not be the case - she was over 65 on 8/4/13 so PIP does not apply and therefore could still request a dla supersession depending on the residency issue

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

I had a similar case.

DWP refused the mobility component on what sounds like slightly different grounds: “the change of circumstances of your return to the UK did not occur before you were 65”. We asked them to reconsider on the grounds that the relevant change of circs was in fact the deterioration in condition, not the return to the UK. Unfortunately this never went to appeal, but I still think it was at least arguable.