I don't think that's what Mr P. meant. He said if the criteria state that being able to complete a 200 miler means he loses his benefits, then he should. But I doubt they do, and I don't think Mr P. was saying the criteria should say that.
It's very difficult to make comment on. My wife is just going through the process of DLA as she has been diagnosed with fibromyalgia at the ripe old age of 30. The doctor told her Monday that she will probably never work again as a result of the pain levels she is in and the nature of the condition itself.
It's taken 5 years to get to the point of a diagnosis and 2 years ago she had to give up work. As of this week we finally have a diagnosis rather than a generic "chronic pain" so we can apply for DLA. She needs help with every aspect of her life and with me working full time I have to buy in care for her.
Now she is in no position to ride 2 miles let alone 200 but it does beg the question "did this guy not consider he could lose his benefits if he was to undertake such a challenge?", "did he ask DWP if it would affect his DLA?".
To be honest it would be the first thing I would think of. In my experience I have found the people at DWP to be very reasonable and if you ask their advice they will let you know. Just maybe there are other circumstances not stated in the article which have caused this.
We only have the press and his word on things. Of course the DWP are not going to give their reasons but that is why there is always leave of appeal.
A guy at my golf club has one of those individual electric buggies and is allowed to use it for competitions as he has provided a medical certificate. He cycles to and from the club with all of his gear in a trailer. Yet he genuinely couldn't walk a round of golf. There seems to be a broad spectrum of issues surrounding different injuries/disabilties, when examined closely enough no 2 people react the same.
In the scale of things penalising this guy does seem pretty harsh.
There is insufficient information in the short BBC article to draw a reasonable opinion on his eligibility. But, his ability to cycle and his charity work are red herrings in this case. He should be assessed against the published criteria and get it or not following this assessment. As a nation, we should not pay sympathy money based on charitable earnings or remove it based upon the ability to cycle a bike.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.