Disabled Persons Railcard

[gpmartin]

There was an item on BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday about some work done by various charities, including Scope and MS UK, on eligibility for Disabled Persons Railcards. Strangely, I can't find it on any news websites (including the BBC's) or on the charities websites, but essentially the point was that publicity materials for the Railcard are inaccurate, since they state that applicants need to be on certain benefits to be eligible for the Railcard, whereas in fact just having version progressive diseases, including cancer and MS, is sufficient.

Looking at the Disabled Persons Railcard website (https://www.disabledpersons-railcard.co.uk/), it does indeed state quite clearly that having a progressive condition on its own does not make someone eligible. According to the news item, the Rail Delivery Group has committed to changing this. However, they also seem to have been alerted to this in the past and done nothing (see e.g. https://forum.mssociety.org.uk/t/disabled-railcards-for-ms-sufferers/14559, from three years ago!) - so I'm not convinced it's going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, does anyone know if the correct eligibility criteria are published anywhere else, e.g. by DfT or RDG? Thanks.

 

[Hadders]

This was feautured on Radio 4's Money Box programme yesterday.

A spokeman for the DfT told the programme that the 'Disabled Persons Railcard is currently under review including the eligibility criteria and verification'. Let's hop the criteria is not reduced and that it becomes easier for those entitled to obtain one.

Report 21:00 mins in:

Money Box - A whirlwind week: tax, pensions, savings and mortgages - A whirlwind week: tax, pensions, savings and mortgages - BBC Sounds

A new chancellor and higher taxes for business but what does it mean for personal finance?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[gpmartin]

This was feautured on Radio 4's Money Box programme yesterday.

A spokeman for the DfT told the programme that the 'Disabled Persons Railcard is currently under review including the eligibility criteria and verification'. Let's hop the criteria is not reduced and that it becomes easier for those entitled to obtain one.

Report 21:00 mins in:

Money Box - A whirlwind week: tax, pensions, savings and mortgages - A whirlwind week: tax, pensions, savings and mortgages - BBC Sounds

A new chancellor and higher taxes for business but what does it mean for personal finance?

www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks - just listened to that. Sounds like it might be worth getting a three-year card sharpish if there's a risk eligibility criteria might be tightened!

 

[Wallsendmag]

Thanks - just listened to that. Sounds like it might be worth getting a three-year card sharpish if there's a risk eligibility criteria might be tightened!

I think a photo may become mandtory

 

[TUC]

I think a photo may become mandtory

I find it very patronising that, unlike other railcards, a photo is not required. I presume it dates back to when a photo booth would have been needed, and the challenges of wheelchair access in relation to it. However, that is an issue for yesterday's world.

I do think it would be unfair on the rail industry for to have to make subjective judgments on issues such as progressive diseases. Surely basing eligibility on PIP/DLA entitlement and/or ineligibility to drive for medical reasons should be sufficient?

 

[Watershed]

I find it very patronising that, unlike other railcards, a photo is not required. I presume it dates back to when a photo booth would have been needed, and the challenges of wheelchair access in relation to it. However, that is an issue for yesterday's world.

I do think it would be unfair on the rail industry for to have to make subjective judgments on issues such as progressive diseases. Surely basing eligibility on PIP/DLA entitlement and/or ineligibility to drive for medical reasons should be sufficient?

The thing is, there will always be circumstances and people who fall through the cracks. So an "other reasons" application should always be possible, and then determined on a case by case basis.

 

[jfollows]

I find it very patronising that, unlike other railcards, a photo is not required.

No photo on my Senior Railcard either.

 

[TUC]

The thing is, there will always be circumstances and people who fall through the cracks. So an "other reasons" application should always be possible, and then determined on a case by case basis.

But surely the PIP/driving licence assessment routes are where the medical expertise to make those judgements rests, not the rail industry?

 

[XAM2175]

The thing is, there will always be circumstances and people who fall through the cracks. So an "other reasons" application should always be possible, and then determined on a case by case basis.

But surely the PIP/driving licence assessment routes are where the medical expertise to make those judgements rests, not the rail industry?

It's a tough balance, in fairness. I can easily understand RDG wanting to keep the various forms of eligibility limited to things that they can objectively assess without needing to form their own medical opinions - so they can effectively outsource the medical judgements to GPs and the DWP (etc) while leaving their own staff only needing to make decisions closer to "is this PIP/ADP award letter not an obvious forgery?"

At the same time though I can see that it does leave a gap for people who are to some extent disabled, but not in a way that creates eligibility to specific benefits. I suppose the question here though is the extent to which those people should be entitled to DP Railcard? I've seen it suggested previously that diagnosis of MS, cancer, or HIV should create that entitlement on the basis that the Equality Act 2010 explicitly lists them as disabilities (Schedule 1 para 6), although the intent of the drafters there is almost certainly directed primarily towards protecting those people in education, employment, and housing.

The bigger picture, realistically, is that the DP Railcard has become a de facto social concession scheme that is being run in the framework of a commercial incentive program, and that that position merits some review.

 

[kieron]

Thanks - just listened to that. Sounds like it might be worth getting a three-year card sharpish if there's a risk eligibility criteria might be tightened!

Especially for anyone who doesn't meet the published criteria. While I'm sure RDG have a good reason for assessing people in the way they do, someone could listen to that piece and ask if becoming less generous would address the criticism in it.

I do think it would be unfair on the rail industry for to have to make subjective judgments on issues such as progressive diseases. Surely basing eligibility on PIP/DLA entitlement and/or ineligibility to drive for medical reasons should be sufficient?

One problem with linking it to specific benefits is that the government has non-medical criteria for those, such as residency requirements. The rules for applying for a "bus pass" here avoid this issue by allowing a doctor to write to confirm that an applicant meets the medical criteria.

 

[trek]

I think a photo may become mandtory

Would make sense to me.

Can't see why not to add it to the senior at the same time.

Do wonder if there is much fraudulent use of them, especially given the peak time discounts. I know that fraudulent 16-25/26-30 railcards are becoming a growing problem due to inadequate age verification.

 

[Kumquat]

I do think it would be unfair on the rail industry for to have to make subjective judgments on issues such as progressive diseases. Surely basing eligibility on PIP/DLA entitlement and/or ineligibility to drive for medical reasons should be sufficient?

The paperwork requirements for PIP/DLA are so high that many people don't apply until years after they would qualify, and the assessment process can then take another year or two. The Disabled Railcard accepts several less-onerous forms of evidence - for example, anyone who qualifies for a NHS heating aid can get a Railcard, presumably because the number of people under 65 who have hearing aids without other issues is tiny, more than because of the communication problems meriting it (though I still end up in the wrong place about once a year thanks to lack of visual info...)

Also the main reason for Railcards is to encourage more rail travel and thus more income to the railways, so if there's a few people getting unjustified discounts, it's probably not much of a loss overall. The disability requirements for say a Freedom Pass are much more onerous (have to be both severely deaf and without speech, for example).

A consultant letter confirming diagnosis of MS or cancer should suffice for a Railcard, though there's always going to be people with unlisted conditions or a lack of diagnosis who miss out.

 

[Haywain]

A consultant letter confirming diagnosis of MS or cancer should suffice for a Railcard,

A diagnosis does not provide qualification for the Disabled Railcard - it is the severity of the illness that is the key factor as that governs qualification for PIP/DLA.

 

[ainsworth74]

But surely the PIP/driving licence assessment routes are where the medical expertise to make those judgements rests, not the rail industry?

I mean no malice when I ask this but I do wonder, just how much contact have you had with PIP assessments and the decision making process of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)? Because once you have been exposed to it for any significant length of time you rapidly conclude that all that's being achieved is the traumatisation and denial of entitlements to claimants, the wastage of Tribunals time dealing with appeals, and the expenditure of millions of taxpayers pounds on private assessment providers who are providing a service which is fundamentally unfit for purpose (as well as the millions wasted on appeals by the Tribunal Service and the DWP).

Take the example of someone I dealt with. Lifelong health conditions causing significant restrictions on their mobility (could only move short distances using two crutches, take a crutch away and they fall onto the floor with no ability to get back up) and a limited ability to care for themselves (carers visiting twice a day and a lifeline to summon help 24/7 if needed). They had been awarded the highest rates of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for both their Care and Mobility needs for life. Due to the Government decision reassess most DLA claimants onto Personal Independence Payment (PIP) they were reassessed as only be entitled to the Standard Rates of both Daily Living (Care in old money) and Mobility. Nothing had changed in their conditions, indeed such a change was impossible they'd had them since birth, but the PIP assessment and DWP decision maker determined that miraculously this person was somehow better. An appeal later their were awarded the highest rates of both components of PIP. Someone else I dealt with, awarded PIP when they applied on the basis of long term, degenerative, conditions for four years (a common award length irrespective of prognosis of their conditions). Reassessed three years later (also common, reassess a year early) by a paramedic working for the DWPs assessment provider. The paramedics report indicated that the individual now met none of the criteria for PIP and the DWP decision maker agreed. Award removed until reinstated on appeal. Another individual would meet all the criteria for an award of PIP but cannot do so for two years because they only recently returned to the UK having lived abroad for a couple of decades. To be entitled to PIP you have to have been living in Common Travel Area (UK, Ireland, etc) for two out of the last three years. I could keep going...

Fundamentally PIP/DLA entitlement, whilst it's a very convenient way of working out if someone has a disability that might give rise to entitlement to additional support needs, cannot be relied on. There are many people out there who will not have awards that they should or cannot make a claim because of restrictive criteria and it is therefore vital that any process by a third party has alternative access routes to whatever it is that the person is applying for. The Blue Badge, for instance, can be awarded automatically by a Local Authority when a person has the relevant award of PIP or DLA. But if they do not they can apply anyway and ask their Council to assess them (usually via letter from their doctor).

It's a vital safety net to not simply rely on the DWP and their decision.

 

[davews]

I have NHS hearing aids but these are now supplied by Specsavers due to an agreement they have with the NHS after closing our hospital hearing aid clinics. I do have a brown book from the NHS days but that of course is now superceded.
But I have a Senior Railcard anyway.

 

[XAM2175]

A diagnosis does not provide qualification for the Disabled Railcard - it is the severity of the illness that is the key factor as that governs qualification for PIP/DLA.

The sufficiency of an MS diagnosis as proof of eligibility for the DP Railcard is literally the subject of the first post in the thread.

 

[Haywain]

The sufficiency of an MS diagnosis as proof of eligibility for the DP Railcard is literally the subject of the first post in the thread.

It is, and it states that such a diagnosis is not enough to qualify for the Disabled Railcard, as I reiterated.

 

[XAM2175]

It is, and it states that such a diagnosis is not enough to qualify for the Disabled Railcard, as I reiterated.

The post states that RDG's guidance says that, but links to what purports to describe the RDG accepting proof of diagnosis.

 

[duncanp]

It is, and it states that such a diagnosis is not enough to qualify for the Disabled Railcard, as I reiterated.

That is my interpretation.

You have to have Multiple Sclerosis (or any other progressive illness) and be in receipt of various benefits, as per the extract from the Disabled Persons Railcard website.

If you are disabled or have a progressive medical condition you are eligible for the Disabled Persons Railcard if you:

• receive Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or Adult Disability Payment (ADP)
• receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Child Disability Payment(CDP) at either:
  • the higher or lower rate for the mobility component, or
  • the higher or middle rate for the care component
• have a visual impairment
• have a hearing impairment
• have epilepsy
• receive Attendance Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance or Pension Age Disability Payment (PADP)
• receive War Pensioner's Mobility Supplement
• receive War or Service Disablement Pension for 80% or more disability
• buy or lease a vehicle through the Motability scheme

If having MS was sufficient, I would have applied for a railcard long ago.

 

[Haywain]

The post states that RDG's guidance says that, but links to what purports to describe the RDG accepting proof of diagnosis.

Could you indicate where you think this is shown?

 

[XAM2175]

Could you indicate where you think this is shown?

Well, there's this from the OP's first paragraph:

There was an item on BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday about some work done by various charities, including Scope and MS UK, on eligibility for Disabled Persons Railcards. Strangely, I can't find it on any news websites (including the BBC's) or on the charities websites, but essentially the point was that publicity materials for the Railcard are inaccurate, since they state that applicants need to be on certain benefits to be eligible for the Railcard, whereas in fact just having version progressive diseases, including cancer and MS, is sufficient.

(emphasis mine)

And there's this link in the OP's second paragraph:

According to the news item, the Rail Delivery Group has committed to changing this. However, they also seem to have been alerted to this in the past and done nothing (see e.g. https://forum.mssociety.org.uk/t/disabled-railcards-for-ms-sufferers/14559, from three years ago!)

Which reads:

Hope33
Apr '19

Just thought I would pass this on. Taken from ShiftMS site. A small victory for the UK MSers Good News – anyone that can show they have MS – a letter from your GP is fine – is entitled to a DPRC. End of story. If you have MS, you are entitled. Presently the website makes it sound like you aren’t entitled unless you are in receipt of certain benefits. They agree this is misleading and have undertaken to change it. In the meantime, here is what to do – – have a scan/photo or the emailed attachment of your proof of MS – go to their website and use ANY of the categories (none of which sound remotely relevant at present) to apply and attach the proof and add a note that you have MS and are applying like this because at present there is no other way to do it – pay your £54 for a 3 year DPRC This entitles you AND one person accompanying you to 30% off rail fares at all times, including peak times. The Rail Ombudsman were v helpful in getting to the right person in the Rail Delivery Group and both MS Society and my MP have expressed an interest if they didn’t come around, but they saw sense and have been very good about it. In future, the website will have a space for ‘Any other qualifying condition’ or similar. The final email is copied below:- >> Hello Dominic It was good to talk to you earlier. I can confirm that as discussed, we’ll make it clear on the website that if customers believe they might be eligible to contact us to discuss.

 

[Haywain]

Well, there's this from the OP's first paragraph:

(emphasis mine)

And there's this link in the OP's second paragraph:

Which reads:

So, you quote that "Rail Delivery Group has committed to changing this" and then argue that something they haven't changed is wrong? I have stated clearly what the current situation is, been backed up in that by other posts, including the one you are quoting from, and you still think what I'm saying is wrong? The fact is that whilst it might change in the future it hasn't changed now.

 

[XAM2175]

So, you quote that "Rail Delivery Group has committed to changing this" and then argue that something they haven't changed is wrong? I have stated clearly what the current situation is, been backed up in that by other posts, including the one you are quoting from, and you still think what I'm saying is wrong? The fact is that whilst it might change in the future it hasn't changed now.

I'm reading as saying that they're already accepting diagnosis for eligibility but that they haven't yet got around to changing the published guidance! This is the topic of the thread, so your just parroting the published guidelines makes it look like you've totally missed the point of the discussion because the parroting contributes nothing new.

 

[Haywain]

I'm reading as saying that they're already accepting diagnosis for eligibility but that they haven't yet got around to changing the published guidance!

You are reading it wrongly.

 

[XAM2175]

You are reading it wrongly.

From the link:

In the meantime, here is what to do – – have a scan/photo or the emailed attachment of your proof of MS – go to their website and use ANY of the categories (none of which sound remotely relevant at present) to apply and attach the proof and add a note that you have MS and are applying like this because at present there is no other way to do it – pay your £54 for a 3 year DPRC

Followed by posts from people who claim that they were successful in using this approach.

 

[skyhigh]

I mean no malice when I ask this but I do wonder, just how much contact have you had with PIP assessments and the decision making process of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)? Because once you have been exposed to it for any significant length of time you rapidly conclude that all that's being achieved is the traumatisation and denial of entitlements to claimants, the wastage of Tribunals time dealing with appeals, and the expenditure of millions of taxpayers pounds on private assessment providers who are providing a service which is fundamentally unfit for purpose (as well as the millions wasted on appeals by the Tribunal Service and the DWP).

Take the example of someone I dealt with. Lifelong health conditions causing significant restrictions on their mobility (could only move short distances using two crutches, take a crutch away and they fall onto the floor with no ability to get back up) and a limited ability to care for themselves (carers visiting twice a day and a lifeline to summon help 24/7 if needed). They had been awarded the highest rates of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for both their Care and Mobility needs for life. Due to the Government decision reassess most DLA claimants onto Personal Independence Payment (PIP) they were reassessed as only be entitled to the Standard Rates of both Daily Living (Care in old money) and Mobility. Nothing had changed in their conditions, indeed such a change was impossible they'd had them since birth, but the PIP assessment and DWP decision maker determined that miraculously this person was somehow better. An appeal later their were awarded the highest rates of both components of PIP. Someone else I dealt with, awarded PIP when they applied on the basis of long term, degenerative, conditions for four years (a common award length irrespective of prognosis of their conditions). Reassessed three years later (also common, reassess a year early) by a paramedic working for the DWPs assessment provider. The paramedics report indicated that the individual now met none of the criteria for PIP and the DWP decision maker agreed. Award removed until reinstated on appeal. Another individual would meet all the criteria for an award of PIP but cannot do so for two years because they only recently returned to the UK having lived abroad for a couple of decades. To be entitled to PIP you have to have been living in Common Travel Area (UK, Ireland, etc) for two out of the last three years. I could keep going...

Fundamentally PIP/DLA entitlement, whilst it's a very convenient way of working out if someone has a disability that might give rise to entitlement to additional support needs, cannot be relied on.

100%. Another very similar experience here. Claimant was awarded the higher rate for both daily living and mobility areas of PIP with a lifetime condition. They were reassessed and awarded a total score of 0 - i.e. require absolutely no assistance at all. At the tribunal they awarded the original score, giving back the higher rate of payments for both. The whole process took around 24 months. It really isn't fit for purpose.

I know that fraudulent 16-25/26-30 railcards are becoming a growing problem due to inadequate age verification.

Is the verification really inadequate, or is the issue with people using faked railcards?

 

[Haywain]

From the link:

Followed by posts from people who claim that they were successful in using this approach.

Well, perhaps it's over to @duncanp to put it to the test:

If having MS was sufficient, I would have applied for a railcard long ago.

 

[duncanp]

Well, perhaps it's over to @duncanp to put it to the test:

I am such an old coffin dodger that I will be eligible for a Senior Railcard in April next year.

So I don't think I will risk applying for a Disabled Persons Railcard only to get a "computer says no" answer.

 

[WizCastro197]

I am not going to apply for a disabled persons railcard, I am not completely sure if my application would be accepted anyway. To be fair CD doesn't disable me completely (different for everybody same as every other disability) so I would feel as if I was cheating the system. I have my 26-30 railcard anyway and systems don't allow you to put 2 railcards on with reason of course.

 

[les.]

I have a "Disabled Persons Railcard" but I understand the eligibility has changed so not sure if I'd qualify for one now.

The reason I qualify is that I was diagnosed with a brain tumour a few years back and 2 days after the operation to remove the tumour I had a rather bad seizure. I was prescribed to take "phenytoin" on an ongoing basis and I have a medical exemption certificate.

I didn't realise that I might qualify until a friend mentioned it to me, so I did apply and was sent a card. I have renewed it since and no futher questions have been asked. Although I am not officially diagnosed as being "epileptic", pheyntoin is an anti-epilepsy drug.