A Shropshire father who lost his leg as a toddler is fighting to keep his family afloat after the Department for Work and Pensions ordered him to repay £36,000 in disability benefits and confiscated his car.
Video of cricket match triggers DWP investigation
Shaun Rigby, from Telford, had his leg amputated below the knee following a tractor accident when he was just two years old. Since 2016, he has legally received Personal Independence Payments (PIP) to help with daily living and mobility challenges.
Three years ago, his support included a Motability car, crucial for his family's transport. However, the DWP has now demanded the full repayment of benefits and taken the vehicle away. This drastic action was triggered by a video of Shaun participating in a light-hearted community cricket match.
"Playing cricket does not negate his disability"
Shaun's wife, Lauren, has launched a passionate petition to reverse the decision. She argues the department has completely misunderstood the context of the video and the reality of living with a disability.
"Playing cricket does not negate Shaun's disability; it showcases his determination to lead a fulfilling life despite it," Lauren stated. "Participating in adaptive sports is a well-known form of rehabilitation and psychological well-being for individuals with disabilities."
The family emphasises that the loss of the car and the massive financial penalty threaten their welfare. With four young children, the vehicle provided essential mobility in their semi-rural area.
Family faces "undue hardship" after benefits removal
The Rigby family now faces severe financial and practical strain. The demand for £36,000 and the loss of their primary transport could have devastating consequences.
"This unjust decision not only threatens Shaun’s welfare but also that of our entire family," Lauren's petition explains. "Caring for four young children often requires the flexibility and mobility that only a vehicle can provide."
The petition calls on the DWP to reassess Shaun's case with proper understanding, arguing that the decision contradicts the supportive purpose of disability benefits. The family and their supporters hope public attention will force a review and a return to fairness.
