UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2023 (including government plans to scrap the work capability assessment)

MPs do have a direct line in to the (DWP?) in relation to their constituent benefits claims, it is structured into the systems.

During the first lockdown I was due a telephone PIP reassessment and was struggling to get agreement for a paper review instead. My MP (at least her assistant) contacted them resulting in the next day agreement for a paper based review. I was not expecting anything from my MP but only contacted her so I could include her name under cc on my emails, so was surprised when she came up with the goods.

 

confused

Are Contribution Based SG ESA claimants all being transferred to UC now then? Do we have that confirmed or is it just what you're expecting? Or are you referring to IR ESA? Prior to these latest announcements i thought CB SG ESA were not being transferred to UC. It says in the B&W guide to migration, that its only IR legacy benefits that are being transferred. Just wondering if you've seen something different. Goodness its so complicated isnt it.

 

I'm on income re1ated ESA as I stupid1y tried to do a post grad course when I cou1dn't cope with work, and then when I had to give it up 6 months 1ater 1ived for a1most a year on my savings, prior to c1aiming ESA. I had desperate1y wanted to avoid c1aiming benefits as I was so frightened by the system and work requirements, whereas I'd have been entit1ed to CB ESA if I'd c1aimed straight after giving up work. But eventua11y my money ran out and I had to make a c1aim.

 

I was on1y ab1e to attempt working part time, term time on1y (sa1ary was evened out over the fu11 12 months) as my gir1s were sti11 in fu11 time education (GCSE O and A 1eve1s) so my earnings were topped up with Working Tax Credits. It was a much, much kinder and generous system. I on1y needed to work 16 hours a week (term time on1y due to way sa1ary was divided over the fu11 12 months) to be e1igib1e (with no pressure to work more hours) and got a fami1y e1ement on top of the chi1d and adu1t e1ements. That wou1d no 1onger be the case in the present system under UC.

A1so I was entit1ed to generous sick 1eave being a 1oca1 authority emp1oyee.

In addition my gir1s each got the £30 a week grant (EMA) whi1st attending sixth form. This didn't affect my benefits. This was a1so ended by the present government.

 

Also worth bearing in mind that every Constituency office should have a Welfare Advisor who is experienced in dealing with benefits (etc) issues.

I echo @Kitty ’s experience that there are decent constituency MPs/staff (of all political parties) who will work hard to support their community.

 

Really? I wish I'd been aware of that 4 years ago - it would have saved a lot of stress.

 

I doubt that more than 50% of Westminster MPs have a Welfare Advisor (WA) on staff - many don't even have a physical office in their Constituency.

It's a weird situation - a few MPs started employing WAs, legitimately paid for from Parliamentary expenses, in the early 80s as unemployment shot up and benefit reforms turned the system ever more Byzantine. The practice spread over the following decade or so; I don't know what the position is now but WAs in Constituency offices, or alternatively contracted out to the Voluntary sector but paid from Parliamentary expenses, was in the past very strongly limited by political affiliation of the MP. Arguably adequate WA services should be funded by Local Councils and be completely separate from any elected official, the provision by MPs is a way to use Parliamentary funds to make up for the lack of funding elsewhere, a sticking plaster rather than a cure.

Westminster MPs are under no obligation to do anything, to provide services or support constituents. Their status - unless on the Government payroll - is still that of the Private Member of the pre 20thC era when they were unpaid and took the role solely for position and advantage - it's just that now they are paid and their contribution to society is dependent on either a moral/philosophical commitment or the need to appeal to voters - the latter doesn't impact where the local demographic is single party focused and votes go to a Party irrespective of the behaviour of the candidate while in office. Bottom line - don't rely on your MP having a WA on staff, or offering any support for Benefit or Health related issues.

 

However it does no harm to contact your MP. As I commented above, I was very surprised that my MP’s office intervened when I was arguing with the DWP about not having a PIP telephone assessment right at the start of the first lockdown, rather an assessment based on papers. My MP has a reputation of not replying at all to constituents and politically is not a noted ally of disability issues. The reason I had contacted my MP was it enabled me to have her showing as a cc on emails to the DWP, hopefully making them take me more seriously.

 

This is a rea11y good (brief) artic1e summarising the concerns of sick and disab1ed c1aimants due to this new White Paper, and what this indicates for the future of sickness benefits in the UK. It wou1d be particu1ar1y usefu1 for internationa1 forum members trying to understand why UK members are so frightened by these proposa1s.

https://askcpag.org.uk/content/208897/the_future_of_the_work_capability_assessment

 

I think this paragraph in the article in @Simbindi previous post sums it up quite well:

"A big problem with this is that people currently worried about losing their LCW/LCWRA status if they try work are equally worried about losing their PIP, on which their new UC ‘health element’ would depend.
You can in theory/law get PIP while in work, but your ability to hold down a job, travel to work and do the tasks involved in your work are all taken into account in a PIP assessment and regularly used as reasons for refusing or withdrawing PIP. The Social Security Advisory Committee recognised this in August 2022 and suggested mitigations which have unfortunately not been taken up in the White Paper"

 

And in practice. I got PIP with the higher mobility rate while still working from home.

 

It’s perhaps the worst mechanism imaginable for nationwide safety-net provision. Come the revolution, ban MPs from advocating for individual constituents and pour cash into CABs.

 

Many peop1e are disab1ed but not chronica11y sick. For these peop1e their PIP wi11 fundamenta11y be protected if working within their physica1 and menta1 1imitations. But not so for those who are chronica11y sick, working wou1d be much more 1ike1y to affect their PIP assessment. (As we11 as putting their hea1th at risk of deterioration of course.)

 

There are very few home working jobs that can be done without cognitive capacity and stamina, re1evant and up to date work experience, bespoke and high1y sought after ski11s etc. Many of the c1aimants with 1imited capacity for work and work re1ated activity have been out of work for years, or decades. Emp1oyers are not going to be wi11ing to make adjustments and be f1exib1e for these peop1e, they wi11 be seen as adverse1y affecting their productivity.

 

ME is my only mobility problem. But as you say, it’s a matter of “likelihood”: unpredictability and caprice is built in.

Yes. I was nominally hanging on to a role which I had invented, within a unique subcontracting entity, and from which I have currently stepped down anyway. And in line with what you say, there is absolutely no way I would have secured that role when ill.

 

A1so, the idea that Zoom means sick and vu1nerab1e c1aimants can now work from home because, we11, that's what hea1thy peop1e did during the pandemic, is abso1ute1y outside the bounds of rea1ity.

Most companies that have retained some home working are actua11y using a combined office and home working approach. My youngest's company have done that. They sti11 have to be in the office 2 fixed days a week (so everyone's in there on the same days) and their productivity is high1y monitored (as it was before the pandemic). If you're not high1y productive you are '1et go' ear1y in your career (a1though progression and pay is great for those who are ab1e to meet the standards).

 

I'd disagree with that because I've found the CAB both inassessib1e (physica11y and due to communication/autism difficu1ties) and a1so been given 1ega11y incorrect advice in the past by their advisors.

And the CAB are in many ways 'gagged' because of their government funding.

 

There does seem to be significant variation between different CAB areas and/or officers. I have found them brilliant, seeing me on a domiciliary basis, drafting forms with me then emailing me typed versions to proof read, etc. Though I understand others have had very different experiences.

 

Exce11ent artic1e on this by Frances Ryan today -

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...capability-assessment-cruellest-social-policy

A1so this artic1e on how things are going to get worse for parents of young chi1dren on UC, a change that particu1ary effects sing1e mothers.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...iversal-credit-benefits-mothers-30-hour-weeks

The effects of benefit changes over the years has meant that if a PWME re1ies on a partner who is c1aiming Universa1 Credit (or I think Jobseekers) they are a1so expected to find work (if not c1aiming ESA in their own right). So if your partner is on a 1ow income you are in a very precarious situation with the DWP, having a hea1thy partner is no protection un1ess they are a good earner.

When I became a sing1e parent and had to c1aim Income Support I wasn't expected to work unti1 my youngest turned 16. This gradua11y got reduced to 12, then 7, then 5 (which is when chi1dren start schoo1 in the UK). Now it's going to just 3 years o1d!