UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2024 and 2025

They’re bound to have to u-turn on this. They will reform some stuff but not necessarily make giant cuts like they’ve been saying. People need to face the fact that there are a lot of disabled people, who need financial support to live. That’s just the way it is.

 

The press are now suggesting that the Government fears a rebellion in the Lords and are considering a u-turn on the attempts to cut the PIP budget

see https://www.theguardian.com/society...dTD4niOJO7i5IEoWtg_aem_vO9FpsjkkGmeeidRfEIFtw

(Sorry I don’t know how to find a link that is not paywalled.)

 

That link isn’t paywalled, the grauniad just asks politely whether you would like to pay before letting you read.

Good to see that quote again - if the govt wants disabled people to work it needs to change employment law so they can’t be fired when they go off sick. Quite.

 

It was so egregious I wonder whether it was deliberate, for some reason.

 

Moved posts

Government talking about disability benefits

I'm finding all this talk about cutting benefits for disabilities and getting people into work stressful.

I feel like I am one of those people they might cut off. I got PIP after many months of fighting for it because their rigid questions don't allow for anything inconsistent or changeable without a clear pattern.

It's got me feeling like when I reach my first review (about a year and a half from now) I might be starting that battle all over again despite having even more documentation than the first time.

They are talking about making the criteria even stricter and my thought is even more people in need are going to miss out or lose in reviews (who need it).

PIP has been a huge blessing allowing me to seek treatment the nhs wasn't providing or the waiting lists were unreasonably long.

 

I'm sorry it was such a struggle, @PrairieLights. It's appalling that the form does ask the questions in the way that reflects the rules of entitlement, because they shouldn't ask 'Can you do X?' but 'Can you do X reliably?', with reliably meaning:

For a descriptor to apply to a claimant they must be able to reliably complete the activity as described in the descriptor. Reliably means whether they can do so:

• safely – in a manner unlikely to cause harm to themselves or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity
• to an acceptable standard
• repeatedly – as often as is reasonably required, and
• in a reasonable time period – no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a non-disabled person would normally take to complete that activity

​

The ME Association PIP handbook says (p.11):

DWP guidance states that ‘pain, fatigue, breathlessness, nausea and motivation’ will all be key factors in deciding whether an activity can be carried out reliably. If you struggle with tasks for part of a day, a descriptor should still apply for that day if the inability to perform a task is ‘for a period which was more than trifling and has some degree of impact on a claimant’s daily activity and functioning.’

For Example: if you can’t dress yourself until late afternoon because of a symptom such as fatigue or pain, this should still be counted as a day in which you have difficulties for that activity, even though you may eventually manage to be dressed.

If your condition fluctuates daily, a descriptor will apply to reflect your ability for more than 50% of days...​

You should answer each question as if the word ‘reliably’ was included in the question. This may mean that you answer “No” to some things that initially seem as though you can complete them. For example, can you prepare and cook food reliably? You may be able to manage this activity but if you can’t do it reliably, it has to be treated as though you can’t complete it at all.​

 

When I did mine I had been following guidance from a lady on YouTube who has cfs and was still failing until I got a call from the case manager right before tribunal.

I've had a few months where making a meal meant getting up and getting an apple to eat with the nuts I had beside my bed. During that period I ate so many nuts my magnesium levels went above range (got blood tests for all sorts at a&e during that time).

 

The government appear have thrown out the proposal to freeze Pip,

but are/could still be making eligibility for PIP much harder, and cutting the LCWRA payment through Universal Credit.

 

I wonder if they might get away with the proposal to restrict access to PIP on mental health grounds? The narrative about people thinking of the "normal stresses of life" as mental ill-health doesn't seem to have landed so badly as some of the other proposals.

Encouraging the media to present mental illness this way is pretty distasteful, and it seems even worse when some of it is partly a consequence of government policy or employment practices. There's been some pushback, but not as much as I expected.

Then again, maybe it's just easier for dissenting MPs to talk about attacks on severely disabled people who need extensive care than folk whose illness might (if we had a functioning health service) be treatable.

 

Funny you should say that Kitty....

https://www.theguardian.com/society...g-saying-mental-health-problems-overdiagnosed

 

Is it just me who is finding the twists and turns skewing the logic?

They want to freeze/reduce/reform PIP because people aren’t working/being “written off” yet PIP isn’t means tested, and many people on PIP do work.

They want to reduce/reform LCWRA which is paid to those too ill to work, because people aren’t working/are being written off, but those people have been assessed as unfit for even starting to prepare to look for work.

But they won’t affect those chronically ill or severely disabled who cannot work (a.k.a. People assessed as LCWRA)

 

Nope. I'm not sure they know what they're on about.

They seem to have seen numbers on a spreadsheet that don't match some other numbers, and those numbers can't be changed, so Something Needs To Be Done.

Now they're going to try out various Somethings and see which the media thinks is the least worst.

 

I think also there is an unspoken assumption that because the numbers of long term sick are increasing it must mean that lots of them can get back into work, without asking how much of this is down to the long term health consequences of the pandemic and how much relates to serious mental health conditions that previously may have been excluded from appropriate benefits.

It feels like the long term sick were seen as an easy target, but no one bothered to attempt to understand the whole picture. There are undoubtedly problems with the current system but there is no guarantee that any genuine attempt to address those issues would not end up costing more in terms of benefit payments rather than less.

 

Yes - we don’t want a big benefit bill, we want people to work. Ok what about disabled people who can’t work? No they’re fine it’s the other ones, you know, taking the Mickey.

I wish they’d do an NHS England and delete all the stupid “assessments”. You just write in and tell them what’s wrong, show the medical paperwork, boom.

 

I do not have any recent medical paperwork that would count as proof of anything .My last encounter with the nhs meant 4 trips in six days to hospital which left me crashing into severe M E .

 

Why would it be recent? I still have the illnesses I was diagnosed with in 2011

 

Me neither. If I had to rely on ME/CFS, I've got a GP diagnosis from 1999. I've never seen a specialist.

They always ask for recent evidence because they imagine people with disabling illnesses are monitored regularly by doctors. And if they're not, it's grounds for suspicion.

 

I’ve never actually been assessed face to face for PIP, and I only had old diagnoses when I got it first time round.

They seem quite content to make up their imaginary interpretation of what I wrote/said without seeing me, so I believe they can do away with the whole “ nurse-led assessment” centre visits. It’s how it affects you, not the diagnosis, as they like to say.

 

It is not, in my experience, about how things affect at least me.

Unless you have a recent diagnosis, apparently by a consultant, that, in their opinion, backs up your statements, then no award is likely.

Given that, in their opinion, ME is nothing more significant than the sniffles.......they quite simply ignored anything I said that contradicted their opinion, sent a DWP hit man to the tribunal, that I was unable to attend, and the judge, in the the statement of reasons, pretty much called me a liar.

So, no, in my experience it's not just based on how you're affected.