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

Kitty said:
You don't need to have the assistance, only to need it. My 4 is for being unable to prepare and cook a simple meal without supervision or assistance.
Click to expand...
I never claimed DLA, but I seem to recall (from my sister's case) that that was the criteria that got a claimant the lowest level of the care element of DLA. But obviously it wasn't sufficient for the new PIP benefit when people transferred over, unless they also could score on other criteria. So this was probably why the government saw big savings when they introduced PIP, although in the end the savings didn't actually happen as they had intended.
 
Simbindi said:
I said 'more recent', they may have been here for 10 or more years, but less than the 35 years required to get the full new state pension, whilst many native British people will have reached that NI contributions threshold. Pension credit is a top up to give pensioners a minimum income that is just less than the new state pension (they only get the additional top up equivalent to the severe disability premium of ESA if they also get PIP). The problem is Pension Credit entitlement has a sudden cut off rather than a taper. Hence someone on the full new state pension loses their other passported benefits (such as the WHD) even though their income may be less than a few pounds a week 'better off' than someone on pension credit who get these additional benefits. This was covered in the media when Labour scraped the WHD, however they still didn't bring in a 'taper' to help those pensioners on a low income that lost out because of this.

Someone on a full new state pension but no other income who receives Attendance Allowance after pension age would also be entitled to Pension Credit because they would get the severe disability premium. This is an example only, as someone may have an additional pension that is still below the threshold for this top up (such as Kitty's example).
Click to expand...
So people who don’t have enough NI years get pension credit?
 
MrMagoo said:
So people who don’t have enough NI years get pension credit?
Click to expand...
It's individual, I've just been talking in generalities but yes, in my own case if I didn't have a long term award of PIP (and at the moment I'm safely in the new criteria with the 10 year light touch) I'd actually be better off if I wasn't predicted to accrue the full 35 years of NI credits (as being on income based benefits gives me the NI credits). I'd be better off if I fell short of them and entitled to pension credit based on a lower state pension income if I were to lose my PIP award.

You can do a prediction for yourself on the government website.

https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension
 
Simbindi said:
Looking at how Attendance Allowance seems to use some of the Care Act criteria I wouldn't be surprised if this is what they are planning for PIP in the longer term.
Click to expand...

Yep. On the other hand, one of the dangers of unifying the two could be that AA is in some respects "easier" to document than PIP, as there's an acknowledgement older people may have care or mobility needs simply because of their age. Their impairments can be more difficult to describe than, say, the effects of disease or accident, and there's no medical treatment for frailty. Obviously it's not easy to get AA, but it could be worse if the assumptions and criteria were the same as PIP.

I was with a relative when she was assessed for it, and I'm sure they only stayed 30 minutes for form's sake. They could have got all they needed in five.
 
MrMagoo said:
I think I will push for a Care Assessment (the LA told me I couldn’t have one, which is apparently a lie and they have a duty to carry one out) also I do have a private home help and carer.
Click to expand...
I was going to have a care assessment but my council made it so hard to access (as I also have autism and communication difficulties) that I gave up in the end. But I specifically asked whether they would use my PIP award as evidence and they said they wouldn't accept it, they would make their own judgment about my level of need (which is in reality based on their financial difficulties, my council is on the verge of bankruptcy due in most part to their adult social care budget). So because I get enhanced PIP which they would just take as a financial contribution anyway, I've just managed on my own. But if the government change the PIP criteria further I'd have a care assessment just to see how they evaluate me and possibly use the report as evidence for future PIP claims.
 
Simbindi said:
I never claimed DLA, but I seem to recall (from my sister's case) that that was the criteria that got a claimant the lowest level of the care element of DLA. But obviously it wasn't sufficient for the new PIP benefit when people transferred over, unless they also could score on other criteria. So this was probably why the government saw big savings when they introduced PIP, although in the end the savings didn't actually happen as they had intended.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall there other categories or factors were introduced in PIP that hadn't been in DLA. I only ever claimed mobility under that, but I qualified for enhanced care under PIP because even a low score in several areas adds up.
 
Kitty said:
I seem to recall there other categories or factors were introduced in PIP that hadn't been in DLA. I only ever claimed mobility under that, but I qualified for enhanced care under PIP because even a low score in several areas adds up.
Click to expand...
I think the 'reliable and repeatable' criteria were added to the PIP legislation a couple of years after it was originally passed. That's why the descriptors don't really fit with it, especially the last 6 or 8 point ones which state you can never do the activity. It seems assessors still only give an 8 if a claimant can never, ever do the activity even once, rather than can never do it reliably and repeatedly, without pain or severe fatigue etc.

In some ways I do think it makes sense to differentiate this, but as it stands the PIP points based system can't accurately do this (at least if the assessor is correctly applying the legislation).
 
MrMagoo said:
So people who don’t have enough NI years get pension credit?
Click to expand...

It's based on your income. The Pension Credit threshold is whatever amount the law says you need to live on, which is the same amount as the new state pension. That means people with enough NI credits to receive the full pension don't qualify. What the PIP care element does is to add about £85 a week to that legal minimum income, so a full state pension is no longer considered enough to live on.

I should qualify for Pension Credit even though I not only have the new state pension, I have a small private one too. But because the private pension is less than the £85 a week PIP entitles me to, the difference is made up by Pension Credit.

Even if my private pension were £84 a week—so I only qualified for £1 a week in Pension Credit—I'd still get all the passported benefits.
 
Simbindi said:
It seems assessors still only give an 8 if a claimant can never, ever do the activity even once, rather than can never do it reliably and repeatedly, without pain or severe fatigue etc.
Click to expand...

I guess this is where a lot can depend on the assessor. I got the full 12 points for the mobility element even though I was clear that I can stand and walk a short distance, but they seemed more parsimonious with the care side.

Maybe it's just easier to describe and understand mobility impairment? Some of the care stuff is much more subtle and difficult to communicate—you could write 100,000 words about living with autism and still not capture it.
 
Kitty said:
I guess this is where a lot can depend on the assessor. I got the full 12 points for the mobility element even though I was clear that I can stand and walk a short distance, but they seemed more parsimonious with the care side.

Maybe it's just easier to describe and understand mobility impairment? Some of the care stuff is much more subtle and difficult to communicate—you could write 100,000 words about living with autism and still not capture it.
Click to expand...
Yes. I believe technically anyone with a formal NHS autism diagnosis should be scoring 8 on the communication and social interaction descriptors, because even if they can communicate in an autistic fashion they are clearly not able to do that to the standard of a non-autistic person (which is what would be counted as an 'acceptable' standard in daily life and at work) or they should never have been given the diagnosis. For example, not being able to process body language or not displaying the 'correct' facial expressions. This was my experience of working (ironically in an SEN department) where I was bullied and rejected for my social difficulties. Just these problems alone have a major impact on ALL social interactions and in person communications with other people. But it seems if you are able to speak and engage somewhat with the assessor they take this to mean you can always do this, albeit with support.

So I got 4's in these 2 areas despite having a council funded advocate and a Rethink mental health support worker (also council funded but on a time limited scheme) with me during the home based assessment (I was lying in bed throughout it) and also having a NHS ADHD diagnosis and a formal Ed Psych dyslexia assessment (it takes me about 5 times as long to read text as, for example, my Kindle predicts the average reader to do). The only speaking I did during the 2 hour long assessment was to instruct my advocate to use my written statements to answer the questions on my behalf. In the end the assessor just read through my detailed PIP form 'additional sheets' and made her own notes directly from these as it was clear that it was just complicating and protracting things for the advocate to read the answers out. My Rethink support worker said by the end of the assessment it was obvious I was speaking gibberish and had mentally switched off as it was too much for me to cope with. However, the written notes on the report did make useful statements, it seems the assessor (a nurse) must have been told by her supervisor to award lower points than her statements would have merited.
 
Last edited:
Kitty said:
Yep. On the other hand, one of the dangers of unifying the two could be that AA is in some respects "easier" to document than PIP, as there's an acknowledgement older people may have care or mobility needs simply because of their age. Their impairments can be more difficult to describe than, say, the effects of disease or accident, and there's no medical treatment for frailty. Obviously it's not easy to get AA, but it could be worse if the assumptions and criteria were the same as PIP.

I was with a relative when she was assessed for it, and I'm sure they only stayed 30 minutes for form's sake. They could have got all they needed in five.
Click to expand...
We just finished the process for AA for my father in law, couldn't possibly have been easier.
 
Kitty said:
It's based on your income. The Pension Credit threshold is whatever amount the law says you need to live on, which is the same amount as the new state pension. That means people with enough NI credits to receive the full pension don't qualify. What the PIP care element does is to add about £85 a week to that legal minimum income, so a full state pension is no longer considered enough to live on.

I should qualify for Pension Credit even though I not only have the new state pension, I have a small private one too. But because the private pension is less than the £85 a week PIP entitles me to, the difference is made up by Pension Credit.

Even if my private pension were £84 a week—so I only qualified for £1 a week in Pension Credit—I'd still get all the passported benefits.
Click to expand...
So why do people who are immigrants get it? They’re just the same as people who didn’t have enough credits/years paid in? I’m really confused.

I worked offshore for some years and made sure I had enough years paid in.

If I settled here from abroad as an adult immigrant then I wouldn’t have any opportunity to make up the years obviously, so I’d get a top up on not having enough to live on? The same as anyone who didn’t have enough?
 
MrMagoo said:
So why do people who are immigrants get it? They’re just the same as people who didn’t have enough credits/years paid in? I’m really confused.

I worked offshore for some years and made sure I had enough years paid in.

If I settled here from abroad as an adult immigrant then I wouldn’t have any opportunity to make up the years obviously, so I’d get a top up on not having enough to live on? The same as anyone who didn’t have enough?
Click to expand...
With citizenship, yes.
 
MrMagoo said:
So why do people who are immigrants get it? They’re just the same as people who didn’t have enough credits/years paid in?
Click to expand...

Yes: neither have enough NI credits for the full state pension, so if they don't have other pension provision, they qualify for Pension Credit.

It's not because they're immigrants, it's that being an immigrant is one of numerous reasons you might not have a full NI contribution record. Being a stay-at-home parent for a long time, being a carer, working your whole career in public service (so you'd have been contracted out) are others.

I think what @Simbindi was saying is that people who are entitled to the full state pension could be in a worse position than people who aren't. Provided they have no other income, both groups get the same amount of money each week—but because those who don't have the full state pension get part of the amount as Pension Credit, they also get the passported benefits.

They might not have to pay council tax at all, for instance, whereas the person on a full state pension might get a lower discount. Ditto winter fuel allowance, help with optician's and dentist's fees, cheap broadband deals, etc. It could potentially add up to a lot of money per year, for people who're on exactly the same basic income.

[Edited slightly for clarity]
 
Kitty said:
Yes: neither have enough NI credits for the full state pension, so if they don't have other pension provision, they qualify for Pension Credit.

It's not because they're immigrants, it's that being an immigrant is one of numerous reasons you might not have a full NI contribution record. Being a stay-at-home parent for a long time, being a carer, working your whole career in public service (so you'd have been contracted out) are others.

I think what @Simbindi was saying is that people who are entitled to the full state pension could be in a worse position than people who aren't. Provided they have no other income, both groups get the same amount of money each week—but because those who don't have the full state pension get part of the amount as Pension Credit, they also get the passported benefits.

They might not have to pay council tax at all, for instance, whereas the person on a full state pension might get a lower discount. Ditto winter fuel allowance, help with optician's and dentist's fees, cheap broadband deals, etc. It could potentially add up to a lot of money per year, for people who're on exactly the same basic income.

[Edited slightly for clarity]
Click to expand...
Yeah…it’s nothing to do with immigration it’s just a system with a “squeezed middle” as most systems develop over time.
 
PrairieLights said:
If child benefit is paid to a stay at home mom she gets national insurance paid during that time.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the same goes for people on means-tested benefits and some on tax credits. It was meant as a safety device, but under the new rules it could potentially be a hindrance.

I doubt any of this will escape the civil servants trying to work through the consequences of the plans in the Green Paper. I'm sure there'll be changes, but there are risks in that—for instance, the situation we're talking about is obviously unfair, but one potential response is to level the playing field by removing entitlement to some of the passported benefits for both groups.
 
Kitty said:
Yes, and the same goes for people on means-tested benefits and some on tax credits. It was meant as a safety device, but under the new rules it could potentially be a hindrance.

I doubt any of this will escape the civil servants trying to work through the consequences of the plans in the Green Paper. I'm sure there'll be changes, but there are risks in that—for instance, the situation we're talking about is obviously unfair, but one potential response is to level the playing field by removing entitlement to some of the passported benefits for both groups.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s the usual fix in these situations.

I’m already reeling from the cost difference up north. In London my water was discounted and my council tax discount was 100%. Up here I have no water discount, electric is more expensive per unit (I have no idea why, it’s very windy, they need a few more turbines) and my council tax is competing with the water bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom