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

Kitty said:
Yup. They'll also make a better case for activities where they might have been awarded four points by a different assessor.

Currently, some choose not to pursue an appeal even though they got fewer points on an activity than they thought they should. There's no point going through all the hassle because it wouldn't increase their overall award.



If that's true, I don't see the point of the exercise—as you say. If only 10% of claimants lose out, and even some of those will go to tribunal (which costs public money) and succeed, where are these huge savings supposed to be coming from?

It could end up being one of those so-called cost saving policies that increases spending, like the replacement of DLA with PIP.
Click to expand...
Well sometimes you can’t appeal. If you’re claiming only one area should be 4 but you got a 2, there’s no material difference in the award so even on an error of law you wouldn’t be granted an appeal.
 
tornandfrayed said:
I found that article confusing. Are they talking about the existing consultation on the Green Paper or a new process on the changes that weren't being consulted on up to now?
Click to expand...

Benefits and Work have clarified this in their news article:

In a desperate effort to distract attention from the growing anger over the proposed personal independence (PIP) cuts, Liz Kendall announced that work has begun on designing a new assessment which will combine the doomed work capability assessment (WCA) with the PIP assessment.

In the Pathways To Work Green paper, Labour announced that the WCA would be scrapped in 2028 and eligibility for the additional UC health element would be based on receiving any rate of the daily living component of PIP.

In order to do this the DWP plan to change the PIP assessment rules, which they claim need “modernising. In particular, the Green Paper notes that:

“People reporting mental health or neurodiverse conditions as their primary condition have increased more rapidly than those reporting other conditions, and increases in disability have been more marked among younger adults than older people, although older working-age people are still more likely to be disabled.”

It seems that Labour have in mind a tightening of the PIP eligibility criteria around mental health and neurodiversity and possibly around the “condition” of being young.

In addition, the Green Paper warns that the aim of the new assessment is to “shape a system of active support that helps people manage and adapt to their long-term condition and disability in ways that expand their functioning and improve their independence.”

It is entirely unclear what this might mean, except it sounds like some claimants may be given something other than cash.

Liz Kendall told MPs “I know how anxious many people are when there’s talk about reform, but this government wants to ensure PIP is fair for people who need it now and into the future. In our green paper we promised to review the PIP assessment, working with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and other experts. And I can tell the house we are starting the first phase of that review today.”

The review is being led by Stephen Timms, the DWP disability minister who has been criticised by many for what they see as a marked change of stance from his opposition days, when he was a fierce critic of the DWP and seen as an ally of disabled claimants.

The fact that a new PIP assessment is due to be introduced in 2028 adds a new layer of fear an uncertainty for PIP claimants.

From November 2026, Labour plans to implement new rules which will remove PIP daily living from any current claimant who does not score at least 4 points for one activity when their award is reviewed.

But now, claimants have the added fear that the PIP assessment may change radically in 2028 and there may be other ways in which their award can be taken away from them.
Click to expand...

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/work-on-combined-pip-assessment-has-begun
 
It seems that Labour have in mind a tightening of the PIP eligibility criteria around mental health and neurodiversity and possibly around the “condition” of being young.
Click to expand...

So it looks as if part of the idea is to stop younger people entering the system in the first place.

I read somewhere that people are substantially more likely to get an award if they already have one, so if that's true, there's an incentive to make that first award even more difficult to get than it already is.
 
The BBC is reporting on the possible introduction of a statutory safeguarding duty for the secretary of state for work & pensions.

It never occurred to me that this might not already be in place, but as apparently it isn't, it could be a positive piece of news.

MPs are calling for a change in the law to prevent benefit claimants from suffering harm at the hands of the government department that is meant to help them.

Several people have died in recent years after failures by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d1q8zl654o
 
Last edited:
Kitty said:
The BBC is reporting on the possible introduction of a statutory safeguarding duty for the secretary of state for work & pensions.

It never occurred to me that this might not already be in place, but as apparently it isn't, it could be a positive piece of news.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d1q8zl654o
Click to expand...

I read this this morning. My first thought was not being believed is the root of most mental stress dealing with DWP.
 
This is a really interesting article on the Benefits and Work news site -

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/the-two-pip-activities-that-provide-most-pip-4-point-scores

Two personal independence payment (PIP) daily living activities are responsible for the majority of 4 point or higher scores, according to figures released by the DWP.

If Labour’s proposals to limit the PIP daily living component to claimants who score 4 points or more for at least one activity become law, over a million current claimants who do not meet the rule will be looking for opportunities to legitimately meet the criteria.

However, according to data in the Pathways to Work: Evidence pack: Chapter 2 reforming the structure, viable opportunities may be limited to a few activities for most claimants, as most activities have very few claimants who score highly

38% of claimants score 4 points or higher for activity 1, preparing food (36% score 4 points and 2% score 8 points).

32% score 4 points or higher for activity 9, engaging with other people face-to-face (31% score 4 points and 1% score 8 points)

The next highest is activity 7, communicating verbally, where 14% of claimants score 4 points or higher.

In order of 4 point score, the daily living activities are:

1 Preparing food 38%

9 Engaging with other people 32%

7 Communicating verbally 14%

10 Budgeting 10%

2 Taking nutrition 10%

5 Managing toilet needs 7%

6 Dressing and undressing 7%

4 Washing and bathing 6%

8 Reading and understanding 6%

3 managing therapy 1%

It appears that problems with activities such as managing toilet needs, dressing and undressing and washing and bathing are not often accepted by decision makers as meeting the 4 point threshold.

So, for many claimants, showing that you need supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal may be the best route, if it applies to you.

Following that, especially for those who live with mental health issues, needing social support to be able to engage with other people may be a possible route, though the law around this is complex, so giving relevant evidence is more challenging.

It is hard to see, based on these limited options for higher scores, how the Office for Budget Responsibility’s prediction that only 10% of current claimants will lose their daily living award as a result of Labour’s plans will be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
 
bobbler said:
I can’t fully understand the text of her tweet and what it means ?
Click to expand...
Tessa Munt’s tweet says: ‘#pwme please help me with a brief anon survey.

DWP’s response to my FOI request (ed: she included two documents in the tweet) implied that v few #pwme access PIP DLA and many will lose this with the cuts.

To act I’d first like to understand, what’s up, focussing on Severe ME, thank you.’
 
Chestnut tree said:
Tessa Munt’s tweet says: ‘#pwme please help me with a brief anon survey.

DWP’s response to my FOI request (ed: she included two documents in the tweet) implied that v few #pwme access PIP DLA and many will lose this with the cuts.

To act I’d first like to understand, what’s up, focussing on Severe ME, thank you.’
Click to expand...
Yes I don’t get what she means in that second paragraph - the abbreviation Twitter requires makes things unclear what’s gone on ?
 
@Chestnut tree that looks good for her to be doing... but its not an anonymous survey if you have to sign in to google to access it?? I wouldnt want to do anything where my responses could be traced back to me, no matter how much she intends for it to be safe, anything to do with the DWP, isnt. IMO unfortunate, i'd happily do it by mail with carers help - if it could be printed & posted
 
It seems she just wants everyone who is severe and gets pip to answer that they are severe and get pip?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the aim of this, if that’s all she wants to know she could have added a voting button.
I think the chances of all PIP ME claimants responding to this are low, furthermore the chances of all severe ME pip claimants is even lower. Also she excludes very severe. Is there an assumption that they will have more than 4 points? That’s a big assumption tbh.

I think I’d be asking her what she’s trying to achieve because this isn’t the way to doit
 
Chestnut tree said:
The second paragraph, do you mean the link to the survey or the added FOI documents? Or do you mean something else?
Click to expand...
The whole sentence after the bracket in the second paragraph doesn’t read in a way that it makes sense. Is it PIP or DLA that she means? I can’t tell what she is inferring with the rest - even tho it seems she doesn’t realise it doesn’t make the sense she I guess thinks it is getting across

I’ve no idea what the main message or reason for this is from her tweet
 
MrMagoo said:
It seems she just wants everyone who is severe and gets pip to answer that they are severe and get pip?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the aim of this, if that’s all she wants to know she could have added a voting button.
I think the chances of all PIP ME claimants responding to this are low, furthermore the chances of all severe ME pip claimants is even lower. Also she excludes very severe. Is there an assumption that they will have more than 4 points? That’s a big assumption tbh.

I think I’d be asking her what she’s trying to achieve because this isn’t the way to doit
Click to expand...
Yep it’s hard to describe how inaccessible things are for those severe or very severe and how inappropriate’support’ to help fill something in is. And often just wastes more energy and expects you to be grateful when they didn’t get what severe is (which is what you need so you aren’t arguing with the person who actually needs to be more up on the limitations severe comes with - but where are they going to get it from given so much misinformation)

putting cryptic Twitter stuff asking for someone to interpret your survey and reason for it - I understand people more well are pushed for time but rarely do we in return get people realising we have either the time to read that or the time to spend on something that works , not both even in what seems a long timeframe.

I say this not to be mean but because you get one chance at it with even those who might have a window in that timeframe to do something so it’s feedback to change it / take it down before lots of others waste that packet of energy in the hope that if something else can be put together then there might be some who have used their energy up who can then do what they need.

But I don’t know what they want so I can’t suggest the best method even to help them - and I’ve learned only those who’ve been close to being properly severe or very severe for long enough could advise well because it’s hard to imagine the ‘nowhere else to scrape from because you don’t even have enough for the most necessary things’ situation until you’ve been in it for long enough that the to do list of things that can’t get sorted but are essential becomes a real problem because it’s years etc

Twitter to me doesn’t feel the way to communicate, certainly not with abbreviated language . I can’t even see what they are getting at when I’ve clicked thru and racked my brain for a long time working out what is being referred to in the document. It’s just not clear.

and people need to know the context

and those severe are as vulnerable as it gets so why should they be not getting top level confidentiality requisite with this. So I agree with @JemPD

plus the devil in the detail for these illnesses - people need to understand our full strait jacket of what we live in and the cherry picking of one thing can be misleading
 
Last edited:
I still want to know “why”?

what’s she hoping to achieve? 5k severe people get pip and don’t have 4 points?
How does this info help?
Hasn't she heard of the 25% maybe she should just ask them.

edited - I got confused and thought she was writing a brief, but she’s doing a brief survey.
 
Last edited:
MrMagoo said:
I still want to know “why”?

what’s she hoping to achieve? 5k severe people get pip and don’t have 4 points?
How does this info help the briefing she’s writing?
Hasn't she heard of the 25% maybe she should just ask them.
Click to expand...
The green paper proposes that in order to qualify for the daily living component claimants now need to score at least 4 points on a single descriptor, in addition to reaching the total number of points required. So if you currently qualify by scoring 2 points on several descriptors that’s no longer going to be enough.

To find out how many people are going to be affected by this change should be part of the impact assessment.
 
hinterland said:
The green paper proposes that in order to qualify for the daily living component claimants now need to score at least 4 points on a single descriptor, in addition to reaching the total number of points required. So if you currently qualify by scoring 2 points on several descriptors that’s no longer going to be enough.

To find out how many people are going to be affected by this change should be part of the impact assessment.
Click to expand...
We know how many people will be affected, it’s in the FOI which she posted.

She seems to want to know how many severe people claim pip.
 
MrMagoo said:
I still want to know “why”?

what’s she hoping to achieve? 5k severe people get pip and don’t have 4 points?
How does this info help the briefing she’s writing?
Hasn't she heard of the 25% maybe she should just ask them.
Click to expand...
Yes - it’s not that we don’t want to help it’s that we can’t offer a way that works (by being accessible) without understanding this.
 
bobbler said:
Yes - it’s not that we don’t want to help it’s that we can’t offer a way that works (by being accessible) without understanding this.
Click to expand...
For me, I want to understand what she’s trying to evidence and why it’s relevant.
Because I suspect that the evidence won’t be forthcoming and there are other ways to account for that.
And to be honest her method worries me, it’s a bit amateur, no? “I did a poll (on Twitter) which is my source for saying that….”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom