🚨 Yesterday's PIP statistics show that waiting times for mandatory reconsiderations have hit the highest level since PIP was created
Combined with poor decision-making and lengthy tribunal delays, these backlogs are massively prolonging hardship for disabled people
Text asks if PIP and financial insecurity experiences will be heard in the Timms Review. Below, two people, one in a wheelchair, converse at a table.
Text on orange background about PIP claimants facing financial insecurity, underrepresentation, and potential impact of review changes. Text: Most PIP claimants have experience of financial insecurity, with 28% of disabled people living in poverty. Without clear plans on what's next, we are concerned that the voices of people who have lived experience of receiving PIP and financial insecurity may be underrepresented. This group will be particularly affected by any changes to PIP that come out of the Review.
Quote on orange background about PIP's importance for safety and housing, highlighting unease due to lack of representation. By Roxie, Z2K Expert. Text: "For people like me, PIP is not an abstract policy issue. It is what keeps us safe, housed, warm, and able to cope. When a process is presented as fair, transparent and grounded in lived experience, but I cannot see people who reply on PIP to survive reflected at steering level, it creates a deep unease." Roxie, Z2K, Expert by Experience
We’ve joined with disabled people, organisations and charities to write to the co-chairs of the Timms Review.
See our joint open letter with our recommendations for the steering group here: https://www.turn2us.org.uk/about-us/news-and-media/latest-news/timms-review-recommendations
#TimmsReview
Many disabled people have understandably lost trust in DWP after years of dehumanising decision-making. It's time we work together.
➡️Our letter with @disrightsuk.bsky.social @mind.org.uk @turn2us.org.uk @mencap.org.uk @trusselluk.bsky.social www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home...
Important distinction to be made here between getting PIP to make better use of clinical evidence - which is crucial - and introducing a mandatory requirement for a diagnosis in order to be eligible - which would be harmful. Lots of people with significant needs struggle to get a diagnosis
This is interesting because one of the top asks of many claimants and representative groups is for the process to place MORE weight on medical evidence.
Because the less expert parts of the process tend to be the bits that lead to poor decisions and get very frequently overturned at tribunals.
I'm puzzled by the claim - repeated here and elsewhere - that the government failed to pass PIP cuts because it focused on the fiscal case instead of the moral one.
It did try to make a moral argument - and it was rejected for being obvious spin!
spectator.com/article/auth...
As govt talks again of its upcoming 'rebalancing' of the health and standard elements of universal credit, it bears repeating that this measure is NOT cost-neutral
It's a net £2bn cut by 2030/31, even taking into account the standard allowance increase
This is actually quite an interesting report, which has been briefed to the press in the most harmful way possible
The current system for passported benefits is a mess & requires loads of separate applications - huge unnecessary burden & so many people miss out
ukonward.com/reports/the-...
Making the benefits system meaner has backfired
Bit frustrating to see this in the homelessness strategy
DHP budget is a tiny fraction of total LHA shortfall - and even within that only 1/5 of DHP awards are to cover LHA gap. It's nowhere close to making up for the freeze
New blog from me on Budget announcements on health & disability benefit assessments
Govt rhetoric on this issue (celebrating 'face-to-face checks') is worrying - the announcements themselves are more mixed
Budget docs show that the impending cut to UC-Health - framed as a 'cost neutral' rebalancing with the rate of the UC standard allowance - actually amounts to a net £2bn cut by 2030/31
Claims for disability benefits are now falling, according to the OBR forecast
Keep seeing versions of this narrative, but it isn't really true
Surely the 'scramble to raise revenue' has been primarily caused by the reported OBR productivity downgrade to the rumoured tune of c.£20bn, not the PIP U-turn that cost a quarter of this
📰New @citizensadvice.bsky.social briefing ahead of the #Autumnbudget: The Government if failing private renters by freezing #LocalHousingAllowance #LHA.
New blog from me on the need to unfreeze LHA at the Budget
Govt has suggested in the past that DHP can mitigate impact of freezing LHA - but we find it's not remotely set up to do this
Great piece - so important to highlight, contra claims that being on UC-Health acts as a "trap" that stops young people working, that the financial incentives to work are actually *stronger* on UC-H than on basic UC
As the government gives an update on the Timms Review, read our new report setting out how to fix PIP
We find the broken model of an assessment as a 'check' is deeply counterproductive & needs overhauled
It's increasingly perplexing that DWP aren't prioritising improving their stats to better reflect the move from legacy benefits to UC.
Until then, we'll keep getting misleading headlines like 'Long-term sickness claims rising by 5,000 a day' - you can't blame journalists when the stats are so bad!
The Universal Credit Bill (now Act) became law yesterday
Measures won't come into effect until Apr 26
bills.parliament.uk/bills/3988
New blog from me on the Timms Review
Two key issues to confront: how abolishing WCA will change PIP & how assessments & decision-making push people away from work
This is a great example of why it's so important that the no re-let period should be 12 months and not 6
Landlords should not be able to upend a tenant's whole life if they're not even serious about selling
www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
It’s important that MPs are clear what they’re voting on tomorrow. This bill does nothing to protect disabled people from unnecessary and intrusive reassessments – it just substantially cuts their support. (7/7)
Paras 170-173 of the Pathways to Work Green Paper are excerpted
The government is not proposing to change this either. The green paper made this explicit – it simply says that the government will ‘improve communication’ around ongoing awards. (6/7)
In my experience ‘ongoing awards’ are very under-used. I’ve repeatedly seen disabled people being given fixed-term awards even though it’s clear their needs won’t change. (5/7)
What about PIP? Again, there is already a process for people whose needs are not likely to change or with progressive conditions to be given ‘ongoing awards’, meaning they do not have to undergo regular assessments to continue receiving support. (4/7)
The government is not planning to make any changes to this – except to substantially cut the level of support given to all new UC Health claimants who don’t meet this narrowly defined ‘severe conditions’ criteria. (3/7)
The work capability assessment has had a process for exempting people with the most severe conditions from reassessments for a number of years. The available data suggests this is only applied to very small numbers of claimants. (2/7)
I’ve seen a few people suggesting that the government is ending reassessments for disabled people with the most severe conditions through the UC & PIP Bill. It’s not true. (1/7)
