Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
1.6 million PIP claims to be reviewed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42862904 etc.
So… wondering how this is likely to work?
Only issue decisions if new/changed award or something beyond that?
Any news whether they are looking at refused claims as well as those already in payment? (news reporting seems a bit variable).
Any ideas for pushing on prioritising, e.g. those in process of appealling?
News reports are based on a couple of written answers given by Sara Newton today:
Q: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to Written Statement of 19 January 2018, HCWS414, whether applicants will be entitled to a reassessment if they were given the standard rate of the PIP mobility component after the February 2017 changes to PIP regulations, where the cause of the claim was psychological distress.
A: As part of implementing the MH Upper Tribunal judgment, the Department for Work and Pensions will carry out an administrative exercise in order to ensure that claimants receive the correct award. We will be going through all cases in receipt of PIP and all decisions made since the judgment in MH to identify anyone who may be entitled to more as a result of the judgment. This review will include claimants who are currently receiving the standard rate of the PIP mobility component and experience psychological distress.
The Department will directly contact anyone who is affected and additional payments will be backdated to the effective date in each claim. The effective date will be either the date of the claim or the date of the MH judgment (November 2016), whichever is the later date. Claimants do not need to write to DWP in order to receive the correct award.
Q: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the Written Statement of 19 January 2018, HCWS414, what the timetable is for claimants to be informed if they are entitled to a back payment.
A: We are working with stakeholders to change the PIP assessment guide so that we can implement the judgment. Once we have completed this exercise we will be carrying out an administrative exercise to review cases that may be eligible and ensure that claimants receive the correct award. This will be a complex exercise and of considerable scale, as we will be reconsidering approximately 1.6 million claims. Whilst we will be working at pace to complete this exercise it is important that we get it right.
Absolutely- what about all those who only got 4 points for prompting and no award !
How on earth are they going to cope with this alongside the review of all the cases following the UT decision regarding the definition of ‘safely’ - which we were told categorically at our benefit forum by the DWP, will include all the cases where PIP was refused. Surely if refused cases will be reviewed for one decision then they should also be reviewed for the other. We were told it was expected to take 2 yrs and that it would be helpful if we alerted them to cases we knew about. I have done this for a client with uncontrolled epilepsy awaiting an appeal date - they refused to review. The client had a seizure in the tribunal and came away with enhance/enhanced.
I can think of many clients of ours who never got any mobility at all due to the Psychological Distress criteria.
Absolutely- what about all those who only got 4 points for prompting and no award !
Exactly - this is the primary group which needs reviewing. The misconception that this is just about standard v enhanced seems to be a confusion with the controversy over the walking activity. If they just look at people did get standard mobility it’s likely to show the problem wasn’t that widespread after all - very convenient.
And is there any assurance about what this review will involve? Not just early reassessment I trust?
[ Edited: 30 Jan 2018 at 08:52 am by Mr Finch ]Whilst it’s good news about the decision in general, I am filled with some dread about DWP reviewing 1.6 million claims. Anyone remember the Benefit Integrity Projetc? Different context admittedly but the only people rubbing their hands here will be Atos and Capita.
There’s also a valuable point noted above - how will people who do not have a claim be recompensed? They may not have a current claim to be reviewed. What a shambles.
Actually it’s not just 1.6 million. It’s 3.2 million if you add the two reviews together !
News reports are based on a couple of written answers given by Sara Newton today
That does seem to confirm that they are dropping the appeal in MH as well as RF but also that they are going to try to use S27 of the SSA to limit backdating to November 2016.
You may want to look at the GMWRAG minutes.
https://gmwrag.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/minutes-of-the-salford-gmwrag-meeting-2
There is a counter argument re: s27.
Responding to an urgent question Minister for Disabled Sarah Newton has said that review will include those who didn’t get award of PIP -
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/50be7eee-0418-43e9-84a2-40c921178066
Urgent question at 13.52 - announcement in response to Marsha de Cordova’s response at 13.57
So, assuming they do use the test case rule, does that mean the correct approach would be that people can apply for supersessions with backdating back to Nov 2016? (As per CPAG p1298).
As per my post above there’s every possibility that the anti-test case rule simply doesn’t apply as s27 doesn’t mention JR.
We have just been discussing these reviews in the office
Two questions come to mind
1. when a case is reviewed will it only be the relevant component that is reassessed or will the whole award be looked at. So thinking about risk - if we advise someone to ask for a review of their mobility decision. Will the daily Living component also be looked at? So they run the risk of gaining on mobility but losing Daily Living in some cases
2. When reviewing a case will they be looking at the relevant past claim form or will they be making claimants do a new claim form - again risking a loss of benefit
My understanding from the debate following the urgent question yesterday - https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-01-30/debates/F35E85CB-FF67-467E-AD63-1C13EB1EC32B/PIPBackPayments - was that there would be no reasessments or providing new info unless specifically requested - they will just look at the info they have. Also no need for claimants to ask for it.
For the group of people who may be affected, we will undertake a detailed review of their applications and awards. We will write to the individuals affected, and all payments will be back-dated to the effective date in each individual claim. There will be no—I repeat, no—face-to-face reassessments of awards. DWP case managers will be conducting a review of the existing information we hold, with a view to establishing whether claimants are entitled to more. If case managers need more information to make a decision, they will contact the claimant and/or their doctor.
She also says (at column 709) that -
[ Edited: 31 Jan 2018 at 10:57 am by Daphne ]‘nobody is going to have money taken away from them’
Have they given any timescales in respect to amending activity 11? I would have thought that they will also need to issue a revised assessment guide. What happens with all the decisions being made between now and then?
Given that they’ve accepted the High Court decision which quashed the regulations then I think they should now be read as they were pre the March 2017 amendments and interpreted in line with MH.
On updating the guide Sarah Newton said in the debate at column 704 -
Moving on to some of the hon. Lady’s more detailed questions, she mentioned the updating of the PIP assessment guide. She is absolutely right: that is the starting point to making sure that we properly and thoroughly implement the recommendations of the appeal. I am delighted to say that Paul Farmer of Mind has agreed to work very closely with us to get that right. I have spoken to Paul Gray, who has undertaken the independent reviews of PIP, and he has also offered his help. I recently met a broad range of our PIP stakeholders and invited them to share their expertise.
which obviously gives no timescale!
which obviously gives no timescale!
BBC said “by 2023” in the article Billy linked to. I wonder whether that’s the time scale by which all existing awards were scheduled to be reviewed anyway /cynic