× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Change from DLA to PIP causes massive overspend

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Guardian report about Office for Budget Responsibility finding that introduction of PIP, originally intended to make savings of ”...£2bn was expected by 2018, but that has since been revised to an over-spend by £1.5bn to £2bn, leaving an estimated £4.2bn gap in the public finances.

Variety of reasons given including volumes of appeals and various legal challenges that have gone against them.

Changes to disability benefits cost £4bn in extra welfare payments

Colin Hannon
forum member

Sustain - Helena Partnerships

Send message

Total Posts: 22

Joined: 29 July 2015

No surprise here Paul , as we all know the whole process of reassessing people with indefinite awards was ideological and to cost cut ,  but as everything touched by this government seems to be a failure . It should be stopped instantly

DWP has already had to slow down the reassessment programme due to the high volume of errors associated with PIP and the assessment process , Mandatory reconsideration’s have a significant backlog and are taking 12 weeks or more rather than the usual 6 weeks which is putting those claimants who have been given a 6 month reprieve to keep their motability cars whilst their MR is being reassessed .

not a good situation

Colin Hannon
Welfare Rights Adviser

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

Having skipped through it I’d say Means Testing is more likely to be considered in the future rather than changing ‘the test’ or ‘the benefit’ as this only increases claims.

And bringing testing in house because outsourced providers are overly generous….

Organisational incentives

4.40 Reputational concerns are also likely to be important in delivering assessments. And they
are likely to be different for outsourced providers than for government departments…

4.41 Reputational incentives, and the lack of fully objective assessment criteria, mean that the
assessor is more likely to recommend that a descriptor applies (implying greater chance of,
or more generous, entitlement) where there is room for judgement to do so, as this is less
likely to result in an appeal or public criticism. ...

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

DWP could do themselves and everyone else a favour and save some money by challenging the absurdly short award periods too often being recommended by ATOS and Capita.  The only gainers being said two companies who we all know have absolutely no financial interest whatsoever in recommending short awards.

Mairi
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Dunedin Canmore Housing Association

Send message

Total Posts: 271

Joined: 25 June 2010

neilbateman - 17 January 2019 01:10 PM

DWP could do themselves and everyone else a favour and save some money by challenging the absurdly short award periods too often being recommended by ATOS and Capita.  The only gainers being said two companies who we all know have absolutely no financial interest whatsoever in recommending short awards.

Or by just awarding for longer Neil with no need for a challenge.  After all, they’ve always said that their decision maker decides the award based on the HCP’s recommendation.  Also if they’re going to start the re-assessment process a year before the end of the award extending the award by a year would more accurately reflect current awards.