× Search rightsnet
Search options







Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Reassessments & self-selectors

Mick Quinn
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Northumberland County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 161

Joined: 18 June 2010


At our local JC+/customer/representative forum meeting last week a DWP partner support manager brought the following change of wording to the attention of the meeting (second bullet point on page one of link)

In his words anyone who was ‘bubbled’ (shopped) would be taken as if they were a ‘self selector’ in the DLA/PIP reassessments.

Nothing appears to have been changed in the PIP trans regs to allow this but it is worrying when the PIP/DWP ‘thinking’ changes the words ‘those claimants where we receive information…’ from the actual legislation.

forum member

Money adviser - Aberdeen City Council Financial Inclusion Team

Send message

Total Posts: 129

Joined: 17 June 2010

As we are an overly suspicious bunch hopefully this can be clarified. Anyone experienced this in practice?

Jon Shaw
forum member

Welfare Rights Service, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 98

Joined: 25 June 2010

S2uABZ - 25 October 2013 08:59 AM

As we are an overly suspicious bunch hopefully this can be clarified. Anyone experienced this in practice?

Well they won’t until Monday, at least. Anyone whose DLA is stopped can of course claim PIP straight away - think there is another thread somewhere.

I think that Reg 3(1) still gives the discretion to invite anyone under 65 on 8/4/13 and over 16 to claim PIP from Monday - the amendments to Regs 3 and 4 made by SI 2013/2689 just mean that the claimant is not automatically invited when reaching 16 and if reporting a change and prevent voluntary claims, so someone who was shopped could still be invited, even if DWP were hopelessly unprepared for the transfer process in their area.

Now that I look, I really can’t see anything in the Regs stopping someone not in the Capita area from being invited to claim PIP, relevant date and category of claimant notwithstanding. Someone please tell me I’m wrong - that is a nightmare of uncertainty…