Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Government launches aids and appliances consultation
Not to my knowledge. The basis of the DWPs arguments (inc. that undisclosed, statistically meaningless sample) is wholly disingenuous.
I cant find it either peter.
its going to be very hard to write the response to this as the reasoning is flawed on almost every level possible. They also argue that : “as highlighted by the first independent review of the pip assessment by paul gray, this policy does not appear to be working as intended”.
that isnt what paul gray said in that review. recommendation 11 is just that their inclusion as a point scorer be reviewed.
Indeed! Have made all these points on our response! On second thoughts maybe it is Kafka who would be proud?
Indeed! Have made all these points on our response! On second thoughts maybe it is Kafka who would be proud?
not even any point in an FOI given the time scales either.
DBC reponse to the consultation:
Pretty much the response we put in.
- The evidence of the need for change is so poor as to be embarrassing. Someone should refer it back to National Statistics.
- None of the options are acceptable.
More than a bit disappointing it didn’t go on to highlight the exceptionally poor accuracy rate on current assessments and the specific reasons for that i.e. that regs 4 and 7 are not highlighted within the claim pack and the PIPAS system explicitly prohibits assessors from compliance with those regulations.
Now, how long before a government response telling us that the majority of respondents support the case for change?
I’ve just been reading the consultation again, and it struck me that after the bed and chair, the only other example of inappropriate aids or appliances they can think of is “a smoke alarm if a person with a hearing impairment used it to help them to cook a meal safely” (paragraph 15).
I’m not clear how a smoke alarm is an appropriate aid for someone who can’t hear, or why they would need it in the first place, but if they do, this strongly suggests under-scoring as the food will still be burned.
It says this is a ‘recent case’: has anyone seen it?
[ Edited: 2 Mar 2016 at 12:41 pm by Mr Finch ]It says this is a ‘recent case’: has anyone seen it?
Judge Mark’s decision in NA v SSWP is the starter, we’re battling out whether he was correct in what will become CW v SSWP later in the year. Judge Jacobs clearly had his doubts about Judge Mark’s reasoning as does the Sec State.
NA is discussed here: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/8138/P45
Edit; I think there are serious weaknesses in the Sec State’s position in CW but sadly I’m not making the decision…
I think the part that gets missed is that while needing to sit to dress will likely be the easiest 2 points to get, a score of 2 points already gets you precisely £0 PIP.
Govt response just issued ...
The government is changing the assessment criteria for the daily living component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to ensure the system is fairer with money targeted at those who need it most ...
The changes announced today will reduce the weight given to the use of aids and appliances in 2 of the 10 daily living activities – dressing and managing toilet needs – from January 2017 but aids and appliances will continue to be recognised through the assessment process. The department’s view is that using an aid or appliance for these two activities less reliably identifies extra costs associated with having a disability.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/personal-independence-payment-consultation-response-announced
Wait until they see the Dentures argument…............
Wait until they see the Dentures argument…............
Let alone shoes.
Wait until they see the Dentures argument…............
Let alone shoes.
Heart/Liked/Favourited
The result seems to be something of a quiet retreat for the government. Some people will lose 1 or 2 points which may (but won’t necessarily) have any impact on their overall benefit. Anyone who got 10-11 or 14+ under the current system isn’t going to see any change and a lot of people who needed aids in these areas are likely going to be able to score under prompting or assistance instead (with their previously being no or little point quibbling over whether your client mostly needs ‘prompting’ or mostly needs an ‘appliance’ if the result is the same).
The biggest change I can see is that 3b is potentially going to be a significant part in people’s claims rather than an afterthought which is only really relevant in fringe cases.
I can appreciate that this isn’t good news for claimants in any sense but I do think there is cause for celebration in that the government isn’t going ahead with its plan to gut aids and appliances out of PIP altogether.
On one level the response is a disgrace. It flies in the face of any sense of what a consultation should be and the idea of policy making based upon some kind of empiricism. On another level I’m with Elliot. There was never any chance of the government backing down completely as they simply never do on anything unless their own voters are in danger of not voting for them so, in that sense this is a significant victory. Beyond that general statement I suspect this will impact minimal numbers as 5d and 6cii onwards will now come into play far more.