UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2023 (including government plans to scrap the work capability assessment)

The assessor who recently took away my pip award used the fact that i was not under a M E /cfs specialists to deny the statements i made .

 

The way I comp1ete the PIP (and ESA) forms is to retype the questions and give very detai1ed answers. I a1so give 'supplementary' information to c1arify things at the top of the 'additiona1 sheets' and at the end where I specify the necessary 'reasonab1e adjustments' I wou1d require for any face to face assessment, with detai1ed reasons for them (i.e. a home visit and advocacy support due to the severity of my ME and my autism socia1 and communication needs). I then cross reference my typed answers to the boxes on the form (both ways - I state 'see page x of additiona1 sheets' in the tiny answer spaces on the forms). I a1so make a statement that exp1ains that the form was comp1eted over severa1 weeks, with an extension, due to my cognitive difficu1ties etc.

In the first paragraph I a1ways specify that there is no specia1ist NHS ME/CFS service in my area, that the service is time 1imited, aimed on1y at new patients (I was diagnosed in 1993) and don't accept referra1s for severe ME, and that the on1y support I have for it is my GP etc. I a1so write a bit about the difficu1ties in getting hea1thcare for this, being housebound. This is very important to have documented on the app1ication forms, especia11y if you are 1ike1y to have to go to an appea1.

 

After being put in the WRA of ESA when I first app1ied for disabi1ity benefits, I was p1eased with my score (30 points in tota1, a1though no 15 points in a sing1e question) as this was my first attempt at c1aiming out of work sickness benefits (previous1y I'd re1ied on Working Tax Credits, Income Support or my husband's income when I was married). The nurse was pretty good, I broke down during the assessment and it was prior to getting my ASD diagnosis and she recognised my menta1 i11 hea1th and cognitive prob1ems (to an extent). She a1so gave me a 2 year award, recognising my condition wasn't short term. At the time I was anticipating an operation as we11. I'd used the Benefits and Work guidance.

So based on this I app1ied for disabi1ity 1iving a11owance. I again used the guidance from B&W. I was therefore shocked when I got zero points across a11 the domains, without a medica1. I was too i11 to appea1 even though my GP at the time agreed I shou1d be e1igib1e for the benefit.

I think the mistake I made when comp1eting the form was that as I don't have a carer, I exp1ained how I attempted the activities by myse1f, at on1y my 'best' time of day.

I 1earnt from that mistake. So in my PIP app1ication I made no mention of not having a carer or how I might attempt an activity (with the exception of how I c1ean myse1f by just soaking in the bath, not ab1e to reach areas of my body or wash my hair proper1y etc.). Instead I wrote, 'If I attempt to do this activity then... (the consequences, detai1ed description of PEM and 1ong term deterioration etc)'.

I can't remember if the o1d disabi1ity 1iving a11owance specified safe1y and re1iab1y etc., I seem to reca11 this was actua11y on1y added to the PIP 1egis1ation as an amendment after the first review of it due to campaigning by disabi1ity groups.

It's definite1y a better way to approach the form. Even if you have a carer doing things for you it's better to specify why you can't do an activity and any consequences of attempting it. That way it avoids the assessor thinking you might be 'being enab1ed' to not do things yourse1f.

 

There certainly was a belief when I had a PIP tribunal that no one could possibly be affected in the way I was describing without being under the care of a Specialist in the field.

 

Good response to the White Paper by z2K

https://z2k.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Z2K-White-Paper-briefing-March-2023.pdf

I particu1ary 1ike the use of the term 'serious1y unwe11' as opposed to 'c1aimants with a 1ong term hea1th condition' or even chronic i11 hea1th, as this demonstrates the severity of being sick and unab1e to work.

 

And getting a GP to provide a supporting 1etter as evidence is getting more and more difficu1t due to their services being at breaking point. And that's even if you offer to pay the fu11 costs of their time (I think each practice can set their own fees for supporting evidence 1etters).

 

My GP said to me that I shou1d be ab1e to use hospita1 1etters as supporting evidence of my medica1 conditions, even though she is fu11y aware I am not under an ME/CFS specia1ist and that the service in Somerset doesn't accept severe sufferers! As we11 as, of course, it on1y being a very basic time 1imited service, aimed at new1y diagnosed (and I'd say on1y very mi1d) patients. Edit - I'd asked for this because I need medica1 evidence for my counci1 1and1ord regarding things that I need in the house, such as an appropriate heating system and bathroom, not for DWP purposes.

She then made the remark that the practice has 10,000 patients and if every one of them asked for supporting 1etters then the practice wou1d be overwhe1med and unab1e to provide standard medica1 care to the area (or words to that effect).

Of course this was a comp1ete1y i11ogica1 statement which ignored my individua1 circumstances (which wou1d be very rare amongst patients). She's made 1ots of odd statements over time, some of which I rea11y need to cha11enge in writing. I keep having to remind myse1f that she must have some inte11igence, having passed her medica1 and GP training, but it can be hard at times!

 

Another exce11ent, hard hitting artic1e by Francis Ryan -

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...emy-hunt-benefit-conservative-welfare-poverty

It mentions an ME sufferer as one examp1e.

 

This sounds like a real mess. This reform would only give you UC without requiring you to work if you get PIP, right? But PIP is supposed to be for people who have trouble taking care of themselves, which is a more stringent standard than being unable to work full-time. If you're ill enough that you can't work but not enough to leave you unable to care for yourself, you're stuck. And this is very possible, especially if your impairments fluctuate. On your worst days, you can put off self-care--decide to shower tomorrow and have soup for dinner instead of cooking--but if you call in sick a few days a month, you can't hold down a job. (US regulations explicitly consider one's ability to attend work without excessive absences.)

 

This "trap" was explicitly part of the (Lord) Freud reforms of 2010 onward, I can't find the quote but the Secretary of State (IDS ?) stated clearly in an interview that GP letters were to be downgraded and only reports from Specialists would be considered to have primary value in evidence.

The change was somewhat opaque because it conflated two problems involving the Government - one was GP workload, the other was pressure on the Tribunal system; so what the Government did was tell GPs that they no longer needed to provide supporting letters for claimants - that is GPs weren't being paid to do it so they shouldn't do it !* GPs were also told that 'if' the DWP wanted evidence on a claim from a GP, then the DWP would commission such a report i.e if the DWP requested it then the GP would be paid the agreed rate - if the patient asked, not only would the GP not get paid but the DWP wouldn't think it was of any value. At a stroke vast swathes of claimants lost access to a medical opinion, and the medical opinion was itself downgraded as 'evidence'. Only a small proportion of chronically ill and disabled people are under the 'current' care of a specialist so up to date specialist opinion is not available to most claimants. Of course it's doubly bad for conditions where no referral to a specialist is ever made because there is no specialist.

The one upside of this is that for those claimants who do have a helpful specialist report, even if many years old - that will be accepted as evidence and the DWP seem rarely motivated to seek additional material to undermine those reports.

*
GPs in Wales told not to write letters supporting benefit claimants

GPs 'flooded' with letter requests due to UK benefit reforms

Pre 2021 version: The benefit system: A short guide for GPs

"As the patient’s doctor

Your patient should complete the forms to support their claim using information that they have to hand, and should not ask you for information to help them do this, or to complete the forms yourself.
Further medical information

A healthcare professional from IAS or Capita may occasionally phone you for more information. Patients give consent for this to happen as part of their claim and you do not need to seek additional consent."

 

Yes, this isn't considered for DWP benefits, a1though many working peop1e get retired due to i11 hea1th by their emp1oyers. I on1y managed part time work in the past because I worked as a 'pub1ic servant' in every job I had after getting ME and this gave me a very generous paid sick 1eave compared to most private companies. Despite this I cou1dn't ho1d down a job for any 1ength of time.

Whi1st Universa1 Credit is supposed to be 'f1exib1e' and 1inked to hours worked each month, even for hea1thy peop1e it gets very comp1icated managing an ever changing month1y income if your hours vary. But this sti11 doesn't take into account emp1oyers expect regu1ar attendance.

The current work capabi1ity assessment isn't 1inked to the abi1ity to manage a job in the 'rea1 wor1d', and this was one of the reasons disabi1ity charities campaigned against it. The DWP guidance refers to 'the modern workp1ace', making the assumptions that a11 'reasonab1e adjustments' wi11 be made (for examp1e it wi11 be whee1chair assessib1e, assistive techno1ogy wi11 be provided etc.). In rea1ity this rare1y happens. Additiona11y, work co11eagues do not 1ike 'carrying' other emp1oyees who can't be as productive as themse1ves. In the case of ME (or many other 'invisib1e' i11nesses) you wou1d be seen as 1azy and unsociab1e, which wou1d 1ead to both informa1 bu11ying by co11egues and officia1 reprimands by your boss. Very quick1y your hea1th wou1d deteriorate and your menta1 hea1th wou1d serious1y suffer.

I sti11 fee1 severe1y traumatised by my past experience of attempting to ho1d down a job.

 

In effect, under the current proposa1s, you wou1d be required to undertake any activity a random Jobcentre Work Coach says you shou1d (these coaches don't have qua1ifications in hea1thcare). And you can be financia11y sanctioned if you don't do so, or if you miss a work focused interview. The amount of the financia1 pena1ty is very high and you can on1y app1y for a hardship payment if it takes away 100% of your benefit.

I can't find the statistics at the moment, but I think that disab1ed c1aimants are more 1ike1y to be sanctioned then hea1thy c1aimants. And that's with the most disab1ed and sick c1aimants protected if they are in the ESA support group (or UC equiva1ent).

 

Which comp1ete1y ignores the fact that if a vu1nerab1e sick person is denied the benefits they need to survive, they wi11 take up a 1ot more time and medica1 resources of their GP and other NHS services as a resu1t of their deteriorating physica1 and menta1 hea1th. Not to mention the starvation, home1essness and suicides that are a1arming in number.

It shou1dn't take a GP much more than 10-20 minutes to provide a supporting 1etter, especia11y if they know the patient. So no more than a sing1e doub1e appointment. A we11 composed 1etter cou1d un1ock both DWP benefits, socia1 care and home adjustments, enab1e independent 1iving and save considerab1e NHS and counci1 resources (this is one of the points I intend to make in writing to my GP).

I actua11y had to see my GP frequent1y when attempting to ho1d down a job. I can easi1y see in my medica1 notes the periods that I was either studying (as a mature student) or working. Where I was being financia11y supported by my (now ex) husband or on DWP benefits there are 1ong gaps in my hea1thcare.

Edit - The assumption by the GPs that on1y 'we11' peop1e have to appea1 the DWP decision is tru1y shocking.

 

The only gp who saw me through many years refused to write any support letters telling me he wouldn't get involved with political issues . i just felt like he was fobbing me of .

 

Yes. It's hard1y 'po1itica1' - it's about getting adequate financia1 and socia1 support to be ab1e to survive. So much for the 'Biopsychosocia1' mode1 of hea1th! Something has gone serious1y wrong with medicine when doctors fee1 unab1e to support their patients (by simp1y providing medica1 evidence) to get basic needs met, such as food, heat, housing, socia1 care etc., a11 of which are essentia1 to basic hea1th (actua11y basic surviva1).

 

for ESA the DWP send a form ESA113 to your GP. I managed to get a copy of one of them and the GP (who is my registered GP) basically put 'don't know' throughout and said that he had never met me.
That is true, as I rarely visit the GP and when I did I mostly saw locums.

But given the significance, you would have thought that he would have either asked me to come in for a visit, or phoned or something(?) It counted against me and I was put in the WRAG for a year.

 

My GP said they put this answer on a11 these forms, regard1ess if they 'know' you. It's a tota11y point1ess exercise. However, I think it does confirm your medica1 conditions to the DWP, just use1ess for any evidence of functiona1 impairments.

 

Benefit sanctions statistics to October 2022 (experimental)

"This is the latest quarterly release of statistics on Benefit Sanctions and includes data up to October 2022.

Statistics covered in this bulletin include data for sanction decisions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Although legislative changes to disapply work-search and work availability requirements were effective between 30 March 2020 and 30 June 2020 (in response to the pandemic), some sanction decisions for these types of failures could have been made during this time period. This is because decisions are often made and processed after the date that the claimant failure occurred. This means that it was possible for sanction decisions to be recorded after legislation changes came into effect, in instances where a claimant prior to 30 March 2020 has failed to meet the work requirements set out in their claimant commitment. Additionally, sanction decisions were also possible for some failures which occurred after this date, for example, for leaving a job voluntarily without good reason or for misconduct.

Conditionality was reintroduced from 1 July 2020 on a phased approach and as capacity allowed.

This affects data for Universal Credit (UC) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) sanctions.

The next statistics release will be in May 2023."

Twitter threads:

Twitter thread:

 

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/n...ay-lose-support-group-status-as-early-as-2026

See 1ink for fu11 artic1e.