UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2024 and 2025

Kitty said:
That is quite a change then, because at the moment people may get an award even if they only score two in several areas—they can add up to enough to cross the threshold for the lower payment.
Click to expand...

yes I have a lot of 2’s in Daily Living (despite being bedbound for the majority of the day due to the fatigue, and being unable to do anything reliably for most of the day) it is a worry for me.

Although I should get at least 4’s on some. It’s their own stupid rules that if you can’t do something the majority of the day, then you can’t do it. Then if you can do something once, they say you can do it *sigh*
 
MrMagoo said:
yes I have a lot of 2’s in Daily Living (despite being bedbound for the majority of the day due to the fatigue, and being unable to do anything reliably for most of the day) it is a worry.

It’s their own stupid rules that if you can’t do something the majority of the day, then you can’t do it. Then if you can do something once, they say you can do it *sigh*
Click to expand...
No, that's not true, fortunately. Please see the DWP guidance, or the ME Association advice booklet. They're both clear that being able to do something once isn't 'reliably'.
 
Sasha said:
No, that's not true. Have you read the DWP guidance? Or the ME Association advice booklet? They're both clear that being able to do something once isn't 'reliably'.
Click to expand...

I understand this Sasha, hence why my whole submission re-iterated this fact. if you could convince the assessors and the Tribunal panel and Judge of this, I’d be grateful as they’ve said I’m quite able to wash, cook, etc all the live long day.
 
Kitty said:
That is quite a change then, because at the moment people may get an award even if they only score two in several areas—they can add up to enough to cross the threshold for the lower payment.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the details of it well but it sounds targeted at energy limiting conditions and illnesses

and also feels like it shows a lack of insight /wanting to know

it’s actually pretty strange as an idea? But it must have come from somewhere eg someone recommending or suggesting it as an option for some reason (hopefully not as crude as not noting what it means re which disabilities it excludes just ‘numbers of people’ it would cut out) eg an advisor of some sort ?
 
PrairieLights said:
I will dig in my drawer tomorrow and have a look at it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much yet. It's all got to be finalised and there might still be changes.

Presumably it will only apply to new claims and the outcomes of reviews anyway, not awards that are already running—I don't know this to be a fact, but usually changes don't affect current awards.
 
bobbler said:
I don’t know the details of it well but it sounds targeted at energy limiting conditions and illnesses

and also feels like it shows a lack of insight /wanting to know

it’s actually pretty strange as an idea? But it must have come from somewhere eg someone recommending or suggesting it as an option for some reason (hopefully not as crude as not noting what it means re which disabilities it excludes just ‘numbers of people’ it would cut out) eg an advisor of some sort ?
Click to expand...

In daily living all the categories are scored 2/4/6/8 (except taking meds which starts with a 1) 2 is least disabled and 8 is most. 2 generally means you need an aid or adaptation.

So I guess they’re doing away with all the 2’s on the basis that you can manage by using an aid, so no ££££ for you. They’ve just removed the lowest layer.

However a big underlying issue (as I discussed in my previous messages) they don’t apply their own rules and make unfair decisions which are hard to correct. Getting a “lot of 2s” was ok for me when first really ill, it was better than nothing, I got some money. I reapplied when I had the energy and had read up on it, measured my time sitting/standing per day etc, but still got 2s.
 
bobbler said:
it’s actually pretty strange as an idea?
Click to expand...

I guess yes and no—it depends on how you're looking at it?

You could argue that someone who's unable to do one of the essential activities of daily living must by definition be severely disabled.

Or you could argue that someone who has impairments in all domains, and is only able to do several of the activities with the assistance of someone else, is severely disabled in quite a complex way.

But only the first of those two cases would get the award.
 
MrMagoo said:
In daily living all the categories are scored 2/4/6/8 (except taking meds which starts with a 1) 2 is least disabled and 8 is most. 2 generally means you need an aid or adaptation.
Click to expand...

They can be scored 3 in some cases. I only know because one of mine is—it indicates you're considered only able do the thing with the aid of someone else.

But if they don't change course on this, it still won't be enough. People will be assessed as needing help to do essential activities, yet not qualify for any money to pay for the help.
 
MrMagoo said:
yes I have a lot of 2’s in Daily Living (despite being bedbound for the majority of the day due to the fatigue, and being unable to do anything reliably for most of the day) it is a worry for me.

Although I should get at least 4’s on some. It’s their own stupid rules that if you can’t do something the majority of the day, then you can’t do it. Then if you can do something once, they say you can do it *sigh*
Click to expand...
I thought that for PIP while it was about what you can or can't do on the majority of days, that if you can't do something even for only part of the day, that still counts as being unable to do it that day. I think it might differ slightly from DLA in this regard where it needed to be for the majority of the day to be considered. But I'm not certain, hopefully someone else can clarify?
 
hinterland said:
I thought that for PIP while it was about what you can or can't do on the majority of days, that if you can't do something even for only part of the day, that still counts as being unable to do it that day. I think it might differ slightly from DLA in this regard where it needed to be for the majority of the day to be considered. But I'm not certain, hopefully someone else can clarify?
Click to expand...
This is the rule, that they don’t follow!
You can’t make sense from this nonsense.

There’s even specific guidance on how to award points if there are two different periods of the day where ability varies. They just ignore it and say you’re fine.
 
Kitty said:
I wouldn't worry too much yet. It's all got to be finalised and there might still be changes.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised this splits the LabourParty and doesn't get through- effectively being Starmer's nemesis. I find very confusing and do not have the insight that people affected have butty impression is that they want to abolish the concept of being 'unable to work'. You can have allowances for being disabled, badly, but just being too ill to work will no longer exist. That will not work, as a number of older politicians have said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jonathan Edwards said:
I wouldn't be surprised this splits the LabourParty and doesn't get through- effectively being Starmer's nemesis. I find very confusing and do not have the insight that people affected have butty impression is that they want to abolish the concept of being 'unable to work'. You can have allowances for being disabled, badly, but just being too ill to work will no longer exist. That will not work, as a number of older politicians have said.
Click to expand...
No, they’re not abolishing “unable to work” as a select few severely disabled will receive benefits and won’t need reassessment. I’d bet my last Penny that ME/CFS won’t be in that group.
They’re making everyone else join the “prepare for work” group, and paying less UC top up that way. I’ll probably be in the “squeezed middle” there, getting much higher UC but falling foul of doing enough “prep” to get work ready, failing to do training, CV writing, interview courses etc.and getting sanctioned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jonathan Edwards said:
I wouldn't be surprised this splits the LabourParty and doesn't get through
Click to expand...

No, me neither.

As well as being against Labour's ethos, I think it leaves them open to legal challenges. Only one questionable issue has occurred to me so far—a claimant could be assessed as disabled enough to need another person's help to prepare food, yet the 3 points awarded would deny them any money to pay for it—but I'm sure the benefits lawyers will find plenty.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
But it is clearly stated that capacity to work assessments will be abolished. Not needing re-assessment is surely a different issue.
Click to expand...
Yes they will be abolished, because it seems they might have abolished the LCWRA payment. Therefore you don’t need to be assessed as to whether you’re LC or LCWRA as you’ll automatically go into LC group and receive the lower LC rate, and have to prepare to find work.
Unless you’re severely disabled, in which case you don’t need to prepare for work.

ETA
if you’re unfit to work you will be in the “health” group and get a “health payment”.
 
Last edited:
I worked with children who will never be able to do job training or have any sort of job no matter the reasonable adjustments. This new thing about not qualifying for health benefits between 16-22 but instead all sorts of job related support.... What happens to them during those years? Their parents have even more struggles???
 
Kitty said:
No, me neither.

As well as being against Labour's ethos, I think it leaves them open to legal challenges. Only one questionable issue has occurred to me so far—a claimant could be assessed as disabled enough to need another person's help to prepare food, yet the 3 points awarded would deny them any money to pay for it—but I'm sure the benefits lawyers will find plenty.
Click to expand...
3 points only exists in “help getting in or out of the shower”, apart from the 1 point for meds, the others are all in multiples of 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom