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

Kitty said:
I always have, they never get less than 7,000 words. I'm quite happy to make the contractors work for their money, and I can blather for England.

There seems to be a lack of clarity about how the review might affect working age people still on DLA. I've suggested to a couple of people that they consider applying for PIP before they're invited, because it's possible changes will be made that won't apply to current claimants. If PIP daily living is harder to claim after the review and the UC health element depends on getting it, it might be beneficial to apply under the current rules.

It's tough, though, when people are unwell and it's all so bloody stressful and difficult. But another advantage of applying ahead of time is that you can draft most of your PIP application before you even ask for the application form. That's what I did; I knew I'd struggle to write it all up and pull together all the evidence in the short window you're allowed after requesting a form. I spent months on it, just doing one section at a time then having a break.
Click to expand...
Initially I wasn't sure whether I should just tick 'no change' on the light touch review form as I have plenty of points, including a number of 4 points and well above the 12 point threshold (even my mobility is 22 points, not just the 12 for the physical side). But as I've actually worsened and have another 'new' severe condition that affects my breathing and even ability to stand up, because of the abolition of the WCA and not knowing how they will treat people in terms of pressuring them into 'work related activity', I think it's probably best to give a detailed account of my functioning. I'll likely have to complete my light touch review before the Timms Report is completed, so it's a matter of judgment. Of course with the DWP and the government's drive to reduce the welfare bill, it makes sense to assume the worst case scenario. My main concern is how I'll be treated on UC until my retirement, which won't be until 2033, rather than the PIP award itself. Because my next PIP award should hopefully take me until after state pension age, I'm assuming I won't face another reassessment during my 'working age', so the DWP/Job Centre would only have this information to go on. I'll be requesting a paper based assessment though. I've had 2 face to face ones (the second one in my home) so they should have enough evidence to make a judgment, especially as it's a 'light touch' review.
 
Last edited:
Simbindi said:
But as I've actually worsened and have another 'new' severe condition that affects my breathing and even ability to stand up, because of the abolition of the WCA and not knowing how they will treat people in terms of pressuring them into 'work related activity', I think it's probably best to give a detailed account of my functioning.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I'd do the same to be on the safe side. You're probably right that once you've cleared that hurdle you're unlikely to be asked to do another UC reassessment.

My initial PIP award was made when I was still of working age. I had to do a face-to-face for it, which wasn't surprising given that they hadn't reassessed me for nearly 15 years, but the most recent was done on paper with no changes to the points and an ongoing award. I suspect being close to retirement age might have been a factor in it going through without another F2F.

There must come a point with UC where people with enhanced disability awards and only a few years left before state pension age become such unlikely candidates for boosting DWP's back-to-work targets that it's not worth their while trying to put pressure on. Hopefully, anyway.
 
Kitty said:
Yeah, I think I'd do the same to be on the safe side. You're probably right that once you've cleared that hurdle you're unlikely to be asked to do another UC reassessment.

My initial PIP award was made when I was still of working age. I had to do a face-to-face for it, which wasn't surprising given that they hadn't reassessed me for nearly 15 years, but the most recent was done on paper with no changes to the points and an ongoing award. I suspect being close to retirement age might have been a factor in it going through without another F2F.

There must come a point with UC where people with enhanced disability awards and only a few years left before state pension age become such unlikely candidates for boosting DWP's back-to-work targets that it's not worth their while trying to put pressure on. Hopefully, anyway.
Click to expand...
My recent one they stated “face to face isn’t necessary as paper-based evidence is more useful” or something. I’ve never had a PIP face to face. I think they just have too many to assess/quicker and easier to not bother.
 
Sally Callow (Stripy Lightbulb) has obtained by a series of FOIs the DWP Work Capability Assessment Assessor Training Document for ME/CFS, which was co-created by BACME, which contradicts NICE, which has been used for training DWP assessors since 2023.

The training document appears to be a contradictory mash up of NICE Guideline and worrying BACME 'Rehabilitation' and goal setting dogma. The document "lists “not attributing the illness to a physical cause” as a “good prognostic feature.”. And states skill is needed for WCA assessors to judge 'which stated difficulties in persisting with tasks is due to the physical component of the illness, and which is due to psychological factors'

Signed off by the DWP in May 2023.

Link below Includes Sally Callow's assessment of the DWP document (link) and the DWP document itself:

UK:'Challenging Harmful and Out-of-Date DWP Training on M.E./C.F.S.' by Sally Callow, July 2025
Please go to the thread to discuss the document.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The final report of the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment has been published.

Summary -

www.gov.scot

Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment: final report - summary

The summary of the final report of the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment, written by Edel Harris OBE.
www.gov.scot www.gov.scot

Full report -

www.gov.scot

Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment: final report

The final report of the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment, written by Edel Harris OBE.
www.gov.scot www.gov.scot

I've only started reading the summary, but it includes this -

Trauma-informed approach​


The National Trauma Transformation Programme launched in 2023 includes Government-supported guidelines that reflect the importance of this approach.

However, during the Review, some people described experiences during their Adult Disability Payment journey that did not align with a trauma-informed approach.

When I met with a group of people who describe themselves as living with pandemic-disability (this includes people with Long Covid, people with vaccine injury, many of whom have Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and people at high clinical risk of adverse consequences from re-infection) they stressed how helpful it would be for Social Security Scotland to be aware of the extent of trauma that many of them will have experienced.
 
Another suggestion made was that the exact wording of the reliability criteria (that a person must be able to undertake an activity safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time) should form part of the activity descriptor itself. Although this would be repetitive, it would highlight the importance of this part of the decision-making process and provide an opportunity for the client to answer the questions on the application form more fully.

I repeatedly heard that confidence in this part of the process is limited because of a “lack of transparency” or because in some determination letters the reasons for not making an award make no reference to the reliability criteria, leaving people to wonder if they were applied fairly or at all.
 

​

Recommendation 18:

Ensure rigorous application of the reliability criteria to ensure consistency in the decision-making approach.

Recommendation 19:

The reliability criteria should be explained clearly both in promotional materials, at the start and throughout the application process with more examples, so that clients understand its importance and have a clear understanding of how it is applied in making decisions.

Recommendation 20:

Make clear in decision-making guidance and in training that the inability to complete one activity reliably may be relevant to whether or not a client can complete other activities and should be proactively considered by case managers.

Recommendation 21:

Social Security Scotland should ensure that explicit reference is made to the reliability criteria in all decision correspondence, so that clients and representatives can understand if, and how, the criteria have been applied.
 
tornandfrayed said:

​

Recommendation 18:

Ensure rigorous application of the reliability criteria to ensure consistency in the decision-making approach.

Recommendation 19:

The reliability criteria should be explained clearly both in promotional materials, at the start and throughout the application process with more examples, so that clients understand its importance and have a clear understanding of how it is applied in making decisions.

Recommendation 20:

Make clear in decision-making guidance and in training that the inability to complete one activity reliably may be relevant to whether or not a client can complete other activities and should be proactively considered by case managers.

Recommendation 21:

Social Security Scotland should ensure that explicit reference is made to the reliability criteria in all decision correspondence, so that clients and representatives can understand if, and how, the criteria have been applied.
Click to expand...
Wow. Go Scotland!
 
MrMagoo said:
Wow. Go Scotland!
Click to expand...
Well it depends if they act on the recommendations, but the language is favourable. On Reporting Scotland yesterday the Social Justice Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, says ADP is an investment in people and communities and she is proud of that. I don't know how to clip it but it's 7.30 - 12.50 min -

www.bbc.co.uk

Reporting Scotland - Evening News: 31/07/2025

The latest news and weather from BBC News Scotland. Presented by Laura Goodwin.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Obviously that clarity on "reliability" wouldn't just be great for those of us in Scotland, but would be a help in arguing for the same in England and Wales.
 
tornandfrayed said:
Well it depends if they act on the recommendations, but the language is favourable. On Reporting Scotland yesterday the Social Justice Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, says ADP is an investment in people and communities and she is proud of that. I don't know how to clip it but it's 7.30 - 12.50 min -

www.bbc.co.uk

Reporting Scotland - Evening News: 31/07/2025

The latest news and weather from BBC News Scotland. Presented by Laura Goodwin.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Obviously that clarity on "reliability" wouldn't just be great for those of us in Scotland, but would be a help in arguing for the same in England and Wales.
Click to expand...
I think I’m going to say it in every response at my next tribunal
 
tornandfrayed said:
Obviously that clarity on "reliability" wouldn't just be great for those of us in Scotland, but would be a help in arguing for the same in England and Wales.
Click to expand...

It would.

People who engage with benefits websites and Citizens' Advice centres usually learn that 'reliably' and 'repeatedly' might be the focus of many of their answers and 'as often as needed' could feature in many. But I wonder how many people don't realise just how tricksy a game it is, and that it's nearly impossible to get an award unless you both know the rules and how to apply them to your disability.
 
This is why they have to change PIP. They say it’s because there are webpages telling people what to write to win a claim, and that’s partly true. Not because people are cheats, because people share experience on what to say and how to say it so your evidence isn’t disregarded!
 
I don't claim UC but I had never heard of this rule until very recently:

DWP sends urgent warning to Universal Credit claimants who have money in savings​

A stark warning has been issued to millions of Universal Credit recipients who have any amount in savings. It's common knowledge that if your savings surpass £16,000, you're not eligible for Universal Credit.

However, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is reminding Universal Credit claimants that this is simply the upper capital limit, and having savings less than this can still affect your benefit amount. The lower limit for savings on Universal Credit is actually £6,000. For every £250 you have above this, your payment will be reduced by £4.35. This is also rounded up, so if you have £6,400 in savings, a total of £8.70 will be deducted from your payments.
Click to expand...
 
This

The UNCRPD produced a follow-up report to its Inquiry into the UK dated 22 March 2024, in which it states on page 11:

There is a pervasive framework and rhetoric that devalues disabled people and undermines their human dignity. Reforms within social welfare benefits are premised on a notion that disabled people are undeserving and wilfully avoiding employment (“skiving off”) and defrauding the system. This has resulted in hate speech and hostility towards disabled people.
Click to expand...
 
Lord Freud, Minister of state for welfare reform (2010–16)

"I always liked to have the stakeholders and the specialists in because they would tell you things that were very difficult to get any other way."
Click to expand...

On 17 January 2012, in a House of Lords debate on amendments to what became the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which introduced Universal Credit and PIP Lord Freud said this:

It is not, however, a full social model assessment. I accept that. That is something that many noble Lords and disability organisations would like, but I have to point out that it was not our intention to develop it in this way. As a department, we do support the social model. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said, we are on record as supporting it. While we want to ensure that the PIP assessment better reflects it than previous assessments, that does not mean that the full social model is relevant for assessment, although it is relevant for some things. I sent round a rather interesting piece of analysis to many noble Lords in the Committee, called Models of Sickness and Disability, which showed the differences between the models, explaining the medical model, the reaction of the social model against the pure medical model and the synthesis of the biopsychosocial model. The summary of the biopsychosocial model in the analysis is that:

“Sickness and disability are best overcome by an appropriate combination of healthcare, rehabilitation, personal effort and social/work adjustments”.There is a coherent theory behind this assessment.
Click to expand...





 
On 7 August ME Association Welfare expert published this:
https://meassociation.org.uk/2025/0...-stephen-timms-didnt-say-about-co-production/

What the Minister Actually Said​

In the Access All interview, Sir Stephen confirmed that the PIP review would be “co-produced”, but on much looser terms:

  • The co-production group will consist of “about ten people” with no detail on selection criteria, transparency, or proportion of disabled members.
  • He gave no commitment to independent oversight or a statutory taskforce.
  • There was no mention of aligning with Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) standards.
  • He made no reference to parliamentary oversight or approval of future changes.
  • He offered only vague timelines, stating that plans would be drawn up “over the summer.”

Why This Matters​

For people with ME/CFS or Long Covid – and disabled people more broadly – trust in government-led consultations is already fragile. Co-production only has meaning when disabled people hold real power in shaping policy, not just a seat at the table. The amendment recognised this. The interview did not.

When ministers sideline specific, rights-based frameworks in favour of more nebulous promises, it becomes harder to hold them accountable. Without statutory guarantees, co-production risks becoming a byword for consultation-lite.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom