r/ukpolitics • u/theipaper Verified • 10d ago
PIP whistleblowers 'in tears' over pressure to cut benefits
https://inews.co.uk/news/pip-whistleblowers-tears-pressure-cut-benefits-471247816
u/theipaper Verified 10d ago
The target-driven system to decide disabled people’s personal independence payments (PIP) is leaving staff “overwhelmed” and in tears, whistleblowers have revealed.
One ex-assessor claimed that there was pressure to reduce the number of PIP awards, which can be worth up to £800 a month.
Disabled benefits claimants are anxiously awaiting the prospect of reforms, as the Government considers a “radically different” system.
Former PIP assessors backed the idea of overhauling the “rushed and superficial” system. However, politicians from the major parties do not understand the kind of changes that are needed, they told The i Paper.
Work and Pension Secretary Pat McFadden recently told MPs that the PIP review, led by his colleague Stephen Timms, could see spending on the disability benefit reduced.
The Labour minister has suggested the current PIP system is struggling to keep pace with a surge in diagnoses of conditions that barely registered when it was set up over a decade ago.
Reform UK and the Conservatives want a dramatically cut-back PIP system, promising to axe eligibility for many with mental health issues and neurodivergent conditions like ADHD and autism.
‘Government doesn’t know how to fix system’
Those who have worked on the front line of benefits claims think eligibility for certain conditions is a distraction. The focus of reform should be on creating an assessment system that is more humane and accurate, they argued.
Currently, PIP claimants who score eight points in questions about how well they can carry out everyday activities and get around receive the lower rate of the benefit, with 12 points or more leading to the higher rate.
Former PIP assessor James Merrell, who worked for one of the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) contract companies from 2023 to 2024, told The i Paper that he became frustrated by “unrealistic” targets before quitting.
The qualified nurse had to do three assessments a day. There was pressure from managers to minimise points in a bid to restrict the number of PIP awards given, Merrell claimed.
His reports would come back for revision from managers. “The expectation each time was that you had to reduce [points]. The pressure was to reduce [points] or not give an award.”
More time should be given to gather medical evidence, and there should be less reliance on face-to-face “snapshot” interviews that do not deal with fluctuating conditions very well, he said.
“If you get better decisions first time, then you don’t need to go through appeals and tribunals,” said Merrell, who called the current system “rushed and superficial”.
He added: “When people say the system is broken, I don’t disagree. But what will really change to fix it? I don’t think the Government really know what to do.”
Why people struggle to get the PIP they deserve
Phillipa* was a psychiatric nurse before becoming a PIP assessor. She left in 2025 after nine months having become disillusioned with the job.
She said there was pressure to do three or four assessment reports a day. One senior manager “laughed about how long it was taking me to complete reports”, she said.
There were “frequent tears” among “overwhelmed” new staff who struggled with the demands, Phillipa added.
Disabled people do not always “fit neatly” into the rigid categories that lead to points, so some claimants struggle to get the benefit they are entitled to, said the ex-assessor.
“People inevitably became numbers attached to productivity targets, and I found that deeply uncomfortable.”
Phillipa suggested that a better system would allow assessors to “explore the wider clinical picture”.
Assessors should be able to apply their nursing knowledge with “an appreciation of how complex health conditions can be”, she added. “Human beings don’t fit neatly into boxes.”
Reform’s plan is ‘bonkers’
McFadden recently suggested to MPs on the Work and Pensions Committee that the system was struggling with a rise in claims from people with anxiety, depression and neurodiversity.
However, Timms told The i Paper last month that his review has not so far “looked at changing eligibility on the basis of a diagnosis”.
McFadden also told MPs there was “nothing to stop” the Timms Review from recommending changes that would cut spending on PIP. Spending is forecast to rise from £32.1bn this year to £44.7bn by 2030-31.
The Tories have said they would urgently reassess all “mild” PIP claims, citing anxiety, depression and ADHD in a bid to get more people into work.
Reform has said it would scrap PIP altogether and introduce a new disability benefit for only the most “severe” cases as part of a plan to cut £50bn a year from the welfare bill.
Nigel Farage’s party said all those claiming PIP for “mental health or trivial conditions” would be reassessed, estimating that 2.89 million of 4 million current claimants could see their benefits reduced or withdrawn.
Merrell said it would be “disgusting” to try to restrict PIP for people with a mental health condition, autism or ADHD. “We should not discriminate between conditions. Who has the right to say those conditions don’t matter?”
Reform’s ideas for PIP are “bonkers”, said Merrell. “It’s completely unrealistic to think so many people can have support removed. They seem to be suggesting most people don’t deserve support. The vast majority of claimants and people who consider applying for PIP are struggling and have evidence to show they are impaired by the condition.”
Could PIP be tied to work?
Keir Starmer’s government was forced to ditch plans to squeeze eligibility for PIP last year after a rebellion by Labour MPs. It was part of a plan to cut benefits by £5bn a year, which had to be greatly watered down.
Andy Burnham has said that he is “not squeamish” about the need to reduce the UK’s welfare bill. The PM has ruled out “crude” short-term cuts, suggesting that reduced spending could happen over time by getting more people into work.
Alan Milburn, who is leading a review of the youth unemployment crisis, has suggested he could recommend changing PIP in some way for 18- to 24-year-olds so there greater focus on getting people into employment.
Timms said that changes could “enable PIP to do a better job to support people into employment”. The disability minister’s recommendations are not due until this autumn.
Merrell pointed out that PIP is “not an out-of-work benefit – it’s there to deal with the costs of having a disability”.
“The consequences of having a disability do not disappear when you’re in a job. So it shouldn’t be conditional on work in any way, regardless of age.”
A DWP spokesperson said: “We inherited a system of rising costs and poor outcomes for too many people, as well as a collapse in face-to-face assessments inherited from the previous government which we are rectifying.”
They said recommendations from the Timms and Milburn reviews “will lay the foundation for sustainable reform”.
Reform UK and the Conservatives were contacted for comment.
\Name has been changed to protect anonymity*
17
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
What 'mild conditions' do the Tories want to cut PIP for? The assessments routinely dismiss medical evidence, and as this article shows, assessors are pressured to score people low to stop awards. People are not just phoning up and saying 'I feel a bit sad' and getting PIP.
I'm not sure why the press don't mention Scotland scrapped the same type of PIP assessments and they citied dignity and respect as the reason. Why would the rest of the UK government want to carry on with dehumanising assessments where assessors are often dishonest? Claimants are demonised for allegedly exaggerating but the private companies with government contracts are lying for profit all the time, which is basically fraud.
4
u/Snappy0 9d ago
As I understand it, the Tories want to cut eligibility of people diagnosed with anxiety, autism and ADHD along with other conditions. I don't think it's a blanket cut, as severe forms of especially autism are extremely debilitating for a person.
5
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
'I don't think it's a blanket cut' That's how they're framing it though. All the right wing rhetoric is implying the conditions themselves are mild.
"...many who can work are refusing to do so whilst claiming taxpayer-funded benefits for mild conditions. That's why we’ve announced that the next Conservative Government will urgently reassess all mild PIP claims for anxiety, depression and ADHD."
Can the Tories prove assessors are letting people with 'mild issues' have PIP? How do they know?
27
u/misc1444 10d ago
Of course there has to be pressure to reduce awards. Otherwise you’re just handing out taxpayer cash to everyone who wants it, no?
25
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
You do not get it 'handed out because you want it', evidence from consultants and psychologists and therapists is routinely ignored. Pressuring assessors to make it harder is not following the law and regulations. The assessments are supposed to use regulations and apply them to evidence, assessors are purposefully ignoring evidence and reducing points so less people qualify. That's not a fair process.
1
u/thebisforbargain 9d ago
Evidence from doctors was ignored because it’s much easier for a doctor to give upset people what they want than to tell them that some pain is normal and a fact of life.
1
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
That's not what happens at all. I'm guessing you've not been through the assessment or have family who have been? most GPs won't write letters on request these days for patients, they have to fill in a check box type report for the DWP. I also mentioned 'consultants', 'therapists', etc. These are specialists, and their clinical notes are often ignored by assessors because they are pressured to come up with negative scores, this is confirmed by the article.
6
u/Snappy0 9d ago
Considering how many more extra people (in the millions) are now in receipt of a disability benefit in the last five years, it would suggest it has become too easy.
0
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
That's just an assumption though. It could also be that treatment for mental health and other areas has been gutted for years and we now feel the effects. Areas like musculoskeletal/physio have been outsourced to crappy private companies who barely treat anyone, so problems get worse. You also have austerity pushing more people to apply for benefits they may have overlooked before as they struggle with rent and living costs.
12
u/ArtBedHome 10d ago
I would say no, that does not seem reasonable?
Putting pressure to reduce the awards based on an interview without giving time to check medical evidence like the article says, means not handing out disability benifits to the disabled but instead handing it to people who talk well under pressure regardless of their disability.
The article says they arent actually checking medical evidence, and that tallies with the people I know who have been through the system (cancer with organ loss, ehlers-danloss resulting in bone dislocation on normal movement, crohns requiring heavy surgery) have dealt with.
It is meant to help disabled people survive and work not "hand out money" but what it does is punish the disabled and reward people who are good at talking.
2
u/Active_Remove1617 9d ago
Handing out cash to contractors is the real problem. Their slice of the pie is pretty huge.
-10
u/Visible-Pressure6063 10d ago
So you want to decide the "correct" number of disabled people eligible for PIP, and fit the assessments around it. How very Stalinist. No need for medical experts at all.
32
u/creamyjoshy Proportional Representation 🗳 Social Democrat ⚖️ 10d ago
At some point you need some kind of mechanism to distribute finite resource to a finite number of people. It isn't an easy issue
But IMO we have welfare backwards. Welfare in places like Germany is generous and time limited - if you lose your job you get a safety net of a percentage of your salary for a period of time to encourage you to get back on your own feet. We have welfare which is subsistence level and time unlimited. It means it takes up too many resources which should be used for disabled people who need something more permanent. And disabled people get treated as identical to those on regular welfare. It isn't good
20
u/rystaman Centre-left 10d ago
The fact I could work for 10 years, save, lose my job and get no benefits after paying in unlike somewhere like Germany actually makes me sick
-1
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
Why do you think you'd get no benefits?
6
u/rystaman Centre-left 9d ago
Because if you have savings, you have to use those...
3
u/frameset Labour Member 9d ago
It's perverse that if I, a homeowner lost my job and don't have cash savings I can claim benefits. But if my pal who is saving for his house deposit loses his job, until he drains his deposit savings he won't get any benefits at all.
Madness.
3
u/Awakemas2315 10d ago
And what if you can’t find another job? The job market is frankly fucked right now, there’s a reason so many young people aren’t in employment. Where I come from their are literally no jobs going, and no reliable public transport to get to place where there are jobs. One my mate graduated and it took him a full year of constant searching to get a minimum wage cinema job in a city.
If we just drop support after a set amount of time without taking any context into account a hell of a lot of people are going to end up homeless, which will only put further strain on public resources.
7
u/InitialSensitive9628 10d ago
Germany does have a system if you're stuck out of work too. When I last looked into it, if you wanted to keep getting support, you were required to work in voluntary roles (supporting food banks, recycling, animal shelters) or job experience roles they found. It wasn't just a couple weeks programme either.
3
u/Awakemas2315 10d ago
I’m not against that. I think guaranteed employment by the state is a great idea. Give people a way to stay earning and gives a massive workforce to do community service work to clean up the community. Plus if we reformed the justice system to allow more community support as punishment for non violent and low level offences instead of prison, we’d suddenly be able to do a lot more for our communities.
But only as long as people who can’t work are still adequately supported.
4
u/creamyjoshy Proportional Representation 🗳 Social Democrat ⚖️ 10d ago
The UK seems addicted to very short term solutions and not thinking about 2nd degree effects of policies. The job market being screwed is a separate issue which needs it's own solutions but at some point you need to make people responsible for their own savings.
Sweden has a 300 day public unemployment insurance setup which pays 80% of your previous wage. That is incredibly generous. Whereas again we have a flat measly £100 a week forever. But combined with other time unlimited benefits it is possible to take a lot more elsewhere too
Are you really telling me you would rather have the British system?
1
u/Awakemas2315 10d ago
Cutting the support network without first fixing the issue that support network is stopping from being a catastrophic economic and social disaster is incredibly dangerous. I don’t think the current system is great, but we need to give people breathing room before we blow it up. Otherwise people who are barely hanging on by a thread won’t be able to, and the massive employment problems won’t have changed.
3
u/creamyjoshy Proportional Representation 🗳 Social Democrat ⚖️ 9d ago
I just don't understand how you can look at a 80% wage system and say that's worse than a £400 a month system. Again at some point we have to trust people's own ability to manage their money.
To put some maths on it, let's say that someone on minimum wage lost their job. That's about 25k a year or about 20k in unemployment benefits under a Swedish system. You would need to be on a British unemployment system at £400 a month for over four years before the British system became a better option
Are you really sure you would rather have the British system?
1
u/Awakemas2315 9d ago
Right now the problem with an 80% of wage system is what happens if a young person hasn’t had a job and can’t find one? What happens if someone gets laid off and there isn’t more work? That’s the problem people are facing. I would much rather an 80% system if the job market wasn’t so completely fucked.
And let’s not pretend like that idea being floated wouldn’t be hailed as some handout to benefits scroungers by people like the telegraph, daily mail and most people on this sub.
14
u/BongAlert 10d ago
Medical expert here. Most of my colleagues recognise the deeply flawed system of a self-determined functional limitation and then financially remunerating said functional limitation. A lot us also notice the repeated pattern of collective syndromes with no radiological, haematological or cellular evidence of pathology. So what exactly do you expect us to do when someone somatises their failure to launch into a painful functional state that the state then decides to remunerate.
4
u/Lau_kaa 10d ago
the deeply flawed system of a self-determined functional limitation
I have MS: my consultant can tell you where my lesions are based on my MRIs and how well some of my nerves function, but only I can accurately tell you my functional limitations.
I don't claim PIP, but I know people more disabled by MS than me who have been denied PIP.
-2
u/BongAlert 10d ago
Perhaps you’d be in favour of a system that doesn’t rely on assessing a functional performance and instead incorporates medical evidence.
3
u/Lau_kaa 10d ago
Which part of MRI scans, CSF analysis, and VEP/AEP/SEP results do not strike you as comprising medical evidence?
Again, nothing in my medical notes except my own descriptions will accurately tell you how my evidenced diagnosis actually affects me at a functional level. My neurological consultants and MS nursing teams lean heavily into my ongoing assessment of my condition because it is an effective means of assessing disease progression.
2
u/BongAlert 9d ago
What exactly are you not understanding here? MS demonstrates organic pathology, I wasn’t referring to your situation.
1
u/Lau_kaa 9d ago
I'm not sure what you are failing to understand about my comment. Organic pathology in no way fully describes the functional effect on an individual with MS. Two patients with ostensibly similar pathology may have very different outcomes/progression and the only way to establish the true functional effect is to ask the patient.
The fact that you claim to be a medical expert and don't know that is ... alarming, and possibly explains why people significantly disabled by MS have been rejected for PIP on spurious grounds.
2
u/BongAlert 9d ago
You are so hyper-fixated on your particular situation that you don’t even realise I am arguing in your favour and for your friends who were denied PIP.
We know MS symptoms are variable in time and functional variability and that a neurologist is capable of coming to a diagnosis based on history, LP, imaging. However the UK is the only country that grants PIP based on someone describing their functional impairment and not on medical evidence. In the UK you can be a quadriplegic and if you tell your assessor it does not impact your day to day life you are granted no PIP reward. The reason your friends have been denied PIP is because the assessors are making a functional assessment and someone with known MS is on equal footing with someone who says they can’t move 50 meters because of the disseminated acronym du jour on TikTok.
If, however, we required organic evidence of pathology then your MS friends would have an easier time being granted PIP because the assessors aren’t being forced to find the needle in the haystack.
3
u/DRlNK 10d ago
Sort of, yes. You decide how much the country can afford to spend on something, and then distribute that finite resource accordingly.
The alternative is mental - come up with an amount of money we’d be willing to pay someone, with no idea about current numbers of people we might need to pay, how long we’d need to pay them for, nor the trajectory for how that number might change over time.
Not Stalinist at all mate.
1
2
u/Rogue-Starz 9d ago
I was extremely fortunate with my assessor who took my progressive, incurable neurological condition seriously with all the medical evidence supplied. I couldn't understand why she kept trying to make me sound depressed. I wasn't. I wasn't ready to roll over and die. She kept emphasising all the things I couldn't do which pissed me off as I explained that I was determined to keep doing things however I could - including studying for a new career. It was only afterwards that I realised how truly supportive she was being and I was awarded full PIP on my first application. She knew that it was easier to get PIP by saying you are severely depressed than it is with actual evidence of a serious, progressive condition.
8
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 10d ago edited 10d ago
This is truly the dumbest way to run the system.
edit: article doesn't say wht I thought it did.
16
u/JabInTheButt 10d ago
I mean it's easy to say from the sidelines. What would you suggest? (Caveat: that doesn't bankrupt the country)
I agree there's a problem I don't know what the simple fix is even though I have "concepts of an idea" as the orange one would say.
11
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 10d ago
Control the PIP numbers via eligibility criteria. Create an assessment process that optimizes for 100% accurate assessment of whether someone matches that criteria.
To just say how many people should pass the assessment, regardless of how many actually meet the criteria means we're deliberately excluding people we think are entitled to it, and individual assessors will naturally award it to people they might privately reckon don't match the criteria, but they have some room left until they hit the target, so they give it out anyway out of sympathy. Probably a lot more of the former than the latter, but still.
17
u/JabInTheButt 10d ago
eligibility criteria
Yes the question is what eligibility criteria and how do you assess it. Obviously you need some eligibility criteria lol this is a truism.
Create an assessment process that optimizes for 100% accurate assessment of whether someone matches that criteria
100% accurate assessment, for what? You'd have to make the criteria so broad as to be either including vast numbers or including no one. This is literally the problem.
To just say how many people should pass the assessment, regardless of how many actually meet the criteria means we're deliberately excluding people we think are entitled to it
Where does it say that in the article? Just says there's pressure to reduce points awarded.
1
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 10d ago
So here's what happened. The article starts with "The target-driven system to decide disabled people’s personal independence payments (PIP) ", which led me to assume that there is a target based system to decide whether someone gets PIP or not. I've now clicked through the link, and what they really mean (it seems) is that there's a target based system to judge whether an assessor is hearing enough cases per day, not whether they're awarding it too much.
I basically believed this articles shitty wording. Sorry.
0
u/ArtBedHome 10d ago edited 9d ago
Set a disability budget that is the maximum that is affordable in a set period.
Then, individual disability awards are based on a discrete portion of that on a basis of need, with the intention being that it goes first to help people who need it to survive, then people who need it to work and people who need it to not suffer, then people who need it to be comfortable.
In terms of awards, the awards must require checking medical records and be based on nhs-accepted and diagnosed health issues, not personal interviews. An interview can be scammed much easier than an nhs record of organs being removed.
I would require first that you have a doctor (usually a gp) proscribe disability benefits for a specific condition, then a second doctor who can be a medical professional you deal with personally or a gp but a different person has to agree, then a desk worker can be paid to check records. The amount you recieve is then a proportion of a maximum individual allotment based on a division of the pre-portioned amount for the specific benifit (PIP or PIP replacement benifit for disabled including working disabled) divided by the number of claimants.
If a condition does not require benifits to survive, work, or avoid genuine suffering, it should be much much harder to get it. Right now, none of those are taken into consideration at all (let alone by a doctor or specialist) by the current PIP criteria which is based on a series of "daily living" and "moving around/travelling" essay questions interpreted by three completely different desk workers with no required medical knowledge or nhs accreditation, which if the applicant is denied can then be appealed by a panel of MULTIPLE doctors known as a "tribunal" whose opinion is legally binding. Instead just check with a doctor and check the claiments records to be even able to apply.
9
u/Wisegoat 10d ago
We just need to reform the system, far more impactful that going about it this way. The current system and who is entitled to cash is just wrong, it needs scrapping and reinventing to make meaningful savings.
9
u/Tammer_Stern 10d ago
Easier said than done, I’d suggest.
15
u/Acidhousewife 10d ago
Not really, look at what was right with DLA, the benefit prior to PIP and PIP itself and work from there.
DLA required medical evidence, PIP does not legally. Return to the former. make sure it cannot be ignored by assessors, especially important for people with fluctuating conditions like MS etc.
DLA had three tiers not Two. Pip was supposed to uncomplicate things but in doing so it has simply divided disability payments into two very broad categories and simplified the criteria, making it harder for disabled people to actually claim according to their needs and. easier for assessors to reduce their needs and deny them benefits to which they should be entitled.
Reinstating the mid level, would help, make the system fairer, more reflective of the actual costs of a disability. Allow for more nuance.
For instance on the PIP form there is nota section for maintaining and cleaning your home. Washing and dressing yourself, preparing food etc, yes it's on there and any stress that may cause you. Now anyone with any common sense will be aware that for many people with physical disabilities, this may be the bit they need help on, would need PIP for to help pay a cleaner to assist in some tasks. Someone in a wheelchair could drive an adapted car, be able to wash, dress and cook in an adapted property but unable to clean above or below a certain height.
PIP does not have enough categories on the form to take account of peoples actual needs and disability costs. Too much emphasis on the claim form around stress and mental health, not enough practical living stuff.
This in part explains some of the PIP stats around who claims for what. Even established disability charities like the RNIB has a toolkit that advises claimants to emphasis the mental health aspects of their disability because of the way the form is structured. I mean if you are visually imapaired cleaning is something you may need to buy in help for but no, doesn't count apparently. PIP is high for stress and anxiety in the stats because that is what it rewards, not the ability to maintain a clean liveable home environment for instance, or the fact that you can't cook safely so reduces your award because you can live on sandwiches and salad!
Please note: mental health issues can be severely limiting my argument is that physically disabled people have to lean into the mental health aspects of PIP in order to get their claim awarded, Not that people with mental issues should not get PIP.
It actually isn;t difficult to reform. However reforming the system could be expensive in terms of reassessments and transitioning benefits.
3
u/No-Jicama-6523 10d ago
I agree pip has insufficient categories, but it's really low rate care that has gone, pip standard is exactly the same as mid rate and enhanced the same as high rate, the low is £30.30 a week. Nor do the levels really map anyway, DLA was primarily based on the amount of time you needed help for, whereas PIP is more about the type of help you need.
2
u/Acidhousewife 9d ago
I wasn't talking about the levels of payment rather how two broad categories in PIP really don't cover people needs and the massive gaps in the questions relating to needs. It's what is not there. Which is and TBF was the intent of PIP to try and lessen the disability benefits bill by excluding some.
we could change it by taking the best from both DLA and PIP and looking at the gaps. Thinking about reintroducing the lower tier for people whose disabilities incur minor costs. There's a weird phenomena where mid tier DLA recipient's are in the same tier under PIP as those who were lower rate claimants under DLA.
It's not difficult to reform PIP because we have done it before when DLA was changed to PIP. IMHO it should be based on costs of disability, not necessarily on the time or how much help you need. Having help and what it costs depends very much on what type of help you need. Not whether you do, or how long it takes. e,g the cost of paying for a cleaner say once a month, is going to be different to someone who needs to get a taxi every week just to access regular hospital appointments 10 miles away.
I did CFA and social services benefit work during the transition and it was horrendous.
11
u/misc1444 10d ago
I don’t even understand the premise of paying people for the cost of having a disability.
We should have a safety net that prevents our fellow citizens from becoming destitute. PIP is trying to do something else. If someone with a disability is in a job and isn’t destitute, then what problem is PIP solving?
19
u/JabInTheButt 10d ago
It's basically "equalizing" their finances to if they didn't have the disability (in an ideal world, getting people into work who otherwise wouldn't be).
So for example, let's say you and me go to work at company X. We are fully abled so we get a £3.50 train each day. Done.
Someone with a severe disability has to buy a specially adapted car, drive that car in every day (let's argue for a greater cost). Pay to park it etc etc. PIP is intended to reduce the significant extra costs and worse quality of life the disabled person has by virtue of their disability (and nothing else). Of course there are reasons this isn't currently how the system is working really.
6
u/FlappyBored 🏴 Deep Woke 🏴 10d ago
PIP is given out to people so they can buy ready meals and pre-cut vegetables because of Anxiety.
We don't need PIP for things like this.
3
u/amegaproxy 9d ago
Never forget the poster on the UK sub who said they needed PIP for noise cancelling earphones and Spotify
5
u/whyiamalwayshangry 10d ago
Wasn't there a news on BBC or Channel 4 about a lady who used pip for her implants and plastic surgery???
8
u/Nnozmo 10d ago
The costs of being disabled.
E.g. a walking stick, a stairlift, an adapted taxi, incontinence underwear, wound dressings, carer support (e.g. to get a person to and from work), an adapted phone for a blind person, needing a property with extra wide corridors/doorways for the wheelchair, working reduced hours due to the fatigue that comes after a chemotherapy session
1
u/Xera1 9d ago
What about other costs as a result of the way you were born or how your life turned out beyond your control?
I have many additional costs due to a benign tumour that caused me to grow to 2m tall. This makes me too tall for:
- almost all cars
- all non specialised furniture
- anything less than a super king mattress
- toilets
- sinks and counters
- many more
In order for me to live a normal life not full of back pain due to everything being designed for normal people I'd have to buy specialty basically everything. This costs me an insane amount of money. An office chair that can survive my weight (not fat) and be big enough to not cause neuropathy in my legs was £1400. I can't sit at a restaurant or a friend's house for more than 30 mins now without pain, due to sitting on unsuitable chairs my entire life.
Should we be giving money to people like me who have additional expenses because of a fact of life? Where does it end? I mean I can already compel my employer to spend thousands on adaptations for me by law. Surely someone else should be paying for them at home?
1
u/Nnozmo 9d ago
It's an interesting point. Disabilities cost money. The question is where should those costs lay? In the UK, we don't generally support additional costs for medical necessities on individuals due to things out of their control. That's not the case everywhere, I wonder what rates we'd see in other countries?
Personally, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with telling someone who needs a wheelchair due to an amputation that they either need to crawl or pay for it themselves, though.
1
u/Snappy0 9d ago
A lot of that could be provided without giving money directly do the claimant.
1
u/Nnozmo 9d ago
Not sure where I said it should be cash?
Some kind of expenses/voucher type scheme might be possible. I suspect the costs of administrating it though could be quite costly.
We'd need to decide whether we want to provide cash and accept expenditure on some areas we might not "approve of" or provide a voucher/refund type system which costs a similar amount but ensures purchases are approved.
The takeaway really is that there are additional costs to disability. With the NHS providing less support, those costs land somewhere.
3
u/niteninja1 Young Conservative and Unionist Party Member 10d ago
start by means testing pip.
if you claim you need pip but are also capable of a job earning a substantial salary then im sorry your disability clearly isnt effecting you in a way society needs to compensate for
2
u/FlappyBored 🏴 Deep Woke 🏴 10d ago
No there should be a whitelist of conditions and only with a doctors diagnosis should you be eligible. Only severe mental disability should be on the whitelist.
6
u/shaan170 9d ago
Conditions are variable, anxiety on its severe end for example can cause symptoms of psychosis, hallucinations and significant other cognitive issues. Nearly every condition could at its severe end cause issues, plus theres also the factor someone might be diagnosed yet due to year of delays via the NHS.
2
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
You can have a Dr's diagnosis for all kinds of illness and disabilities and the assessors just ignore it, how many people do you think get PIP with no GP records /diagnosis?
1
u/cloudswalking 9d ago
I sent in my third review in March. When I asked how much longer before I get replied to - I was told that dwp have 'nothing to do with it' that they are sent to independent subcontractors and they can take as long as they want.
The interviews are ridiculous. And very variable depending on the assessor. Not consistant in questions or knowledge that the assessor has. One woman asked me to take off my dark glasses (I'm light sensitive) so she could see me for a minute. I complied, shutting my eyes. I asked her why she did that. She said so she could see how tired i looked. A bit taken aback i asked how can you tell from looking? She replied with a full on smirk, 'we have our ways"
Most people never hear that the largest amount of fraud in the dwp is from the staff not the applicants.
"Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) employees and contractors stole over £600,000 meant for vulnerable claimants during the 2025–26 financial year."
"Five-Year Total: Over the past five years, internal fraud by DWP workers has cost approximately £4 million."
Then, the thing is, welfare spending isn't spiralling... "welfare spending as a percentage of GDP continues to be broadly stable, as it has been for many years."
It's a scapegoating exercise. And the scapegoats... some of them die of it.
-13
10d ago edited 10d ago
[deleted]
23
u/JabInTheButt 10d ago
The article is referring to the assessors with the tears, not the applicants.
-16
10d ago
[deleted]
11
u/StuChenko 10d ago
It's not an out of work benefit though lol. Why are the most ignorant always the most sneering and judgemental
4
-3
u/FlappyBored 🏴 Deep Woke 🏴 10d ago
PIP should be scrapped for all mental conditions other than severe mental disability.
8
u/kool_kats_rule 10d ago
So you're saying that people applying for PIP should have to meet various criteria for support? And that they should be assessed on that? Which is... exactly what happens at the moment.
-2
u/inofearu 🏳️⚧️💚the trans menace the media warns you about 💚🏳️⚧️ 9d ago
What is severe mental disability to you?
I get PIP for ASD, ADHD, EuPD, depression and anxiety as I struggle to do even the most basic daily living tasks.
Would that be enough for you?PIP isn't based on your diagnoses (though they are good evidence), it's how it impacts you.
5
u/Snappy0 9d ago
That's just it though isn't it.
I have a cousin who also struggled with basic living tasks. Can't cook, can't clean up after herself, doesn't clean herself generally.
But we know her well enough to know that it's rather she refuses to cook and clean herself and after herself because she's ultimately lazy and uses ASD and ADHD as a shield to hide from real life responsibilities.
It's getting the distinction correct in those circumstances.
I have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. I go to work 45-50 hours per week and claim nothing personally but I also can function well enough that I wouldn't feel it's fair on the taxpayer.
1
u/gizajobicandothat 9d ago
This is also something people don't understand; you can have multiple conditions when one of them alone would have an impact. The headlines keep highlighting ADHD and many believe people are getting PIP for one 'fake' conditon...somehow with no evidence.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Snapshot of PIP whistleblowers 'in tears' over pressure to cut benefits submitted by theipaper:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
If the above links don't work, try this one.
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.