1,000 new PIP claims per day?

[flashbac]

Is this true? (From someone who is naturally cynical of government info.)

If it is, is there something else behind the statistic? Is it because people have to reapply or something like that?

This is from the government website:

"Monthly PIP awards have more than doubled since the pandemic, rising from 13,000 to 34,000 - a rate of around 1,000 new claims per day, or the population of Leicester every year."

I find the statistic unbelievable.

DWP do sometimes use the ability to use a tablet or make a choice as a reason not to award. However, according to the actual tests, it is possible for some to be able to do that and still be awarded under the SMI criteria. Although many have to appeal.

Along similar lines, sometimes DWP automatically say no IQ below 55 = no SMI but that isn’t actually the case. Someone can have a higher IQ but have difficulty applying their intelligence in the real world and that can meet that part of the tests.

I had to go to tribunal my son is similar, at 15 he's totally non verbal, very limited understanding of the world around him he's at a special school for children with severe and profound learning disabilities,
He csn just about trace a few letters of his name, and recognise numbers 1_3 consistently, Has very challenging behaviour etc it was awarded there and then at tribunal
But I do get frustrated with.people on groups, who " know " their child meets the criteria and then when you read their reasons, it's abundantly obvious they' don't meet the criteria but they waste everyone's time going through the appeal process anyway.

Sorry - you misunderstood me / I wasn't clear. I think pensioners who are disabled should also be able to access a similar / the same scheme (I also worked past retirement age anyway). I am not sure how it could be done, but I see no good reason for an artifical cut off point. I'm not suggesting that every pensioner get it, or that everyone who wants it (whatever their age) should get it, but it cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a solution.

I think that often it is assumed that people with disabilities are against all changes. We are not. You would be hard pressed to find anyone with a disability that thinks the system works well. There are people who do cheat the system - we are not idiots and we know it. There are people who don't get benefits when they should or lose their benefits when they shouldn't. There are serious questions that can and should be asked.

But here's the thing - everything in this debate is framed around making what we have worse because it saves money. The UK is still, despite everything, a very rich country. It can and should have a way of supporting those who need it well. But in terms of the current debate is is not - and to most posters on this site - about how things are done well or reasonably. There is a better way to do this. And it starts with a discussion not about money, but about needs and how they are met. And I would suggest an independent review led by someone with gravitas, knowledge and standing - not by a minister who has already made his position clear. In doing that you garner confidence in most quarters. Disabled people act like they are under attack because they are under attack. But it wouldn't be hard to get them on board to a truly independent review that is about ensuring that those needing help, whatever their age, get it.

My only experience of Pip assessment is watching some anti benefits documentary where the guy was clearly exaggerating how he couldn't work and they they cut his PIP.

If they gave most people on Attendance Allowance( because let's face it most older people have mobility issues at some point), they could be potentially doubling the AA bill . How on earth would that be affordable when they are saying they can't afford the current benefits bill ?

This. My grandma gets attendance allowance. She spends it on nothing. She could use it to pay for a cleaner as she can't do it herself. Instead she lets it accumulate in her bank account, along with her state pension. She absolutely doesn't need it but remains adamant she does and this can't be questioned because of her age. The same is true of her WFA. She is always hundreds in credit with British Gas. She will continue to receive WFA this year because she only gets a state pension and has no other 'income'...what she does have is over a quarter of a million pounds in the bank from the sale of her right to buy council house.

Did you actually read what I said? I did not suggest that. I said that simply not being in work wasn't a reason for not having mobility allowances of some kind, and suggested that a proper conducted review of disability across all ages would be a step in the right direction. Instead of badly tinkering with what there is, look to start over again. Plan instead of knee-jerk. And put any review in the wider context. Why are we still here talking about disability only when 1.3 miilion able-bodied people aren't in work?

Yes, I still have a mobility car. I still also pay taxes, and I do something like 20 hours of voluntary work every week. That is more "contribution" than some able-bodied people. Without the car I won't be doing voluntary work, I won't have a social life with my friends, I am likely to deteriorate more quickly, and then it won't just be the AA I need - it will be carers / care homes etc etc. There are more costs involved in "genuine" attendance needs than a bit of money.

How dare you have such a luxury as a social life whilst claiming PIP!!!!

The funny thing about my "social life" is that although retired, and not wealthy by any means (small occupational pension and don't own my home) I am comfortable enough right now. If my PIP was removed and I didn't have my car I would move abroad (I worked abroad for many years) because I could live cheaper and easier in some other countries. At which time the amount of tax I pay (more than my monthly PIP) would be gone with me! Most of the places that I would think about wouldn't tax me, so I would be miles better off if forced out of the country!

It obviously wasn’t an informative documentary if after watching it you think PIP is about someone’s ability to work or not. It isn’t an out of work benefit.

I have a busy month if I do anything none work related more then twice 🤣

Im taking my ds2 to the cinema tonight and because I am already out of the house I might treat him to some tea out too!

But many would begrudge this apparently

Sometimes people are unaware they can claim (is it something like £30bn goes unclaimed in benefits?), sometimes they may not have the bandwidth or the health to cope with the process, sometimes they may feel there’s a stigma attached to claiming, sometimes an illness is progressive, sometimes they may not realise their illness is permanent or think treatment/recovery is in the pipeline when that’s a pipe dream.

Another reason raised in link below is that with such an increase in COL, people who were and still are eligible but for whatever reason didn’t claim, can no longer afford to swallow the costs attached to their disability without help.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/minister-finally-admits-that-working-age-benefits-spending-is-stable-despite-months-of-spiralling-claims/

Well maybe it was some other benefit. But he "couldn't work" due to an injury on his 21st birthday.

Those programmes are designed to rile everyone up
There were loads of them in channel five at one point and the presenter would say stuff like heres Sue,living in benefits,house ,driving her benefits car to take her many children to school
She will then go shopping with her eleventy,billion pound payment and might have her hair and nails done for her weekend away all.paid for by benefits.

Well I only watched a small bit of this and ...
(a) it was his 18th birthday not 21st
(b) this was 2009 - so the Tories have made massive improvements since then, haven't they? Including the introduction of PIP and UC both of which were going to change things....and
(c) much as I abhor violence, if some jumped up "work coach" who can't even speak the English language spoke to me like that, I would be quite tempted to slap her one too!

It isn't that there oughtn't to be changes. I think most people would agree at some level that changes need to be made. But if we have learned anything, it is that tinkering around based on what it is costing us, rather than looking at what is needed and then finding the funding, has never worked. To be honest, I think the tinkering is what is responsible for increasing claims in some ways. For example, there are 1.6 million people unemployed, but only 800,000 jobs. We could halve unemployment in theory, but that isn't happening. If we do not understand why unemployment is at this level or why people aren't in those jobs, if the "matching" of people to jobs already isn't working, what hope do you have of getting people who employers don't want into jobs that don't exist?

@Fsfaava I haven’t watched the programme, but it can’t be PIP if it was about working or not.

Fair enough. Then I was in the wrong

Agree. People are treated very differently and yet have the same issues. Does being older mean you suddenly aren’t as disabled?? What utter nonsense. I’d love to see a challenge on that one from a medical perspective and age discrimination. The same will happen even more now with new claimants having more stringent requirements to existing ones for the same issue.

You posts gives the impression that it is possible to already be in UK to claim asylum.

Wouldn't you have to tell them when you came, how you got here and where you were living while here?

Arriving in an airport or port and immediately claiming asylum is really the only way, because you can prove you just arrived.

Good for French Police today!!

Yet you would rather the benefits were cut to pay for accommodating immigrants?

It won't be affordable. The government will say anything to be able to raise taxation.

The benefits cut was supposed to raise alarms. Every labour party in opposition has never complained the benefits bill is too high. They have pressed for more money for the disabled and unemployed all they times they have been in opposition.

Their main aim is to increase taxation, and that will be presented in the autumn budget and they will say ''you wouldn't let us raise money by cutting benefits so we are left with increasing taxation''.

.

Is the welfare bill THAT high though?

The problem is the benefits "language"

Social housing. What was wrong with council house. Are people who don't qualify unsociable?

Benefits.

Dictionary meaning of benefit

"an advantage or profit gained from something.

What was wrong with dole or unemployment payment. Benefits makes it sound appealing.

Personal independence PIP. What was wrong with disability payment

Universal credit : ditto credit being positive. Universal means everyone but not everyone gets ir

Pension credit. Credit is a positive word. So the government think if uoubreach old age failing to qualify for a state pension and no private pension ghat isca hood going?

The language sounds enticing as if it is something to aim for as if the government is encouraging people to aspire to these things. The message they are sending is that
Those that don't I e the tax payers do not deserve the advantage and are the mugs

I really don't think people apply for these things because of how they are named 😂 Universal Credit replaced 6 separate ones.
And Council Tax support is called just that.

@WideawakeinSanDiego social housing isn’t only council housing, it includes other Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) such as housing associations. Some local authorities/councils no longer own any housing, stock transfer (housing stock sold or given to other RSLs) was a term coined under the last Labour government. Housing associations now own more social housing than councils. Hence the blanket term social housing.