If PIP won’t change unless you’re a new claimant, will reassessments be treated as old or new claimants?

[ForMyBenefit]

I’m a little bit concerned that this could be a back door into enforcing the original plan to cut PIP for everybody.

it sounds all well and good to say a person who claims in the future will be under the new stricter regime, but what about those who only had an award for a year or two and have to reapply at the end of it. Do they count as a new claimant under the new rules?

I’m wondering if anybody’s even thought to ask.

Who knows? The government will say something else tomorrow and it will change again .

I’m quite sure it’s bullshit and by the time existing claimants are reassessed post 2026 they will absolutely be subject to the same conditions.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

I doubt Kendall and Starmer know. They continue to muddle UC and PIP and I think now that it’s deliberate.

There are also huge implications around the Equality Act 2010, the protected characteristics of sex, age and race, and indirect discrimination (see eg disproportionate negative effects on: women; older women; and people with sickle cell disease).

This is why Starmer is again trying to lie its way out of avoiding a defeat.

When you are reassessed you need to submit a new claim.

So existing PIP recipients would be affected by the changes.

I hope MPs see through this smokescreen.

I would imagine they won’t be reassessed as new claims, because that wouldn’t be any change from the original position. And while they might well try to fudge things generally, Richard Burgen (Labour MP, massive critic of the bill) has said today something like “this makes a terrible bill slightly less terrible, but I’ll still vote against it”. So it must have changed, at least a little bit. He has no reason to say it has, and every reason to say “this is what is was before!” It’s not like he’s sticking to the party line.

ETA - also the MP who was leading the Labour rebellion has acknowledged that the change will have additional costs. So there must be a change in there somewhere.

The way I understand it,if you are already in the PIP system even if you undergo a reassessment,the new rules won't apply to you,only people who have never claimed before. If it DID apply to existing claimants when they undergo a reassessment,why would they bother with the U turn of saying existing claimants will continue as before,the new rules won't apply to them? Nobody who is on PIP at the moment will suddenly have their PIP removed or reduced,so obviously it applies to when they come to be reassessed? I hope that makes sense! Although it wouldn't surprise me if between now and November next year,it's revised again to include existing claimants. Nothing this vile government does would surprise me.

New Claims, so not alots changed really.

Has for new claimants- how unfair is that?

I wonder if they're even aware of that??

im new to all of this, only had the strokes earlier this year & only just getting PIP for the first time (for a couple of years). I, obviously, don't know how I'll be at the reassessment stage, but I naively assumed I wouldn't be 'a new claimant' But seems I was wrong! 🙇🏻‍♀️

I don't believe that it's just for new claims and that's bad enough. I absolutely think it's just another way around to the original thoughts. Simmer the plebs down a bit.

If you are already on PIP (and have been for awhile,) you will NOT be a new claimant when your 'award' runs out, and you need to renew your claim.

Ignore anyone scaremongering, and saying you will be a new claimant. You won't!

Renewing is not the same as being a new claimant.

Same as there are still people on ESA being being dealt with differently to people on new style ESA.

Someone who doesn't have a successful renewal and then either loses at appeal or doesn't appeal would be a new claimant if they later claimed again.

If you get reassessed, and are assessed at the same levels as before, will the drop your payments if you are below 4s? That is my worry.
I am way past 4 in certain areas, but as I receive full PIP for mobility and care, I never fought getting 3s it as I was obviously receiving the full payment for each side.

that’s right. It wouldn’t be a u turn if existing claimants renewing their award were subject to the new rules

If people are reassessed on current rules, which is what they've said, then the new 4 point rule won't apply. It'll be the current rules

Children moving from dla to pip will be new claimants though when they turn 16 (or 18 if they change it) so they’ll lose their dla and potentially not have it replaced.

Agree. It will definitely become harder for many to qualify.

I think the current idea is that those who now have pip, will be reassessed under the older criteria, not the new one .That's what they are saying now but the goal posts will be moved no doubt. All very worrying.

The whole thing is appalling.

So I could retain my PIP while youngsters - children, for goodness sake - who age out of DLA at 16 years old will likely be deprived of it?

No thanks. I’m sick of the unfairness.

I think that makes things even worse for new claimants though which include children who have been on dla most of their lives. It’s not so much the money but pip/dla is used as the whole benchmark and proof by lots of organisations for assessing level of disability and if you can access things/support. Becuase most people thst were on pip already aren’t effected it will be less noticeable but if it effects an individual it will be very noticeable for them.

my son is a teenager, he has an ehcp and is in specialist school so his care needs are definitely loads above children of the same age and so we qualify for dla. Looking at the criteria I’m not sure he will qualify for pip, he should do but it’s how they decide to apply the diff between promoting and supervision.it wouldn’t have mattered under old criteria as he’d have easily qualified regardless. He can’t be left alone for extended periods of time and we can’t leave him alone and go far in case we need to get back quickly yet he can probably cook a simple meal if someone is there and tells him what to do.

Reassessment are current, active claimants and remain so through reassessment.

But if you have an award for 2 years or under, you don't get a reassessment. You are required to make a new claim. So those "renewels" will actually be new claimants.

Yes, prompting and supervision are woolly words!

I think the actual PIP descriptor terms are terrible, it seems like lots of people could fall between two descriptors. I think they should overhaul the wording first.

With regards to the “simple meal” that basically means putting a ready meal in a microwave.

We had to think this through with a relative who was desperate to be independent.

Does she know when mealtimes are? No, but we can set an alarm/phone and prompt for that.

Can she physically take the food out of the fridge or freezer? Yes

Can she check the use by date? No, she can’t read. So that would need supervision so she doesn’t eat mouldy food. But if we put it all in the freezer not the fridge, we only need to check rarely.

Can she remember to pierce the film? Might need prompting for that at first but can probably learn.

Can she physically put the food into the microwave? Yes

Can she check the cooking instructions and turn microwave to the correct time and power? No, she can’t read. Can someone prompt her? No, she can’t read the microwave display either.

No way round that one, someone will have to go in for mealtimes to supervise.

I was looking at the guidance yesterday and I think it’s worse than that, if you are using words only that’s prompting not supervision, supervision is if you are likely to have to step in and do something physically rather than just tell them

I agree

I'm a benefits advisor and this has puzzled me. I think the intention was to keep existing claimants on the old regime as long as they kept successfully renewing, and new claimants would need to meet the "4 point" rule for daily living. But it would create a horrific two tier system.

I have a lot of clients who come to me and describe their disability, and if I tell them they are unlikely to qualify, they say "yes I thought so too....but Dave down the road gets it and he walks the kids to school/goes jogging/goes skateboarding" etc etc. There is already a lot of perceived unfairness and this would make it ten times worse.