One to one benefit assessments

[Amazonjaunt]

It would save money in the long run if all benefits claims had to be assessed one to one, surely?

I read a range of free newspapers available on PressReader.

And what position are you in to say for sure that many PIP claimants lie?

I believe that if assessments were carried out face to face a higher proportion of claimants would be rejected (based on the fact that twice as many claims are accepted if they are not conducted in person). There will be numerous reasons why the claims are not accepted (if assessed face to face) but I suspect at least some of them will be because claimants have lied/exagerrated.

Despite many people explaining it to you, you can't seem to grasp the reasons why someone will not have a face to face assessment.

Several people on here with actual experience have refuted this and given good reason why. You suspect whatever you like. You have absolutely no clue.

OP doesn't want to accept it. They have as much knowledge of this topic as I do of how to fly successfully to the moon. Which, frankly, when I come across this kind of inflammatory nonsense I wish I could.

You're very conveniently ignoring the link I posted to the Government's own estimates of fraud in PIP, which was 1.4% last year - lower than any other benefit.

Assuming that none of the 1.4% are assessed face to face and that if they were half of them would have been refused (based on your statistics that twice as many paper based claims are granted, this would reduce the bill by .... drumroll ... 0.7%.

More than 70 per cent of people claiming PIP are not assessed face to face. No I cannot grasp the reason why such a large proportion of claimants cannot be assessed in person.

Twice as many people get PIP if they are not assessed in person. If everyone was assessed in person I think the number of people refused PIP would increase by more than 0.7 per cent.

You keep ignoring the fact that it would likely just mean some people going to tribunal and winning which would actually mean spending more money.

Or the fact that if they aren't assessed in person, it likely means that their evidence is strong so of course they will more likely get PIP in that case.

I think you are just being deliberately obtuse.

How are you going to ensure that all these F2F assessments are carried out by people who are actually qualified to make an assessment of what is often a range of complex medical conditions? You'd have to have a panel of people with expertise relevant to each individual coming in, selected based on the paperwork received for that person. That's the only way you're going to address the high rates of decisions overturned on MR or appeal. And that, my friend, is going to be expensive.

Either that or they need all these points presented in graphical form, e.g. a nice chart of how much money would be saved (with true savings from people not being eligible differentiated from false savings from not awarding it to people who qualify) compared to how much extra would be spent (directly on the assessments, and indirectly on dealing with extra MRs and appeals, etc).

Some people just can't process and absorb it in text form.

And you are being unhelpful and rude.

Yes, it would basically require having a tribunal hearing for every applicant. Instead of only the ones who need it (because their claims are turned down, usually unfairly).

Many people have tried to explain things to you, but you are putting your fingers in your ears.

Twice as many get it because their disabillities are very obvious and cant be disputed
My son is unlikrly to have to to a face to face interview
But hes 16 and goes to a special school for childrem with severe and profound learning dosabillities non of this evidence can be faked
He cant talk at all anyrhing i have wtote
On his form will be backed up the many professionsls in his life

@XenoBitch has not been rude to you. Various posters have explained the same issues to you over and over again on this thread. She has been more than helpful so the only logical conclusion is that you are deliberately being obtuse,

Yes claimants not seen in person are 2x more likely to be approved because their medical evidence is rock solid. There is no point seeing a person face to face when you have reams of test, scan, surgery reports plus doctors reports.

The face to face assessments are for when the evidence is inconclusive. Where there is doubt the person qualifies for the benefit.

Going to 100% face to face would be a collossal waste of money.

One reason is that there is a special circumstances end of life claim route which does not require an in person assessment.

it does require two doctors to sign to certify that you have a terminal illness(usually cancer) and are expected to die within the year.

can I suggest that it is very unlikely that a face to face interview will change the outcomes of these cases (known as SREL cases) and that if it did the DWP would face significant negative publicity which in fact led to the introduction of this route in the first place.

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/changes-definition-terminally-ill-purposes-pip-dla-and-aa?srsltid=AfmBOoqiwC6ng4xFwNzcBywqE99DMixRLCSCnDf58eSQd66RzBo5Q0WB

MacMillan cancer support lobbied hard for cancer patients who were terminal not to be subject to work requirements in the last year of their lives, which was the original proposal.

macmillan lobby document from 2012 here.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Mac_Green_Paper_resp.doc

it is absolutely morally abhorrent that cancer patients who are terminally ill and going to die within the year should be put through the absolute farce of an in person assessment and prolonged process when they are dying.

The most recent DWP figures say only 3 per cent of initial PIP decisions end up being overturned by tribunal. Therefore I still believe face to face assessments would lead to higher savings.
People who have stronger evidence may be more likely not to be assessed in person, but more than 70 per cent of claims for PIP are not conducted in person - and they are unlikely to all have stronger evidence.

I have also explained my point of view multiple times and half the votes say I am not being unreasonable so the jury’s out on who is being obtuse.

There's also mandatory reconsideration.

How do you know it's unlikely? You don't seem to know much about PIP.

Well, if a f2f assessment caught all of those it could increase by a whopping 1.4%. Or 0.4% which was the Government's estimate of PIP related fraud in 2025.

Or are you saying that you think more people are claiming fraudulently than is stated in the Government's own figures🤔

The DWP ask on the form if they can access your nhs records.

i totally fail to understand how them being able to access nhs records and see all your operations and consultations and medicines going back to birth pretty much is lack of evidence.

they don’t rely on the stuff you send in you know.

in my video call they reminded me of a diagnosis I’d got when I was 8 that I’d forgotten to list on the form.