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?

Most claims for PIP are renewals, not new claims. What is the point of face to face when the person already has PIP and they have a condition that’s incurable, and will only get worse? That’s why it’s at 70%- and yes they not only have stronger evidence they have years and years of evidence and years and years of being approved to receive PIP.

What you fail to mention is that the 3% of all decisions is actually 65% of the cases appealed. It doesn’t included cases where DWP conceded either, which accounts for 19% of cases appealed. That means out of those who appeal, 84% are awarded PIP.

It also doesn’t include those who withdraw the appeal despite having a strong case because they can’t cope with the process.

The dwp publish regular data on the claimant journey through pip.

This is the most recent from their April 2026 data.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-independence-payment-statistics-to-april-2026/personal-independence-payment-official-statistics-to-april-2026#pip-claim-activity--registrations-clearances-and-reviews

you will note that while only 3% are over turned at mandatory reconsideration a significantly higher percentage are overturned at tribunal and a cynical reader might think that the MR stage is simply to discourage people from going to tribunal.

About 40 per cent of claims are for renewals (according to ChatGPT) - so not 70 per cent. However, I accept that people with stronger evidence and years of evidence have less need of face to face assessments.
The 60 per cent of claims that are not renewals should be given priority for face to face assessments.

I think a better use of resources would be in improved enforcement and following up reports of suspected benefit fraud.

16% of completed MRs resulted in a change to the award. That 16% is 3% when calculated as a % of initial PIP decisions following an assessment.

I also think there should be improved enforcement and reports of benefit fraud should be followed up.

OP, why do you think a one off F2F assessment by a random HCP who may not even know the condition let alone be able to assess the resultant functional impairment will give a more accurate picture than evidence from HCPs who are specialist in the person’s disability many of whom see the individual multiple times, some for years or even decades?

For example, DS1 had a paper based assessment. The evidence I sent included his EHCP and some of the evidence in K (e.g. latest report from SALT, OT, SIOT, EP, CP, physio, specialist teacher, QTVI, habilitation specialist, ToD, SW evidence, risk assessment, communication passport, emergency plans), medical letters from the 3 months beforehand, hospital passport, care plan, paediatric advanced care plan, and the last set of paperwork related to children’s continuing care funding. Why do you think a random HCP would know more about his impairments than the many professionals involved in his care?

I agree more assessments (not palliative) should be face to face and they are too reliant on 'self reporting'. I put in a claim for PIP in 2022 due to having arthritis, as my consultant said it would enable access to things like priority queuing at attractions etc. I didn't think I would qualify, my medical letters were very brief - just confirming my diagnosis, blood test results etc, nothing about my mobility, care needs etc. All the information they based their decision on was what I put on the form and what I said in a Teams call.

After a 3 years I was asked to put a review form to basically confirm nothing had changed and my claim was renewed, no evidence needed, and I just received a letter saying it wouldn't be reviewed until at least 2032. So 10 years of claims, worth over 60k, based 90% on what I wrote on a form and a 30 min call.

As a health professional, I was often asked to write supporting statements on DLA forms. Our manager has now told us not to after getting several complaints from parents for writing 'the wrong thing', being blamed when not awarded, being asked to change our statements etc. I cannot of course know what the family go through as home, I can only write as a professional opinion of a child's mobility.

I don't judge them, the nhs is struggling to provide decent amounts of therapy, and families use this DLA money to top up with private therapies, and try to get it however they can to meet their child's needs, but equally I cannot put my professional licence at risk by writing something I do not believe to be true.

A lot also comes down to skill in writing forms. Children who we expect to get higher awards often end up with lower and vice versa, and a lot seems to be based on how much experience, support and how articulate the parents are rather than the child's need levels

The system definitely needs an overhaul so those most in need get support quicker, and so assessments are more robust. Ideally these would be home visits so assessors can see the reality of a person's life, but the capacity just isn't there.

The evidence from HCPs would still be presented - the face to face meeting would be an extra layer of assessment.
The fact that only half as many people are approved after face to face assessments indicates that too many people are being given PIP when they are not assessed in person.

Thank you for this, it is very interesting and informative.

No, it does not indicate that. Posters have tried to explain to you why the award rate is higher, you still don’t want to understand.

What do you think that ‘extra layer’ from a one off F2F assessment by a random HCP who may not even know the condition let alone be able to assess the resultant functional impairment will provide that evidence from HCPs who are specialist in the person’s disability many of whom see the individual multiple times doesn’t?

DLA doesn’t have F2F (or phone or virtual) assessments at all. That isn’t a recent change.

There should be more help for parents with forms in that case. Or maybe DLA forms could be simplified so parents aren't expected to know which key words must be used, to spend so much time researching how to fill it out etc all whilst trying to cope with a child with medical needs.

Why? What does a face to face assessment do that a phone assessment can’t? many many people who are disabled or unwell really struggle to get to places for assessments, that’s why phone assessments were started.

Why would you need an extra layer of assessment when documentary evidence is provided by experts in the claimant’s condition.
when I completed the forms for attendance allowance for my dm (not PIP, but similar) this was supplemented by details from her consultant, GP, list of medications etc. What would an extra face to face assessment have added to this process? Apart from unnecessary expenditure.

A poster above is receiving 60k over ten years based on one very brief medical letter containing few details and what she herself has written on a form. I don’t doubt she’s been honest, but not everybody would be and an extra layer of assessment is therefore necessary.

Yes, I agree. I'm not an expert, but if parents tell me they are going to put a claim in, I give them brief advice around putting in about 'needs' rather than focusing on diagnosis, giving time taken and frequency, thinking about how the amount of support is more than their older children at same age if applicable, putting in as much detail as possible etc.
When I used to do supporting statements I saw so many where people gave very short answers. Sometimes it's just having some prompts - I think for some families they are so used to supporting their child it feels normal to them they don't think to write all the extra stuff they are doing. Equally some families access online forums which tell them keywords of what to write.

that Doesn’t answer my question. I said where evidence is provided by a doctor/hospital/list of medications etc ( not a brief medical letter) then what purpose does the face to face assessment serve?

It’s an extra layer of assessment to ensure that the claim is warranted.

But people have told you again and again that many people do not need to be seen in person because they have more than enough evidence from medical professionals to say that they qualify.
That if they have a long term disability that medical professionals say will not or cannot improve there is no point in them having to attend in person for the assessors to be confident they meet the criteria.
This group are hopefully less likely to be called for a f2f in person because they’re MORE likely to qualify automatically.
THAT is why they’re more likely to qualify even when not seen in person.

Again, what do you think that ‘extra layer’ from a one off F2F assessment by a random HCP who may not even know the condition let alone be able to assess the resultant functional impairment will provide that evidence from HCPs who are specialist in the person’s disability many of whom see the individual multiple times doesn’t?

So what you are actually saying is that letters from consultants, doctors and lists of medications are insufficient evidence to determine if a claim is warranted? Because the evidence from these health care experts is false/unreliable/fake?
In the face to face interview a person who is likely not an expert in the condition (as no assessor can be an expert in all area) is there to verify that what the consultant has written is actually (in the assessor’s opinion) true?

I’m not saying the evidence is fake, but in some cases it is insufficient.

The extra layer argument is completely nonsensical.
so ShanghaiDiva’s mum it says here you have lung cancer and COPD..but do you really? I mean I’m no expert but you look well enough to me. Are you sure these oxygen saturation levels are accurate?