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 agree.

I once read a report for a young person whose parent I supported to appeal. The young person had a home assessment. The report stated the young person ‘walked downstairs’ when the HCP arrived, sat at the ‘dining room table’ in their ‘school uniform’ and spoke to them ‘eloquently’. The young person lived in a bungalow, the family didn’t have a dining table let alone a dining room, the young person had EOTAS/EOTIS so didn’t attend school therefore didn’t have a uniform, and they used AAC. That was the most blatantly incorrect report I have read.

You keep saying that but it doesn’t make sense. Every applicant has to fill in paper forms.

Please link to the studies that show this.

So go and pick on other people who have options to increase their income. Not the most vulnerable people in society who have no way to do so.

Having fully trained public servants to do one to one interviews for PIP assessments would be very expensive indeed. Located in all areas of the country. And take ages to roll out.
You run, as people have pointed out the debacle of assessing terminally ill people and very poorly souls.

Yes, there is fraud within PIP. There will be with every benefit. As much as there is tax fraud from those who don’t pay what they should.

I am afraid, as with anything that is ruined by some who overclaim, exaggerate a payment that some will depend on may well be amended or overhauled to something less. So well done all those who have done exactly that.

I don't think it would save money except that it might put some of the slackers off.

The problem is it that it puts really sick people through the wringer why is that fair? It's bad enough that they are sick, but they don't even take the doctors word for it anymore, that's disgusting. I had to go with my husband for one of these in the few years before his retirement. The people that do them pretend to be nice,but they are mean. They misinterpreted every word he said about his conditions. When we got the letter back with a copy of what they had written down on their report along with their knock back, I thought they had given us somebody else's details by mistake! We had to appeal and go to court, get dr's letters, hospital appointment attendance letters ( again) do a day in the life letter to take with us, it was extremely stressful and even then they still tried to trap him and asked trick questions. All this when you are very ill is horrendous! All because some shiteheads cheat the system, the people who really are in need of support have to suffer.

Why say benefits when you clearly just mean PIP?

DLA seems to work fine without assessors so PIP paper applications are fine by me.

No, it does not meant they are not valid at all. It means that they have enough evidence without seeing the person.

Do you not think that the number of people being signed off would drop if more were assessed in person?
The Conservatives do. And Labour think so too - that’s why they’ve pledged at least 30 per cent will be assessed face to face (although they haven’t made that happen).

Signed off from what? PIP is not an out of work benefit.

I thought Friday night was the disability benefit bashing slot?

30% of PIP claimants? Or 30% of....? Be more specific. Your comment mentions "people being signed off" If you knew anything whatsoever about this subject you would know that PIP is NOT a work related benefit and many PIP claimants work, PIP enabling many to continue to do so. The phrase "signed off" refers to individuals claiming the Health Element of UC or ESA (which is now only contribution based and is only awarded if the NI qualification period is also met.)
As I've touched on, throwaway comments like yours in ill conceived posts that often have a completely different motive than the one you are supposedly putting across are dangerous, and, tbh, embarrassing, considering you have no actual data to give us.

Here I am, still waiting. And I've been to the shops and back- why do I get the distinct feeling that OP has no answer for someone who has spent over a decade ar the sharp end of welfare benefits and might, possibly, as many others here do, actually know a little of what they're talking about...🤔

How?

If they have the evidence required, seeing them in person shouldn't make a difference. It isn't required at all with DLA.

What do you mean by signed off?

I mean more people would be denied benefits.

Or perhaps a large number of the people who are deemed to be too sick to attend a face to face appointment get signed off, and those with a bad back get seen face to face?

Not sure what you mean by this. Everyone has to fill in an application form, or have someone fill it in for them.

The DWP then decides whether to make a decision based on the form/medical evidence or do a phone or face-to-face assessment.

If there's enough written evidence it doesn't save money or make sense to do an assessment as well - unless you choose to believe that the written evidence is false.

Worth nothing however that:

1. Fraud is under 1%. I think it's something like 0.2%
2. face-to-face assessments are pretty unreliable. The majority (I think around 80%) of claims which a refused and then taken to appeal are granted by the appeals court. In other words, the private contractors who do the f2f assessments are actually costing money by making inaccurate decisions!

Is there any evidence to support your assertion that PIP applicants who have a F2F assessment have a lower success rate than those who have a telephone assessment?

If so, I'd be very interested in seeing it, if you could provide a link.

No.

the political parties are promising it because they know there is a general belief that benefits generally are being claimed by people who don’t need them.

see housing benefit fraud, for example this sort of thing:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn330zkvnmyo

most benefits do have some level of fraud -
See for example this publication that has it by benefit type

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-ending-fye-2026-estimates/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-ending-fye-2026-estimates

universal credit, has 25% incorrect claims (either underpaid or overpaid). (The document is about the error rate and quite a few errors are underpaying benefits).

the government generally is not good at administering benefits. There are lots and lots of errors.

if you think how often someone’s circumstances change on UC - new job, new kid, new boyfriend etc - it’s just too expensive to send out an investigator every time.

There isn’t any data on how many change of circumstances are processed for UC each year but housing benefit has about 1 million claimants and processes 3-4 million changes of circumstances a year so if there are 8 million on UC that’s 24 million changes.

that’s a LOT of personal visits.

It might be something to do with fraud. Fraud cost £8.4bn in 2020 - 2021. Online processing has meant identity checks are an issue. Eg stealing identity to claim benefits. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57091551

Currently fraud is costing https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-2024-to-2025-estimates/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-ending-fye-2025

don’t know whether face to face would save more, or whether there are other methods to prevent it.

And if people who need those benefits are denied them I'd be willing to bet it would end up costing MORE when their health declines. That cost would be harder to see as it would show up in increased use of GP, hospital care, social care etc. but it would be there.

Not to mention that some people use their PIP to help themselves stay in work.

LCWRA, not PIP - but our assessor certainly lied. He also repeatedly broke DWP rules during the assessment. It was phone rather than face to face. DWP would have saved time and money if he’d told the truth in the first place instead of us having to request mandatory reconsideration, which my son then sailed through.

Do you not think there is a reason why some people dont need a face to face ?
I know lots of young adults who have transtioned from DLA to PIP and not needed a face to face
This is becsuse they have robust evidence such as EHCP ,s attend special schools etc
And its clear to everyone their needs are significant

Op did you know there is a special category for pip applications called special rules where 99% are successful?

given how suspicious you are of paper assessments I felt you should be aware of this extra special route!