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?

The number of people receiving handouts has risen by 300,000 during the past two years while the number of face-to-face welfare assessments has halved. Figures obtained by the Conservatives under
Freedom of Information laws reveal that 81 per cent of ‘paper-based reviews’ of personal independence payments claims are approved whereas just 42 per cent of face-to-face consultations are signed off.
If more people were assessed face to face less of them would be approved for benefits and that would save money.

I'd like to know how much it costs to hold a tribunal. A judge, a medical professional and person with experience of disability, plus a clerk to the tribunal and the related admin must cost a lot.

And that's before you consider the cost to the DWP of collating preparing their evidence. One of my cases had over 400 pages in the DWP's section of the bundle.

I retired last year, but must have done at least one PIP application a week, on average, since PIP started. Around a third of those ended up going to appeal. My success rate at tribunals was 100%, and was the same for all but one of my team.

If the DWP want to save money, they could improve their decision making and then a lot of those appeals would be unnecessary.

It wouldn't save money because they'd go to tribunal?

I get PIP. My last 2 assessments have been paper based and my award has stayed the same at both. I provided copious amounts of medical evidence both times I sent my review packs in so I didn’t need to have a face to face assessment.

They could save money by not reviewing people who they have been told won’t get better. My consultant told them that about 15yrs ago, yet I still have to fill in the bloody forms.

Why are some asked to attend a face to face assessment and some not?

I suspect the people who the assessors feel need the extra scrutiny are bring asked to attend in person, whereas the people who are clearly entitled go through the paper based route.

I've been to f2f assessments and as far as I recall I was not asked to prove my identity. In fact my paper form was probably better evidence that I am who I said I was because it contained multiple medical letters.

IDK how much identity theft is a part of benefit fraud but I do know that

1. Benefit fraud is much rarer than the news headlines sometimes imply
2. Where people do commit fraud it's usually for UC rather than PIP - things like claiming for multiple addresses (organised) or not telling the DWP that your partner has moved in/earnings have gone up etc.

I take your point about proving identity &, come to think of it, I did have to have a f2f identity check when i transferred to UC recently. If identity theft is a problem they could do that for PIP rather than a whole f2f assessment.

Everyone completes an application ..whether with support or not. The assessment is the next stage …you would have huge employment cost numbers to do it and where are you taking the qualified medical people FROM OP?

It sounds easy ..like means testing but you have to engage critical thinking

It would pointless insisting on face to face for someone who has documentation stating they have 3:1 24 hour care with accompanying care plans and risk assessments.

Not all are face to face though.

Yes for certain claimants it wouldn’t be necessary.

It was reported today in The Times, The Telegraph, the Daily Mail and many other media outlets based on information received by the Conservative Party following a Freedom of Information request.

Would they be denied more because they don't genuinely need them or would they be denied more because an assessor is encouraged to deny claimants?

In that case, how would it save money if claimants otherwise are approved through MR or tribunal? Tribunal isn't cheap.

People who need the benefits should not be denied them though.

Reviews and "consultations" are not the same thing.

A review is when the DWP send a claimant who's already getting PIP a form to fill in to see if there have been any changes. In my 25 years of welfare rights experience, I've never had a client assessed, by phone or in person, as part of the review process.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "consultation" but suspect you might be referring to the assessment, which can be done face to face, over the phone or, if an applicant has health conditions that render them housebound, at their home.

It happens. It's why MR and tribunals exist. Tribunals cost money.

And how would your proposal ensure this is the case?

Except they are. With face to face assessments they are. This is why such a high proportion of refusals are overturned by the appeals court.

It's also worth noting that the stress of f2f appointments can itself worsen a person's health.

Even with paper based it takes me months to recover from an assessment.

Handouts?

Paper based ..you mean letters from NHS Consultants? You’d rather a chat ..was the way to go? How do you believe an e.g. an ex physio decides someone is ineligible when 3 separate speciality Senior Doctors say they are?

How would 1 person have the expertise to assess in person the myriad of reasons people are disabled?

The government have accepted that welfare claims are not rising in an unexpected way..the results of raising the pension age for one thing has impacted claims.

Now tax avoidance ..we could create jobs for the disabled to tackle that.

Or a requirement for firms over a certain size to employ the proportion of disabled people in our society ..with penalties if they don’t …if you really are serious about helping everyone participate and contribute?

I think face to face would save more and we should also look at other methods to prevent fraud.

The fucking Tories keep telling people you can get a Motability car if you have acne or tennis elbow so I’d take what they say with a pinch of salt.

Based on what? They don't save money at all

People being assessed face to face would still have to fill in forms and provide the appropriate evidence.
Tackling tax avoidance and helping find more employment opportunities for disabled people are both good ideas, but they are not what we are discussing here.

Can you show me where they have said that?

Look up how many claimants are successful once they have appealed and won at tribunal. See if you think face to face would still save money or that genuine people are never turned down through face to face assessments.

People are approved after paper based because they have robust evidence, and they do not need to be seen.
It is a total waste of time and money to assess someone face to face if their paper based evidence is enough.
I am not sure why you think more people would be denied PIP if they had to have a face to face assessment.