Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · May 13

Good work Charlie.

"A Lapsed appeal is where DWP changed the decision in the customer’s favour after an
appeal was lodged but before it was heard at a tribunal hearing".

We have to wonder how many claimants would have already given up, after being denied initially or at Mandatory Reconsideration.

1 2

Reposted by Martin Bonner

Dr Jay Watts (they/she) @shrinkatlarge.bsky.social · Apr 24

Please give this flyer to any healthcare provider you come across as the more signatures we get the better. Thanks to the fab
@argentas.bsky.social for the flyer idea, the qr code and being a FOi genius! #WelfareNotWarfare

12 16

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 19

Correct. Sorry, I meant to say activity, not descriptor

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 19

Yeah, it's the fact that the points awarded during the assessments can be so arbitrary that causes so much stress. You never know how they will assess from one time to the next, even if your condition hasn't changed!

1 1

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 19

Many sections you can only score even numbers and only washing and bathing has a 3pt option, so maximum of 21 points without scoring any 4s or above. But the point you were making about scoring lots of pts but getting nothing under the new rules is 100% correct

assets.ctfassets.net/vms0u05139aw...

assets.ctfassets.net

1 1 1

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 19

It would be 21/84 (one '3' and nine '2's), because there is only one descriptor that has a '3 pts' option (most have descriptors that score 0, 2, 4 etc).

The point you made absolutely still stands though. You could score 21 points and still not be eligible for daily living under the new rules.

2 1

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 18

Thank you for pointing that out. I have plenty of experience of the PIP application, assessment, and scoring criteria, but don't have any experience with ESA or with UC WCA / LCWRA, so it's taking me some time to figure out all the implications of the changes to those groups.

1 3

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 18

The more I read the disability reforms green paper, the more it feels akin to:

"We've decided to drive a truck into a huge crowd of people. We're not consulting on that decision, but we invite responses on what mitigations we should put in place for those affected."

1 5 6

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 18

The daily living component is however used as the gateway for carers allowance and the carers element of UC. So there will be knock on effects from that if claimants lose the daily living component.

1 1 4

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 18

One think to bear in mind is that there are no changes proposed to the mobility component of PIP, which is generally what the local authorities are interested in with regard to blue badge applications. So even if someone loses the daily living component they should retain their mobility entitlement

3 1 2

Reposted by Martin Bonner

Louise Murphy @louisemurphy.bsky.social · Apr 17

As an aside - it's frustrating that this data was only released via the FOI process and wasn't included in the Green Paper evidence pack.

(Despite the Green Paper being released a month ago now, we still only have an "interim evidence pack", which just includes 6 charts rehearsing old material.)

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 16

The DWP have responded to my FOI request. Their figures indicate that 87% of clamants currently receiving PIP daily living at the standard rate, and 13% of claimants receiving enhanced rate, are likely to lose their entitlement if the score 4 changes go ahead.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pers...

Text and table screenshot from the DWP response to my Freedom of Information request. The original document is linked in the post.

2 7 11

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 17

Completely agree. It was also a disgrace that it took them 3 weeks to offer the document in an accessible format, particularly given the group the changes will affect.

1

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 16

Also, if the percentages they provided were for those who were not awarded at least 4 points in all ten categories, the figure for the standard daily living rate would have been 100%, as by definition anyone scoring 40+ points would be in the enhanced rate bracket and not the standard rate bracket.

2

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 16

I'll admit it may have been less confusing if I had posed the question the other way around, but *all* was correct in this context.
eg. "Which students scored less than 40% in *all* of their exams?" is the same as "Which students did not score 40% or more in *any* of their exams?"

1 2

Reposted by Martin Bonner

Tom Royston @tomroyston.bsky.social · Apr 16

DWP's wording is unhelpful, but I think actually the stats being provided re the 'all' and the 'any' FOIs are the same: if you sum 13% of 1.6m (standard DL) and 87% of 1.3m (enhanced DL) you get an overall 46% of the 2.9m total DL awards excluded.

1 1 4

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 16

I was hoping this was a mistake, but someone else has submitted a similar FOI, and the figures tally

13% of 1608000 = 209040
87% of 1283000 = 1116210
(209040+1116210) / (1608000+1283000) = 46% of total recipients do not meet the 4 pts requirement.

(The other FOI response says 54% do score 4 pts)

www.whatdotheyknow.com

2 7 16

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 16

The DWP have responded to my FOI request. Their figures indicate that 87% of clamants currently receiving PIP daily living at the standard rate, and 13% of claimants receiving enhanced rate, are likely to lose their entitlement if the score 4 changes go ahead.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pers...

3 32 27

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Apr 16

Hi Rachel. It's already gone viral on X, and I've posted links there to the full FOI response, so I'm not worried either way. Thank you for asking though!

1 1

Reposted by Martin Bonner

Kidney Care UK @kidneycareuk.bsky.social · Mar 19

📣 Read our response to the new #WelfareGreenPaper released by govt yesterday that discusses changes to benefits in the UK. We want to see a system that respects, understands & listens to all, especially when it comes to people with #CKD

More info: kidneycareuk.org/news-from-ki...

2 3

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Mar 19

I suspect they will drag their heels and/or refuse to release the information prior to the government's impact statement being published.

1 1

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Mar 19

So sorry to hear this. There are so many who are perfectly happy to gaslight those with disabilities and complex long term health issues by telling them what they should and shouldn't be capable of, rather than listening to the lived expeiences of those for whom these issues are a daily reality.

1

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Mar 19

The issue is that that the most significant proposals within the green paper are explicitly excluded from the the consultation

1

Reposted by Martin Bonner

Stef Benstead @stefbenstead.bsky.social · Mar 18

Benefits and Work have done a really good piece here, looking at what the DWP is and isn't consulting on.
It isn't consulting on the major issues: scrapping WCA; PIP Daily Living & UC Health Element; freezing UC HE until 2029/30; 4-point criterion for PIP
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/dwp-lau...

DWP launches entirely bogus Green Paper consultation

Get the benefits you're entitled to: help with personal independence payment (PIP), universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA),disability living allowance (DLA). Claims, assessments...

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk

1 10 10

Reposted by Martin Bonner

flâneurben @flaneurben.bsky.social · Mar 18

Wrote to my MP (Joe Powell, Lab, Kensington & Bayswater) fwiw
#UKpol #benefits

Letter to Jow Powell MP for Kensington & Bayswater
Dear Mr Powell,
Disability benefits
I was fortunate to be represented by your predecessors Karen Buck and Emma Dent Coad, whose personal commitments to social justice were sustaining through the dark days of the Tory governments from 2010. I was initially optimistic when Labour secured a majority last summer that the UK would be able to move away from an irrational commitment to the neoliberal economic dogma which has done so much to immiserate all but the very wealthiest people in this country.
I'm afraid that any remaining optimism has been pretty much extinguished by today's statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
As a practising GP who has worked in the NHS since I qualified more than 20 years ago, I understand well the relationship between ill-health, disability and poverty, and I have witnessed at first hand the inevitable and deliberately cruel effects of previous governments' cuts to the support available to people who are not able to work: for any reason, but particularly because of illness and disability.
I frequently provide reports for patients of mine who are claiming Personal Independence Payment for the first time, or who are undergoing reassessment, and so I am well aware of the already-stringent criteria that have to be met before PIP is awarded. In my professional opinion, there is no-one who would meet the current PIP criteria who could not be said to be significantly disabled.

In order to achieve a nugatory reduction in benefits spending, to help the Chancellor meet her self-imposed and self-defeating fiscal rules, Ms Kendall proposes to further tighten the eligibility criteria for PIP and other illness-related support, and to freeze, cut or abolish the incapacity components of Universal Credit. These changes are estimated to reduce claimants' incomes by several thousand pounds a year.
We know from long experience that making people poorer doesn't make them any healthier, nor any more likely to find suitable and dignified work. Everyone, regardless of employment, pays taxes and stimulates the economy through their consumer choices. These kneejerk changes, chasing short-term gains, will have profoundly harmful long-term effects on individuals and on the economy as a whole.

Respected charities including Scope, Mind and the Child Poverty Action Group have already identified the harm these cuts will do to millions of people and their families who are already among the poorest in Britain. Your colleague Debbie Abrahams bravely warned the Government against “balancing the books on the backs of sick and disabled people.”
The cynical media management on this issue that has been on display in the past few days has also been appalling. For the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to imply that disability benefits are given based on over-diagnosis of mental health problems, or to deliberately conflate PIP with being unemployed, is shameful. Baroness Grey-Thompson has rightly warned of the increase in discrimination, abuse and violence that disabled people will experience as a direct result of the Government's pandering to the worst instincts of the right-wing.
What do you plan to do to limit the impoverishment, distress and further ill-health that will inevitably flow from these reckless proposals?
Yours sincerely,

3 6

Martin Bonner @argentas.bsky.social · Mar 18

I have submitted an FOI request to try and find out how many of those currently receiving PIP (personal independence payment) may lose their entitlement under the new rules:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pers...

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - a Freedom of Information request to Department for Work and Pensions

Please could you provide the following information: The number of claimants currently in receipt of PIP daily living component at: a) The standard rate b) The enhanced rate For each of the above, pl...

www.whatdotheyknow.com

2 1 9