With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

A panel of upper tribunal judges has made a decision relating to safety and supervision that Benefits and Work believes could allow many claimants with conditions such as epilepsy, heart disease, dementia and mental health conditions to receive the enhanced rate of the daily living component.

We also consider it will allow many claimants to receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component.

This will include some claimants who lost out due to a recent change in the law relating to planning and following journeys.

Be aware
This is very new case law, although it appears to take us back to very similar case law for disability living allowance (DLA).

We are setting out arguments below that we think are valid and that will allow thousands more claimants to be awarded PIP.

But we cannot guarantee in any way that they will be successful. All you can do is put forward the best evidence you can to support these points and, if you are not happy with the decision, consider challenging it by mandatory reconsideration and appeal.

And, as always, be aware that if you challenge a decision because you consider the award is too low, there is always a risk – however small – that you will lose the award you have.

Fifty percent rule
In CPIP/1599/2016 a panel of Upper Tribunal judges looked at the issues of safety and supervision, after conflicting decisions were made by individual upper tribunal judges.

Until now, the DWP have argued that a claimant can only score points for being unsafe if harm is likely to occur on more than 50% of the occasions on which they attempt an activity.

A claimant who has epilepsy which causes seizures once or twice a week, for example, may not attempt to cook unsupervised because they know that if they have a seizure they could come to serious harm

However, the DWP have been refusing to award points to claimants with epilepsy on these grounds, unless the claimant cannot show that it is ‘more likely than not’ that they will have a seizure on any given occasion when they prepare food.

This is an almost impossibly harsh test, as is shown by the thousands of claimants with epilepsy who are having their payments removed entirely on being moved from DLA to PIP.

Upper Tribunal disagrees
On 9th March, however, the panel of Upper Tribunal judges rejected the DWP’s 50% rule.

Instead, the panel held that the decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be. The greater the potential harm, the less likely it needs to be that it would happen on any specific occasion.

At paragraph 56, the tribunal held that:

“An assessment that an activity cannot be carried out safely does not require that the occurrence of harm is “more likely than not”. In assessing whether a person can carry out an activity safely, a tribunal must consider whether there is a real possibility that cannot be ignored of harm occurring, having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case. It follows that both the likelihood of the harm occurring and the severity of the consequences are relevant. The same approach applies to the assessment of a need for supervision.”

For example, someone who is deaf may be unable to hear a smoke alarm if a fire starts when they are bathing.

The risk of a fire starting on any given occasion is very small, but also very real. And the harm that might occur if the claimant was caught in the bathroom during a fire is potentially fatal. So, the risk is small but the potential harm is very great. Therefore the claimant cannot carry out the activity of washing and bathing safely unless they have supervision.

The same logic will also apply to people who have epileptic seizures and need someone to keep them safe if they do.

Standard daily living for epilepsy
Clearly activities like bathing and preparing food carry particular risks in the event of a seizure.

But on their own, they are not enough to allow a claimant to score the 8 points needed for even the standard award of the daily living component. The points for these two activities would be just six:

1 e. Needs supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal. 4 points.

4 c. Needs supervision or prompting to be able to wash or bathe. 2 points.

But the panel made another extremely important finding.

They ruled that where a claimant is at risk all the time, even if they are just sitting in a chair doing nothing, then they may also be at risk when carrying out PIP activities that do not carry any additional likelihood of harm.

At paragraph 66, the Upper Tribunal stated that they agreed with Judge Jacobs when he found the following:

“18. As I understand it, the judge is asking whether the risk that can be taken into account for preparing food or planning and following a journey must be a risk specifically related to that activity. The answer is: no. A risk that gives rise to a need for supervision need not be a risk that is unique to a particular activity or to the activities in Schedule 1 generally. It is sufficient if it is a general risk, even one that applies when the claimant is doing nothing, provided that the requirements of a particular descriptor are satisfied.

19. Take preparing food, Activity 1. The tribunal found that the claimant satisfied descriptor e, which carries 4 points:

Needs supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal.

The issue for the tribunal was whether the claimant had a need for supervision when cooking. If he did, it did not matter whether that need was specifically related to that activity or was a general one that would affect other activities and even exist when the claimant was doing nothing at all. The descriptor was satisfied. This is so whether the other activities affected are within the scope of personal independence payment or not. Many conditions have an effect beyond the particular activities in Schedule 1 and, perhaps, generally. It would be anomalous to exclude them from the scope of personal independence payment.

20. The same applies for all activities, including planning and following journeys.”:

So, a claimant may not be at any additional risk of harm if they have a seizure when using the toilet or taking medication, for example. But, because they are at risk whatever they are doing, then we would argue that they still reasonably require supervision during these activities because they cannot do them safely without supervision.

This opens up the possibility of scoring further points for supervision:

2 b. (ii) [Needs] supervision to be able to take nutrition; 2 points.

3 b (ii) [Needs] supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage medication. 1 point.

5 c. Needs supervision or prompting to be able to manage toilet needs. 2 points.

If they all apply, this would allow a claimant with epilepsy to score 11 points in total for supervision, enough for an award of the standard rate of PIP daily living.

Enhanced daily living for epilepsy
But, we believe, there is more.

Where the descriptors do not refer to supervision, then it can be argued instead, that the claimant is unable to carry out the activity safely at all. So, most obviously:

6 f. Cannot dress or undress at all. 8 points.

Some of the other daily living activities, such as reading and budgeting, may be harder to argue, though logically they should also apply.

But even without the other activities, this allows a total of 19 points, well above the threshold of 12 points needed to get an award of the enhanced rate for daily living.

Daily living for other conditions
The same logic should apply to some claimants with learning difficulties, dementia, heart problems or mental health conditions, amongst others

So, someone at risk of serious self-harm or at risk of committing suicide might well qualify for the enhanced rate of the daily living component, if they need someone to supervise them to keep them safe.

Someone with learning difficulties which leads to a lack of awareness of danger may also qualify.

Mobility component for epilepsy
The panel also held that the same arguments apply to the Planning and following journeys mobility activity, though not to the Moving around activity.

So, a claimant who is at risk of seizures should meet mobility descriptor:

1 f. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points.

However, it’s important to be aware that this decision was made before the government changed the law in relation to Planning and following journeys to specifically rule out psychological distress for descriptors c) d) and f) of this activity.

So it will be vital to stress the risk to the claimant, rather than their fear.

A claimant with epilepsy may become overwhelmingly anxious at the thought of undertaking even a familiar journey alone, because of fears that they might have a seizure. This, however, would not allow them to score more than 2 points for this activity.

But, regardless of their fear, if there is a need for supervision to reduce the risk of harm if they do have a seizure when following the route of a familiar journey, then that should allow them to receive the enhanced rate of the mobility component.

Mobility component for other conditions
As with the daily living component, the same logic should apply to some claimants with learning difficulties, dementia, heart problems.

So, someone at risk of serious self-harm or at risk of committing suicide might well qualify for the enhanced rate of the daily living component if they need someone to supervise them to keep them safe.

Mobility component for mental health
Whilst this decision may allow many claimants with physical health conditions and learning difficulties to get the enhanced rate of the mobility component, it may be of less value for claimants who, for example, experience panic attacks.

This is because of the recent change in the law which adds the words ‘For reasons other than psychological distress’ to descriptors c), d) and f).

It will be necessary to show that the claimant would be at risk of harm, rather than simply distressed, in order to score points for descriptors that preclude psychological distress.

Which decisions will be affected?
Claims made on or after 9 March and review decision made on or after 9 March should be subject to this new case law.

Will the DWP appeal this case?
The DWP may very well appeal, but there’s a very good chance they will lose.

If you challenge a decision not to award you PIP when you think this case law applies, it may well be that your case will be stayed until any DWP appeal has been heard.

Will the government just change the law?
Quite possibly. But changes to the law are very rarely retrospective. So, unless and until they change the law, there is a window of opportunity to make claims on this basis, always provided the DWP don’t win an appeal.

How do I include this in my claim?
We’re updating our PIP guide right now to include information on how to add this to your PIP 2 form. Check back on this page to find out when the up the updated guide is available

You can download the full decision from this page

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

The DWP have revealed that thousands of claimants with epilepsy are having losing some or all of their disability benefit on being transferred from disability living allowance (DLA) to personal independence payment (PIP).

Figures released in response to a written parliamentary question show that in January to December 2014, 180 claimants with epilepsy had their award decreased and 410 got no award at all.

In January to December 2015, 610 had their award reduced and 1,600 got no award at all.

In January to October 2016, 1,550 had their award reduced and 4,540 got no award at all.

You can read the full answer on this page

We’ve just spotted this post on Facebook. It was written by a parent carer who we’re keeping anonymous, so we are deliberately not linking back to the original post. This is how the PIP assessment process is affecting parent carers, as well as claimants.

actually been feeling suicidal today(wishing me and my two autistic sons could go to sleep and never wake up ) today after results of my 19 year old sons PIP assessment came through … they have taken away his mobility component completely … did someone forget to tell me they had cured his autism… the patronising statement at the end has just broken my heart … tired of always having to fight for my sons rights …they are age 19 and 10

It’s rapidly becoming clear that Prime Minister Theresa May’s bold pledge to create a Britain that works for everyone should have an asterisk attached to facilitate the addition of “except for those pesky people with disabilities, can’t we pack them off somewhere else?”

In recent days the Government’s plan to cut people with serious mental health conditions out of eligibility for personal independent payments has justifiably come under sustained fire. 

However, the attitude problem displayed by both May’s administration, and that of her predecessor David Cameron, goes beyond that, as a delve into the latest statistics demonstrates.

What they show is that the number of appeals against decisions made by the DWP on the basis of assessments made by the private, profit driven contractors working on its behalf is increasing at a similar speed to that at which Lewis Hamilton exits Silverstone corners. 

They show that there were 60,600 Social Security & Child Support appeals between October and December 2016, an increase of 47 per cent. Even Lewis might think twice about acceleration like that. 

Some 85 per cent of those appeals were accounted for by the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the Employment & Support Allowance (ESA).

The rate at which the decisions made by the DWP on the basis of information supplied by the Government’s contractors – Capita and Atos – are overturned is also increasing. 

People started taking notice when it was running at 50 per cent. Now close to two thirds of appeals the case of the PIP (65 per cent) are successful. The figure is higher still when it comes to ESA (68 per cent). 

I’m given to understand that the people who sit on tribunals have been asked to keep June clear, in an attempt to reduce a growing backlog. So forget about an early summer holiday. 

Needless to say, these people have to be paid, which puts extra cost into the system at a time when the Government says it’s trying to save money. 

Simply applying for either benefit causes a great deal of stress to people with disabilities. Having to go to appeal only exacerbates that. Applicants find themselves in the middle of a process that is humiliating and dehumanising.

That process also seems to throw up scandals with alarming regularity. Channel Four, for example, infamously filmed a Capita assessor saying a claimant had a “disability known as being fat”. Another claimed to have filled out forms before even seeing clients amid pressure to get as many done as quickly as possible. 

Other scandals have involved people with weeks or months to live being told they’re fit for work in the case of ESA, which is paid to people whose fitness to do so is impacted by medical conditions and disabilities. 

Set against that backdrop, is it any wonder that there has been so much criticism of the process, and so many successful appeals? 

If the assessment process worked effectively, and as it should, the number should be limited, and you wouldn’t expect such a large majority to be successful.

Ken Butler, welfare rights advisor at Disability Rights UK, says he is “very worried for all those disabled people who get turned down for benefits and don’t have the time or energy to challenge poor decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)”. 

He adds: “We’d advise all claimants to get benefits advice and, if they are turned down, to use the independent appeals process.”

Butler says that the high success rate of appeals clearly demonstrates that there is something wrong with the system. 

Unless, of course, the system, also savagely criticised by the United Nations, was deliberately set up to be this way. 

Before you suggest that is me indulging in a conspiracy theory, take a moment to think about this. If you make something difficult, stressful and painful, if you litter it with traps, and take the view that everyone getting involved in it is a dirty scrounger until proven otherwise, a lot of people will get put off and won’t apply. Still more won’t appeal when turned down, saving the Government money it can use for things like millionaires tax cuts. 

Dealing with a disability presents enough of a challenge as it is, without having to get to grips with a state that operates in a manner that would have impressed some of George Orwell’s darker characters. Would anyone be terribly surprised to find O’Brien working as a civil servant in the DWP?

The cynicism on display is breathtaking, if my assessment is correct. Alternatively, the situation I’ve discussed could simply have been created by a toxic mix of bureaucratic callousness and incompetence. 

The net effect is the same regardless, which is why there will be peals of bitter laughter emanating from Britain’s disabled community every time those words of Theresa May’s are trotted out. 

You’d be able to hear them if it weren’t for the fact that so many people with disabilities are now trapped in their own homes.  

With many thanks to Benefits And Work:

The full list of PIP points, as from 16 March 2017, is set out below.

DAILY LIVING ACTIVITIES

1. Preparing food.
a. Can prepare and cook a simple meal unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to either prepare or cook a simple meal.  2 points.
c. Cannot cook a simple meal using a conventional cooker but is able to do so using a microwave. points. 2 points
d. Needs prompting to be able to either prepare or cook a simple meal.  2 points.
e. Needs supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal.  4 points.
f. Cannot prepare and cook food.  8 points.

2. Taking nutrition.
a. Can take nutrition unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs –
(i) to use an aid or appliance to  be able to take nutrition; or
(ii) supervision to be able to take nutrition; or
(iii) assistance to be able to cut up food.  2 points.
c. Needs a therapeutic source to be able to take nutrition.  2 points.
d. Needs prompting to be able to take nutrition.  4 points.
e. Needs assistance to be able to manage a therapeutic source to take nutrition.  6 points.
f. Cannot convey food and drink to their mouth and needs another person to do so.  10 points.

3. Managing therapy or monitoring a health condition.
a. Either –
(i) does not receive medication or therapy or need to monitor a health condition; or
(ii) can manage medication or therapy or monitor a health condition unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs any one or more of the following –
(i) to use an aid or appliance to be able to manage medication;
(ii) supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage medication.  
(iii) supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to monitor a health condition.  1 point.
c. Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes no more than 3.5 hours a week.  2 points.
d. Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes more than 3.5 but no more than 7 hours a week.  4 points.
e. Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes more than 7 but no more than 14 hours a week.  6 points.
f. Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes more than 14 hours a week.  8 points.

4. Washing and bathing.
a. Can wash and bathe unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to wash or bathe.  2 points.
c. Needs supervision or prompting to be able to wash or bathe.  2 points.
d. Needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist.  2 points.
e. Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath or shower.  3 points.
f. Needs assistance to be able to wash their body between the shoulders and waist.  4 points.
g. Cannot wash and bathe at all and needs another person to wash their entire body.  8 points.

5. Managing toilet needs or incontinence.
a. Can manage toilet needs or  incontinence unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to manage toilet needs or incontinence.  2 points.
c. Needs supervision or prompting to be able to manage toilet needs.  2 points.
d. Needs assistance to be able to manage toilet needs.  4 points.
e. Needs assistance to be able to manage incontinence of either bladder or bowel.  6 points.
f. Needs assistance to be able to manage incontinence of both bladder and bowel.  8 points.

6. Dressing and undressing.
a. Can dress and undress unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to dress or undress.  2 points.
c. Needs either –
(i) prompting to be able to dress, undress or determine appropriate circumstances for remaining clothed; or
(ii) prompting or assistance to be able to select appropriate clothing.  2 points.
d. Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body.  2 points.
e. Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their upper body.  4 points.
f. Cannot dress or undress at  all.  8 points.

7. Communicating verbally.
a. Can express and understand verbal information unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to speak or hear.  2 points.
c. Needs communication support to be able to express or understand complex verbal information.  4 points.
d. Needs communication support to be able to express or understand basic verbal information.  8 points.
e. Cannot express or understand verbal information at all even with communication support.  12 points.

8. Reading and understanding signs, symbols and words.
a. Can read and understand basic and complex written information either unaided or using spectacles or contact lenses.  0 points.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance, other than spectacles or contact lenses, to be able to read or understand either basic or complex written information.  2 points.
c. Needs prompting to be able to read or understand complex written information.  2 points.
d. Needs prompting to be able to read or understand basic written information.  4 points.
e. Cannot read or understand signs, symbols or words at all.  8 points.

9. Engaging with other people face to face.
a. Can engage with other people unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs prompting to be able to engage with other people.  2 points.
c. Needs social support to be able to engage with other people.  4 points.
d. Cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing either –
(i) overwhelming
psychological distress to the claimant; or
(ii) the claimant to exhibit behaviour which would result in a substantial risk of harm to the claimant or another person. 8 points.

10. Making budgeting decisions.
a. Can manage complex  budgeting decisions unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make complex budgeting decisions.  2 points.
c. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make simple budgeting decisions.  4 points.
d. Cannot make any budgeting decisions at all.  6 points.

MOBILITY ACTIVITIES

1. Planning and following journeys.
a. Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided.  0 points.
b. Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.  4 points.
c. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot plan the route of a journey.  8 points.
d. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid.  10 points.
e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.  10 points.
f. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid.  12 points.

2. Moving around.
a. Can stand and then move more than 200 metres, either aided or unaided.  0 points.
b. Can stand and then move more than 50 metres but no more than 200 metres, either aided or unaided.  4 points.
c. Can stand and then move unaided more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres.  8 points.
d. Can stand and then move using an aid or appliance more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres.  10 points.
e. Can stand and then move more than 1 metre but no more than 20 metres, either aided or unaided.  12 points.
f. Cannot, either aided or unaided, –
(i) stand; or
(ii) move more than 1 metre.  12 points.

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) daily living component points scores

To get an award of the daily living component, you need to score:

8 points for the standard rate
12 points for the enhanced rate

For daily living, the points need to be scored from activities 1-10 above. 

You can only score one set of points from each activity, if two or more apply from the same activity only the highest will count.  So, for example, if:

4  d. Needs assistance to groom.  2 points
4  g. Needs assistance to bathe.  4 points

both apply you will receive only the 4 points for the ‘Bathing and grooming’ activity.  These can then be added to points for other activities, such as ‘Dressing and undressing’

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Mobility Component Points Scores

To get an award of the mobility component you need to score:

8 points for the standard rate
12 points for the enhanced rate

For mobility, the points need to be scored from mobility activities 1-2 above. 

As with daily living above, you only score the highest points that apply to you from each activity, but you can add points from activities 1 and 2 together to reach your final total.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Variable and fluctuating conditions
Taking a view of ability over a longer period of time helps to iron out fluctuations and presents a more coherent picture of disabling effects. Therefore the descriptor choice should be based on consideration of a 12 month period.

Scoring descriptors will apply to individuals where their impairment(s) affects their ability to complete an activity on more than 50 per cent of days in the 12 month period. The following rules apply:

If one descriptor in an activity applies on more than 50 per cent of the days in the period – i.e. the activity cannot be completed in the way described on more than 50 per cent of days – then that descriptor should be chosen.

If more than one descriptor in an activity applies on more than 50 per cent of the days in the period, then the descriptor chosen should be the one which applies for the greatest proportion of the time.

Where one single descriptor in an activity is not satisfied on more than 50 per cent of days, but a number of different descriptors in that activity together are satisfied on more than 50 per cent of days – for example, descriptor ‘B’ is satisfied on 40 per cent of days and descriptor ‘C’ on 30 per cent of days – the descriptor satisfied for the highest proportion of the time should be selected.

Awaiting treatment
If someone is awaiting treatment or further intervention it can be difficult to accurately predict its level of success or whether it will even occur. Descriptor choices should therefore be based on the likely continuing impact of the health condition or impairment as if any treatment or further intervention has not occurred.

Reliably, in a timely fashion, repeatedly and safely
An individual must be able to complete an activity descriptor reliably, in a timely fashion, repeatedly and safely; and where indicated, using aids and appliances or with support from another person (or, for activity 10, a support dog). Otherwise they should be considered unable to complete the activity described at that level.

Reliably means to a reasonable standard.

In a timely fashion means in less than twice the time it would take for an individual without any impairment.

Repeatedly means completed as often during the day as the individual activity requires. Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative effects of symptoms such as pain and fatigue – i.e. whether completing the activity adversely affects the individual’s ability to subsequently complete other activities.

Safely means in a fashion that is unlikely to cause harm to the individual, either directly or through vulnerability to the actions of others; or to another person.

Risk and Safety
When considering whether an activity can be undertaken safely it is important to consider the risk of a serious adverse event occurring. However, the risk that a serious adverse event may occur due to impairments is insufficient – there has to be evidence that if the activity was undertaken, the adverse event is likely to occur.

Aids and appliances
The assessment will take some account of aids and appliances which are used in everyday life. In this context:

Aids are devices that help a performance of a function, for example, walking sticks or spectacles.

Appliances are devices that provide or replace a missing function, for example artificial limbs, collecting devices (stomas) and wheelchairs.

The assessment will take into account aids and appliances that individuals normally use and low cost, commonly available ones which someone with their impairment might reasonably be expected to use, even if they are not normally used.

Individuals who use or could reasonably be expected to use aids to carry out an activity will generally receive a higher scoring descriptor than those who can carry out the activity unaided.

Support dogs
We recognise that guide, hearing and dual sensory dogs are not ‘aids’ but have attempted to ensure that the descriptors capture the additional barriers and costs of needing such a dog where they are required to enable individuals to follow a journey safely.

Support from other people
The assessment will take into account where individuals need the support of another person or persons to carry out an activity – including where that person has to carry out the activity for them in its entirety. The criteria refer to three types of support:

Assistance is support that requires the presence and physical intervention of another person i.e. actually doing some or all of the task in question. This specifically excludes non-physical intervention such as prompting or supervision which are defined below. To apply, this only needs to be required for part of the activity.

Prompting is support provided by reminding or encouraging an individual to undertake or complete a task but not physically helping them. To apply, this only needs to be required for part of the activity.

Supervision is a need for the continuous presence of another person to avoid a serious adverse event from occurring to the individual. There must be evidence that any risk would be likely to occur in the absence of such supervision. To apply, this must be required for the full duration of the activity.

Unaided
Within the assessment criteria, the ability to perform an activity ‘unaided’ means without either the use of aids or appliances or assistance/prompting/supervision from another person.

Epilepsy
Epilepsy is a marked example of a fluctuating condition where an individual can have no functional limitation one minute and considerable limitation the next. Assessment should be based on the impact this causes.

Key to assessing individuals with epilepsy is the consideration of risk. Within each activity, the relevant descriptor should apply to a person with epilepsy if there is evidence that a serious adverse event is likely to occur if the person carried out the activity in that descriptor. It is essential to consider the likely effects of any seizure – type and frequency of fit, associated behaviour, the post-ictal phase and whether there is likely to be sufficient warning to mitigate any risk of danger.

Excellent coverage of PIP changes from the Victoria Derbyshire programme.

Changes to Personal Independence Payments or PIPs have come into force.
The Victoria Derbyshire programme spoke to a panel of guests about how the benefit changes will affect those with mental rather than a physical disability.

Benefits And Work have published the results of their recent survey on ESA and PIP home assessments. They are full of facts and stats, but Same Difference is most interested in the “rate your assessor” section, which describes assessors’ behaviour during home assessments:

Some people praised their assessors manner, others were less impressed.

He was a robot.

The assessor sat in a different room to me as he needed a table for his laptop. He complained about the software for home visits throughout and never broke from typing to even look up when I spoke.

Turned up with a laptop. Literally zero eye contact just sat tapping away on her laptop, asked me if I spoke and understood English, asked me if I could read and write to which I said yes to both. Both trick questions as she used this against me in her decision by saying I was able to communicate effectively, pay my bills without help.

Madness!

A little piece of ESA report madness this afternoon, readers:

The Government’s fit-to-work tests for access to disability benefits are causing permanent damage to some claimants’ mental health, from which they are not recovering, a new study has warned.

The research, conducted by academics at Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt and Napier universities, found that the Work Capability Assessment experience “for many, caused a deterioration in people’s mental health which individuals did not recover from”.

It also established, through dozens of in-depth interviews of people who had been through the tests, that “in the worst cases, the WCA experience led to thoughts of suicide”. Mental health charities said the interviews’ contents “reflect what we hear from people every day”.

The study interviewed 30 people with existing mental health conditions who had taken the tests throughout 2016. Most suffered from depression or anxiety, while a smaller number had more complex issues like bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder. In addition, researchers also interviewed a number of advocacy workers who had had close contact with the test.

The study’s participants reported a lack of expertise in mental health among WCA assessors and advice from the WCA that was not consistent with what they had been told by their own GPs. In one case recorded in the study, a participant recounted a doctor “actually physically gasping” during an appeal because of the poor quality of evidence initially recorded by a WCA assessor. 

Some study participants reported being in tears or having panic attacks during the tests, with others telling the interviewers that the assessments were “making me feel worse”.

The researchers said that the extreme stress having to deal with multiple stigmas of being unemployed and having a mental health condition became “self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating”, leading to the deterioration of claimants’ condition.

“Our research has reinforced the fact that people with mental health problems face more stigma and discrimination than those with physical health conditions and that this discrimination is built into the WCA,” the study’s final report concluded.

Professor Abigail Marks, the lead author of the study who is based at Heriot-Watt University, told The Independent that people who worked closely with such cases reported that deterioration in mental health conditions was an “almost universal” response to the tests.

Key causes of extreme stress were said to be a claimant’s fear of losing their income, the prolonged nature of tests, a lack of specialist mental health training amongst assessors, and the fact the test was clearly geared towards people with physical disabilities. 

“A lot of the people we spoke to were in a position where they are preparing to go back to work before their assessment – they were doing training courses, community initiatives, or volunteering,” she said.

“They said that after the assessment, because the assessment had caused them so much stress, they were unable to go back and take part in those activities because their mental health had had such a deterioration.

“Talking to the advocacy workers, as well, they said it was almost universal that after people had gone through an assessment there was a significant decrease in their mental health.”

In October last year the Government announced that it would stop repeat Work Capability Assessments for people with chronic conditions, characterising the repeat assessments it was scrapping as “unnecessary stress and bureaucracy”.

Mental health charity Mind said the WCA was clearly “not fit for purpose” and that its lengthy and costly appeals processes could make matters worse.

“The findings of this report are concerning but sadly not surprising, as they reflect what we hear from people every day,” Ayaz Manji, the charity’s policy and campaigns officer, said.

“People with mental health problems tell us that the current fit-for-work test causes a great deal of additional anxiety. We know the assessors rarely have sufficient knowledge or expertise in mental health, meaning many people don’t get the right outcome and then have to go through a lengthy and costly appeals process.

“The current approach is not fit for purpose and needs to be replaced by an open and honest conversation based on each person’s individual needs.”

Debbie Abrahams, the Labour work and pensions spokeswoman, said the study was more proof that the WCA “is not only unfit for purpose, but is causing harm to some disabled people”.

She added: “That’s why I have committed Labour to scrapping these assessments completely and replacing them with a holistic, person-centred approach.”

The Work Capability Assessment was introduced in 2008. It is contracted out to private company Maximus, having previously been run by Atos. The system’s failure rate is controversial; figures reported by The Independent last year found that more than half of appealed WCA decisions were found to be wrong when taken to tribunal.

Responding to the study, a Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson appeared to dismiss the interviewees’ experiences as not statistically significant.

“Only thirty people were interviewed for this report, which fails to acknowledge any of the significant improvements we have made to our assessments – particularly for people with mental health conditions,” he said.

“Last year alone at least 35,000 work capability assessments took place in Scotland to help ensure people get the right level of support that they need.” In fact, 37 interviews were conducted for the study.

Changes to limited capability for work payments

From 3 April 2017, new Universal Credit claimants who are found to have limited capability for work following a Work Capability Assessment (WCA) will not get the limited capability for work payment of Universal Credit.

The change will not affect:

• existing claimants who are getting the limited capability for work payment in Universal Credit before 3 April 2017
• existing Universal Credit claimants who make a claim before 3 April 2017 on the grounds of having a health condition or disability and are later found to have limited capability for work following a WCA
• existing Universal Credit claimants who have a further WCA on review after 3 April 2017 and are assessed as having limited capability for work – this includes claimants who change from having limited capability for work and work-related activity to having limited capability for work
• claimants who were getting the limited capability for work payment before 3 April 2017 who are no longer getting Universal Credit due to their income and then re-claim Universal Credit within 6 months
• existing claimants who made their claim to Universal Credit before 3 April 2017 and are found fit for work, who request a mandatory reconsideration or appeal and are then found to have limited capability for work

 Limited capability for work and work-related activity

Claimants who are assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity will still get the limited capability for work and work-related activity payment of Universal Credit. This payment supports claimants whose health condition or disability means they are unable to look for work and unable to do any work-related activities.

 Changes in health conditions

Claimants must let Universal Credit know by phone or post if:

• their condition has got better
• their condition has got worse
• they have a new health condition

Telephone: 0345 600 0723
Textphone: 0345 608 8551
Welsh language: 0345 600 3018
Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm
Find out about call charges

Universal Credit postal address:

If claimants don’t tell Universal Credit straightaway about these changes they could be paid more or less money than they should. They may have to pay back any money they are overpaid.

New rules restricting MPs from intervening with officials directly to resolve benefit payment problems on behalf of constituents are a major barrier to justice, ministers have been warned.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has told MPs it will not discuss individual universal credit cases with them unless the claimant has given formal “explicit consent” by issuing detailed instructions via their online DWP account.

MPs said the restrictions will create a fresh layer of bureaucracy and pile extra pressure on vulnerable people who have approached their MP as a last resort to resolve problems such as non-payment of benefits.

Up to now, MPs have been able to contact the Department for Work and Pensions directly to deal with benefit problems on the basis that they had the “implicit consent” of the claimant who raised the issue with them.

“It [the restriction] makes the job more tiresome, slows it down, and creates more work for constituents. It’s barmy and unnecessary, and it’s a major barrier to justice,” said Frank Field, the chairman of the work and pensions select committee.

Welfare rights advisers have also raised the issue, warning the DWP last year that restrictions around “explicit consent” made it near-impossible for them to resolve benefit issues on behalf of some vulnerable clients, including for example those with learning disabilities, or those gravely ill in hospital beds who are unable to access their online DWP accounts.

Field said he had raised the issue in person recently with the work and pensions secretary, Damian Green, who Field said was sympathetic. However, this week, a caseworker in Field’s constituency office trying to resolve a benefits issue on behalf of a constituent was refused by the DWP.

A DWP spokesman said: “This issue has been raised with the department and we are actively looking into it. The DWP always takes steps to protect personal data and make decisions in the best interests of the claimant.”

Karen Buck MP said: “People come to me because we [MPs] are the only named people in the system they can find. If we have to turn people away, asking them to jump through hoops before we can help them, it is only going to make people feel disempowered.”

She added: “The more complex the demands we put on vulnerable people, the easier it should be for representatives to intervene on their behalf.”

The note to MPs, sent in February, says that before MPs become involved in a case constituents must provide the DWP “with the specific details of the issues they would like us to discuss with you” via their online journal, through which all their universal credit business is transacted.

The DWP’s director general of universal credit, Neil Couling wrote to welfare advisers in January arguing that explicit consent was necessary because of the risk of that disclosure of material to third parities would breach data protection rules.

He wrote: “I realise that as bona fide advisers this may seem unduly cautious, but we face regular attempts by unscrupulous organisations and individuals to access information from us and we need to take all reasonable steps to protect the position of claimants and their data which we hold.”

The explicit consent rule applies to claimants on the full service universal credit, of which there are around 450,000 in the UK. It does not apply to people claiming legacy benefits such as housing benefit.

Many thanks to campaigner Gail Ward for sharing the following with us:

Maybe, soon, all assessments will be recorded, and claimants won’t need to ask for this.

Several people have claimed that Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) assessors have asked people ‘why haven’t they killed themselves yet?’ The claims suggest this has generally been asked of people who have issues with or a history of mental illness.

It should be pointed out that these assessors work for Atos, which is a private company paid by the DWP. It should also be made clear that these assessors are not in any way mental health professionals who are trained to deal with such complex questions.

Assessment

Disability rights activist Alice Kirby spoke about her experience on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/Alice__Kirby/status/835209327694737412

The tweet prompted several people to reply saying that they had experienced the same thing. We have blanked out people’s identities rather than sharing tweets directly. Some of them are still being assessed, and are worried that speaking out may affect their claims:

Alice Kirby

Kirby has released a press statement describing her own experience:

Cuts are costing disabled people their lives, but the assessments themselves can also put us at risk. They are designed to be intrusive and manipulative, and I wanted to raise awareness of that.

When applicants are asked questions like this, we are forced to explain our reasons to stay alive. No one should be expected to do that, especially in such a toxic and unsupportive environment. Assessors do not have the time or skills to explore the answers to this question with us, and they are not able to provide the support which may be needed afterwards.

This question was also completely irrelevant to my assessment, it had no impact on the outcome of my award and it wasn’t even referenced in the report. And so we must question the motives behind it.

These assessments are not safe, people are terrified of going through them, and many are traumatised afterwards. Government need to investigate the assessment process as a matter of urgency, and it needs to explain why questions like this are being asked.

Atos

The Canary contacted the DWP about these claims. They advised us to contact Atos, which is the private company that carries out assessments on the DWP’s behalf. Atos replied as follows:

We are unaware of a complaint but we will investigate if one is made. Our role is to provide a well evidenced report based upon information obtained using the criteria laid out by Government. The professional and compassionate service we provide to claimants is our primary consideration.

Similar complaints

This is not the first time that people have complained about DWP assessors asking them why they haven’t committed suicide yet. And if these allegations are true, it’s hard to understand what purpose asking this question would serve. It’s one thing for a trained psychologist to ask such a question. It’s quite another for someone who doesn’t have the training to deal with what could be a very complicated response.

If this is how they are treating some of Britain’s most vulnerable citizens, then we may have more reasons to worry about the DWP than we realised.

Julius Holgate, who lives in Hackney, has won his appeal against the DWP’s “outrageous” decision after the intervention of the Hackney Community Law Centre (HCLC).

He fell into debt and was reduced to pawning his jewellery to survive after he was awarded zero points in a medical assessment, meaning and his Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) was stopped in January. Following last week’s decision, he will be repaid the cash he missed out on.

At the time the DWP said because Julius’ arms were working order, he could use them to “climb” stairs and therefore had “mobility”. The department has now backed down and apologised, saying the decision was a “clerical error”.

Julius said the DWP should be more careful when assessing people.

“I’m just still sorry other people will have to go through what I have been through,” he said. 
“This all caused me a lot of stress and anxiety.”
Julius’ HCLC caseworker Marcin Brajta said the law centre had seen many similar cases because of government cuts, meaning fewer DWP assessors are available to conduct medical assessments.

“The assessors that remain are not given enough time to assess applicants properly,” he said.

But he added: “Julius can now get on with his life without worrying about having to attend the job centre, which was adversely affecting his health.”

HCLC chair Cllr Ian Rathbone said the cut to Julius’s benefits was “callous and cold-hearted”, adding the DWP’s apology – “squeezed out after they were caught out” – is not enough.

“We want to see changes of direction here, of sympathy and care for people in their time of need,” he said.

A DWP spokesman said: “When someone comes in for an assessment they are asked to do a number of actions, and the way the scores were translated caused a clerical error.”

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

The DWP have today published regulations removing the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance (ESA) and the universal credit limited capability for work element for new claimants from 3 April 2017, little more than a month before they are due to come into effect.

New ESA claimants in the work-related activity group who are aged over 25 will receive only £73.10 a week. They will not receive the additional £29.05 component that current claimants receive.

Claimants who are placed in the support group will not be affected.

The regulations set out which claimant may still be eligible for the work-related activity component, provided they meet all the other qualifying conditions. Essentially this is claimants who made a claim for ESA before 3 April or who are deemed to have made a claim before that date, as well as claimants who are still waiting to be transferred from incapacity benefit to ESA.

The explanatory notes set out when the new regulations will not apply and the WRAC can still be paid:

(a) where the claim for employment and support allowance was made before 3rd April 2017 and that claim results in an award;

(b) where the claim was made on or after 3rd April 2017 but the claimant had previously been entitled to employment and support allowance and their period of limited capability for work started before 3rd April 2017;

(c) where the claimant is or will become a notified person for the purposes of conversion from an incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance and is subsequently found to have limited capability for work or limited capability for work related activity;

(d) where the claim was made on or after 3rd April 2017 but the claimant’s employment and support allowance is payable before 3rd April 2017;

(e) where the claim was made on or after 3rd April 2017 but the claimant’s assessment phase is deemed to have started before 3rd April 2017;

(f) where a claimant (who was previously entitled to an employment and support allowance as part of a claim made before 3rd April 2017) having been in receipt of a maternity allowance (which because they were receiving contributory employment and support allowance terminated their award to an employment and support allowance) makes a new claim for an employment and support allowance within 12 weeks of the date that their maternity allowance ended.

Similar rules apply to universal credit claimants.

You can read the full regulations here.

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

Online tribunals for benefits claimants will begin as early as September 2017, the Legal futures website has revealed.

Sir Ernest Ryder, the Senior President of Tribunals, told a legal conference last week that the first signs of online courts will be visible in tribunals by September.

This will include elements such as uploading documents to the cloud, digital case management and hearings via Skype, video or telephone.

The first area of law to adopt online tribunals will be social security and child support tribunals, effectively making often very vulnerable claimants the Guinea pigs for the new process.

Ryder insisted that “everything is being tested with users, including judges, and then piloted before being introduced”.

He added that:

“There will be no big bang. There will be… a gradual learning curve. Some things will not work and we should expect that, and there will not be ‘one size that fits all”.

Youi can read more on the Legal Futures website.

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

Following a court victory by claimants just last month, the government is rushing in an urgent change to the law to prevent many people with mental health conditions being awarded the mobility component of personal independence payment (PIP).

The change reverses the recent ruling by a panel of three judges and means that people with mental health conditions such as severe anxiety who can go outdoors, even if they need to have someone with them, are much less likely to get an award of even the standard rate of the PIP mobility component.

Panel of upper tribunal judges
As we explained just a few weeks ago, for years we’ve been advising members that DWP guidance about ‘Planning and following a journey’ was wrong and was leading to incorrect assessments by health professionals and errors of law by decision makers.

The disagreement over interpretation was finally decided by a panel of three upper tribunal judges last month

The DWP continued to argue that anyone with a mental health condition who was ever able to go outdoors, even with someone with them, should score only 4 points and receive no award at all on that basis.

But the tribunal held that claimants with conditions such as severe anxiety can qualify even for the enhanced rate of the mobility component, just on the basis of problems with ‘Planning and following a journey’, or ‘Going out’ as the PIP form terms it.

New regulations
Rather than try to fight the case any further, the government have resorted to a change in the regulations, which doesn’t require any kind of debate or vote in parliament.

From 16 March the law will be changed so that the words “For reasons other than psychological distress” will be added to the start of descriptors c, d and f in relation to “Planning and following journeys”.

Current descriptors
The descriptors currently read:

a. Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided. 0 points.

b. Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 4 points.

c. Cannot plan the route of a journey. 8 points.

d. Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. 10 points.

e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 10 points.

f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points.

New descriptors
The new descriptors will read (changes in bold by us):

a. Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided. 0 points.

b. Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 4 points.

c. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot plan the route of a journey. 8 points.

d. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. 10 points.

e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 10 points.

f. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points.

The effect will be that people who are too anxious to ever undertake journeys unless they have someone with them, for example because they have panic attacks or similar, will be unlikely to be awarded more than 4 points by the DWP. This means they will not be able to get an award of the mobility component on the basis of this activity alone.

Even claimants who are too anxious to ever go on journeys, even if they have someone with them, will only score 10 points and thus not be eligible for the enhanced rate of the mobility component on the basis of this activity alone.

Ruthless
The new regulations also make changes to the way that descriptors relating to taking medication are interpreted, again in response to a ruling by judges in favour of claimants.

The new regulations are being rushed in without the Social Security Advisory Committee even being given a chance to comment on them.

Penny Mordaunt, the minister for disabled people, claimed in a statement today that

“Two recent Upper Tribunal judgments have broadened the way the PIP assessment criteria should be interpreted, going beyond the original intention. In order to make sure the initial purpose of PIP is maintained, we are making drafting amendments to the criteria which provide greater clarity. This will not result in any claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by DWP. . . If not urgently addressed, the operational complexities could undermine the consistency of assessments, leading to confusion for all those using the legislation, including claimants, assessors, and the courts. It is because of the urgency caused by these challenges, and the implications on public expenditure, that proposals for these amendments have not been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee before making the regulations.”

In reality, the new regulations are a ruthless response to fair and reasonable judgements and their only purpose is to cut the cost of disability benefits, regardless of the effect on the lives of individuals.

The new regulations will not apply to decisions made before 16 March. However, it is possible that decision makers will delay making decisions on claims likely to be covered by the new regulations until after that date.

We will be updating our PIP guide before the new regulations come into force.

You can download a copy of Penny Mordaunt’s statement here.

You can download a copy of the new regulations here.

The government spends around £50 billion a year to support people with disabilities and health conditions.

Part of that support comes through Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This was introduced to replace the outdated Disability Living Allowance and helps with the extra costs that can often come with being disabled, such as added transport costs or assistance with cooking.

The PIP assessment is designed to focus more support on those who are likely to have a higher level of need, and higher costs associated with their disability. For example, claimants who require therapy at home, like dialysis or oxygen, are likely to need more support than someone who needs help to take medication. Similarly, people who cannot carry out a journey because of a visual or cognitive impairment are likely to need more support than someone who experiences psychological distress when they undertake a journey, for example as a result of social phobia or anxiety.

Recent legal judgments have interpreted the assessment criteria for PIP in ways that are different to what was originally intended. The government is now making amendments to clarify the criteria, to restore the original aim of the policy and ensure support goes to those most in need.

This is not a policy change and will not result in any claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The purpose is to restore the original intention of the benefit which has been expanded by the legal judgments.

Spending on disability benefits has risen by more than £3 billion in real terms since 2010, and will remain higher in each year to 2020, than in 2010. Failing to reinstate the original intention of the policy would have led to substantial unplanned increases to public expenditure totalling £3.7 billion (between 2016 to 2017 and 2021 to 2022).

• The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)

   

   Share this contribution

  I receive regular representations from disability organisations and hon. Members regarding personal independence payments. As I have previously stated, we want to do more to create real-time feedback across the whole country. We will shortly be introducing service user panels to feed directly back from claimants on PIP and employment and support allowance.

• Sir David Amess

   

   Share this contribution

  Unfortunately, I have to tell my hon. Friend that I am still receiving complaints from constituents about the procedures regarding personal independence payments, so what is she doing to improve the process, reduce delays and support people through what is often a traumatic assessment process?

   

   

• Penny Mordaunt

   

   Share this contribution

  The goal is clearly swift, accurate and admin-lite assessments. Good progress has already been made in many areas—for example, reducing the average time it takes for a claim from point of registration to decision by more than three quarters from over 40 weeks to 10 weeks as of October last year—but there is more to do. One reason we have set up the service user panels is that it is incredibly important to be aware that, while things may be generally going well, there are certain hotspot areas where they are not, and identifying those in real time is critical—but there are many other things in the PIP improvement plan as well.

  The above is taken from Hansard, 20th February.

In response to yesterday’s post about pet cats at home assessments, we were sent this Tweet.

https://twitter.com/cedawnow/status/831824329755262976

To borrow from Alice In Wonderland, this gets scarier and scarier…

The sister of David Clapson, a 59-year-old ex-soldier who died in 2013 after he was ‘sanctioned’ by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), has issued a judicial review and human rights claim in the High Court, challenging the refusal by the Senior Coroner for Hertfordshire to hold an inquest into her brother’s death.
 
Mr Clapson, an insulin dependent Diabetic, was found dead in his home on 20 July 2013. His benefits had been stopped by DWP staff who knew that he suffered from diabetes. It appears that at the time of his death David had been unable to pay for electricity as he had been rendered destitute by the sanction. His insulin could not be refrigerated due to the absence of electricity, and he had no food available to feed himself. In effect, Mr. Clapson starved to death and died because he could not feed himself or refrigerate his insulin without access to State benefits.
 
In October last year law firm Leigh Day, who are representing David’s sister, Gill Thompson, provided submissions to the Hertfordshire Coroner arguing that an inquest should be opened into the death of her brother.
 
They argued that Mr Clapson died an unnatural death due to the imposition and effects of the benefit sanction imposed on him shortly before and in force at the time of his death and that the sanction was a contributing or causative factor in his death.
 
Leigh Day also argued on behalf of Ms Thompson that there was a strong public interest in conducting a fresh investigation into the death of Mr Clapson to ensure that the full circumstances are publicly investigated, that relevant systems are scrutinised and that Article 2, the right to life, demanded such an investigation.
 
Despite these submissions the Coroner declined to open an inquest. Further pre-action correspondence was sent, supported by reports by Diabetes UK and a leading Diabetes Consultant. Both reports confirmed that insulin-dependent Diabetes is a chronic illness and that food and insulin refrigeration are of crucial importance in order to manage the condition. Both reports expressed concern at the current DWP guidance on Diabetes, which states that “JSA claimants are likely to have well controlled diabetes”.
 
The Coroner maintained his refusal to open an inquest and, without mention of the medical reports provided, concluded that Mr Clapson’s death was not unnatural. The effect of the Coroner’s refusal is that no official investigation will be conducted into how it was that a vulnerable diabetic, known to the DWP and dependent on State benefits to live, came to die in his home from starvation, alone and without the means to feed himself or refrigerate his insulin in 21st century Britain.
 
David Clapson was a Lance Corporal in the Royal Signals serving in Belfast at the height of the troubles before leaving the army to work for BT. After working for the telecommunications firm for 16 years and a further eight years for other companies he then became a carer for his sick mother.  
 
According to his sister, David was a proud man. He suffered from Diabetes and relied on regular insulin shots to survive.   
 
He died in July 2013 from fatal diabetic ketoacidosis which occurs when a severe lack of insulin means the body cannot use glucose for energy, and the body starts to break down other body tissue as an alternative energy source.  
 
The Department for Work and Pensions had sanctioned him for a month after he failed to attend two appointments, leaving him unable to afford to top up his electricity key and unable to afford food.
 
In a letter to David’s MP, the DWP stated they were “aware Mr Clapson was insulin dependent”.  
 
With no money for his electricity meter, his family claim he would have been unable to chill his insulin in the height of summer. He also was found to have no food in his stomach when he died.  
 
In 2014 Ms Thompson started a petition with Change.org which gained over 200,000 signatures and helped to secure a Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry in March 2015, which came up with 26 recommendations.  
 
However, the Government rejected the Select Committee recommendation that the number of peer reviews into deaths of persons subject to a sanction be made public.   
 
The Government also rejected Ms Thompson’s calls for an Independent Review into David’s death and the deaths of others in similar circumstances and refused to create an independent body to conduct more reviews into the deaths of those in receipt of ‘working-age’ benefits. The Government response can be found here.  
 
Ms Thompson is crowdfunding her legal challenge and needs to raise a further £7,000 to reach her target on CrowdJustice.
 
Merry Varney, from the law firm Leigh Day, who is representing Ms Thompson in her fight for an inquest into her brother’s death, said:  
 
“A DWP-imposed benefit sanction left David with no income, unable to afford food or electricity, circumstances which diabetes experts agree could easily render his condition fatal.
 
“The law requires a Coroner to hold an inquest into certain deaths and we believe the circumstances of David’s death clearly trigger this duty.
 
“Our client, who has campaigned since her brother’s death, is asking the High Court to quash the Coroner’s refusal so that a full, fair and fearless inquest can take place, and so that issues of significant wider public importance concerning benefit sanctions and vulnerable people are properly considered.”
 
Gill Thompson said:

“The thing that continues to haunt me is that the DWP knew David was an insulin dependent diabetic yet they stated: ‘…we followed procedures and no errors were made….’
 
“Diabetes is a serious condition, which in cases such as David’s requires both food and insulin to stay healthy. I feel that the sanction resulting in my brother being left destitute and having no money to chill his insulin or to buy food, ultimately, led to his untimely death.
 
“Going to Court is an option of last resort but I feel compelled to use every effort to ensure that the impact of the DWP imposed benefit sanction on David’s death is properly and independently investigated. I believe the DWP continue to impose sanctions on diabetic benefit claimants and not only for my brother’s sake, but also for others at risk, I hope the High Court grants me permission to challenge the Coroner’s decision.”

Reveal Benefits And Work in their latest newsletter, thanks to a claimant describing a home assessment as part of their pilot survey:

“It was a humiliating experience. I felt that my disability was undermined at every turn. ATOS also followed my wife’s tweets about our experience and contacted our MP, who had been supporting us, to ask about our case. We now know that ATOS parliamentary staff follow #PIP. This ultimately helped my case because ATOS then investigated the F2F.”

Same Difference chose not to use the full PIP hashtag in this post!

Benefits And Work would like to conduct a survey about home assessments for PIP and ESA. In their latest newsletter, they reveal the results of their pilot survey, which include this:

One respondent told us that:

“I realised when I read the report afterwards that I was watched very carefully. She said in the report that as I was stroking my cat at the assessment that there was nothing wrong with me!!!”

Scary stuff for our cat-loving editor!

The Department for Work and Pensions has been accused of taking a “cavalier attitude” to closing 78 local jobcentres across the country after it emerged it had not even conducted an impact assessment of the policy. 

Ministers denied that the sites to be closed were chosen using Google Maps after many MPs, including a number of Conservatives, raised concerns about the plans in Parliament at the end of January.

Now Ministers have admitted that the key statutory exercise has not yet been conducted. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said the buildings are not being used to their full capacity and that it can conduct impact assessments later.

Some jobseekers will have to travel significantly further to sign on every fortnight after the closures, as they are required to do so by law. Being late for a jobcentre appointment can cause a person to be stripped of their £73-a-week unemployment benefit. 

Louise Haigh, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, said the policy will hurt the most vulnerable, after being told by DWP minister Damian Hinds that the Government could not provide figures on how many people on Employment and Support Allowance – a key disability benefit – would be affected by the closer of a jobcentre in her constituency.

“To make a decision like this without even conducting an impact assessment demonstrates the cavalier attitude of this Government towards the most vulnerable,” she told The Independent.

“If they don’t even know who the closures will impact on, whether the disabled or those who are digitally excluded, how can they possibly say people will get the support they need? 

“Yet again we are seeing this Government cutting corners in areas which can ill afford to be neglected.”

The jobcentre in Ms Haigh’s constituency, on Eastern Avenue, is set to be closed and her constituents will have to travel across town to sign on if the plans go ahead. 

Another plan to close the jobcentre in Calder Valley was branded “a disaster” by the area’s Conservative MP, Craig Whittaker, in the Commons last month, while Jake Berry, MP for Rossendale and Darwen said the Government appeared to be in “la la land”.

The Government previously said it wanted to limit closures if people had to travel an extra 20 minutes by public transport to sign on at a different job centre. This rule appears to have been broken in a significant number of cases, however.

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) said the plan would make life harder for claimants and that the policy would undermine the support that jobcentres provided. The Government has admitted that compulsory redundancies could be unavoidable as part of the closures, though it says it will try to relocate some staff to other offices. 

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of PCS, said: “After ramping up sanctions, and turning jobcentres from places to go for help into places of conflict and suspicion, the Tories now want to make life even harder for claimants. 

“Jobcentres provide a lifeline for sick, disabled and unemployed people, and forcing them to travel further would undermine the support they need to get back to work or into training.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “We will be conducting a full impact assessment as part of our planning for a more efficient jobcentre network before any final decisions are made.

Ken Loach has launched an uncompromising attack on the UK government at the 70th British Academy Film Awards.

Speaking as he picked up his award for outstanding British film for I, Daniel Blake, which is conceived as a critique of the current state of the benefits system, Loach touched on accusations by some that his film failed to reflect reality.

Loach thanked his cast and crew, the people of Newcastle and the academy for “endorsing the truth of that this film says, which is that hundreds of thousands of people – the vulnerable and the poorest people – are treated by the this government with a callousness and brutality that is disgraceful.”

Loach continued by making reference to the Tory government’s apparent U-turn on its promise to accept thousands of unaccompanied children fleeing danger in Syria and elsewhere.

“It’s a disgrace,” he said, “that extends to keeping out refugee children we promised to help.”

“In the real world,” added Loach, “it’s getting darker. And in the struggle that’s coming between the rich and the powerful, the corporations and the politicians that speak for them, and the rest of us on the other side, the film-makers know which side they’re on.”

Speaking at the press conference afterwards, Loach went further, saying that the government “have to be removed”. He hoped that voters would see his film, but there was little point politicians doing so as “the people actually implementing these decisions know what they’re doing. It’s conscious.”

Their welfare policies, he said, harked back to the Victorian workhouse ethos of telling people that poverty was their fault. “They know they’re doing. We have to change them; they have to be removed.”

His words were echoed by screenwriter Paul Laverty, who sought to draw attention to the UN’s ruling on the UK’s treatment of the disabled. “They found systematic and gross violations,” he said, before saying the Tories had “denied, spun and tried to discredit” the findings.

“They don’t give a toss,” said Laverty, that “scurvy and rickets” had returned to the country, or that “16,000 people were admitted to hospital last year with malnutrition. We have a moral obligation to do one thing, and that’s get rid of them.”

Meanwhile producer Rebecca O’Brien spoke up for those employees of the Ritzy cinema not being paid the living wage. “We think that’s completely wrong in this day and age.”

Dave Johns, who stars in the film, added he felt I, Daniel Blake “gives the working class a voice back. People haven’t listened to them for 40 years.”

Same Difference is thrilled that I, Daniel Blake has won a BAFTA. Meanwhile, at a Newcastle Jobcentre:

A senior manager of Jobcentre Plus in Newcastle, whose office was depicted so damningly in Ken Loach’s indictment of the social security assessment system I, Daniel Blake, has hit out at the veteran film-maker’s treatment of his agency.

Steve McCall, employer relationship manager at Jobcentre Plus in Tyne & Wear and Northumberland, who is based at the branch featured in the film, said: “I, Daniel Blake is a representation … I hope people don’t think the film is a documentary, because it’s a story that doesn’t represent the reality we work in.”

Loach’s film, which is nominated for five Bafta awards at this weekend’s ceremony, follows the titular Daniel Blake, a 59-year-old carpenter who has recently had a heart attack yet is deemed fit to work by a “healthcare professional” at his local jobcentre. Patently unwell, and unwilling to try to twist the system, Blake is soon caught in a Kafkaesque cycle of bureaucracy, appeals and sanctions, as he finds himself descending into a life of abject poverty.

“I remember talking about the film in the canteen. We were concerned about how it might affect our relationship with the people we were trying to help find work. How would they react to it?”

Loach, however, stands by his film. “I challenge anyone to find a single word in that film that isn’t true,” he said.

I, Daniel Blake, which won the Palme d’Or at last year’s Cannes film festival and is frontrunner for outstanding British film at Sunday’s Baftas, was shot on location in Newcastle, though its jobcentre scenes were filmed in a specially created set.

“I think we were more than fair to the jobcentre,” said Loach. “The making of the film was at least as rigorous as any piece of journalism. We were determined to be rigorous with the truth, because we knew people would try and shoot us down.”

Support for I, Daniel Blake came from far beyond the film industry, with the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, urging Theresa May during prime minister’s questions to watch it.

Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary, said the film was “monstrously unfair” – though he added he had not seen it.

I, Daniel Blake has been criticised by some media commentators, such as Toby Young (in the Daily Mail) and the Sunday Times film critic Camilla Long who said it did not “ring true”. However, Hayley Squires, who plays a single mother in the film, said it showed “the absolute truth of what’s happening to millions of British people in this country” and accused Young and Long of “irresponsible journalism”.

Loach cites testimonies he and the screenwriter Paul Laverty took from current and former jobcentre employees. He said: “Many of [them] walked away from the jobcentre because they were disgusted by what they were being asked to do. They left because they didn’t want to be part of something they believed to be wrong. Steve [McCall] has obviously chosen to stay.”

The jobcentre and Department for Work and Pensions employees Loach refers to are thanked in the film’s closing credits but were too scared to be named individually for fear of retribution, Loach said.

“They told us that jobcentre employees understood they were working in a bureaucratic trap that had been built with the intention of catching people out,” he said. “They told us that people working at the jobcentre were given targets when it came to how many people they were expected to sanction. There is no doubt in my mind that, if a random cross-section of people went to the jobcentre every day, did everything they were asked to do, dotted every ‘i’ and crossed every ‘t’, some of them would still be sanctioned.”

Loach is backed up by Amanda Payne, who worked at the same Newcastle branch in a number of positions, including as work search assessor and hardship allowance officer, before leaving in 2015. She was cast in a small role in I, Daniel Blake.

“The processes for claimants portrayed in the film are set by the government,” she said. “They are the working practices an adviser’s performance is measured against … The film, I feel, portrays the exact way jobcentre staff are trained to work – but, in reality, personality dictates the degree of empathy and compassion a person can show.”

McCall said there was an undeserved stigma attached to jobcentre workers. “As an employment coach, you get a buzz when someone you have worked with, sometimes for a long time, finds employment,” said McCall. “That’s what makes my job worthwhile.

“We do have difficult conversations with people at times. We do have disputes with people. We have to deliver the benefit in the way it’s designed to be delivered. And yeah, we do make mistakes. We’re not trying to hide that. But we are there to help people, and sanctions are all always a last resort. That’s the reality of the jobcentre. The film doesn’t show that, and I think that’s for a reason.”

Loach said jobcentre workers were not the film’s primary target but added: “They’re imposing a system that is unjust. If you impose a system at the government’s behest that is wrong, of course you’ll be stigmatised.”

“I’d be keen to see if Mr Loach would be willing to make a film with the jobcentre,” said McCall. “The offer is there. We would very much welcome him to get in touch.”

• I, Daniel Blake is released on DVD and Blu Ray on 27 February

Former science teacher Emma Round, 33, who lives with her husband, in Ladywood, Birmingham, tells Claire Donnelly how constant assessment made her suicidal. As part our Wigan Pier 2017 project, she explains why the future seems bleak for anyone living with disability.

The assessment process is completely inhumane, it’s causing so much pain and trauma for people who are already struggling to cope.

You live in absolute fear of the next change, the next assessment.

I’ve got Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and I spent every day in the run up to my last assessment thinking about killing myself to make the stress stop.

You are made to feel you are to blame for needing support. The next step will be assisted suicide – if a right to die is ever made legal here we will see disabled people using it as they have been made to feel they are such a burden.

My next assessment is coming up and I am dreading it. You live with the thought you could lose everything.

The assessors have my whole life, all of my support, in their hands and the thought of that going is terrifying.

I’ve had assessments that have said clearly that I can’t move without crying but when it goes to the DWP decision makers they’ve still awarded me zero points for mobility problems.

I was turned down for ESA and found fit to work then my DLA was turned down too – the decision maker preferred the government’s evidence over the evidence from my doctor’s.

I got a letter from my GP saying I could hardy walk but apparently that wasn’t strong enough – they said it could mean I could hardly walk four miles.

They’ll ask things like, ‘can you walk ten yards into your garden?’

Well, yes, sometimes, but so what? Once you’ve done that what are you meant to do? What can anybody do within that distance?

If this was really about getting people back to work than the government would give the Equality Act some teeth and sanction employers who aren’t complying with the law – not us.

Yes, I can get in to the front of a shop but I can’t get behind the counter or in to their toilets or upstairs to the stockroom.

When my claim was turned down I was left with nothing and had to go to appeal. Your money goes but your needs don’t.

I had to wait 18 months. For that whole time I literally lived in my room. I was on the second floor of a private rented house, with no ramps, so I was pretty much housebound.

I was extremely suicidal at the time. I thought about killing myself every day.

I’d lost my career in teaching, was ill but was made to feel I was a malingerer. Most people don’t open up about it but we all know people who have been through it. I’m certainly not unique. It doesn’t matter who you are, the assessments seemed designed to cause the maximum stress and distress.

To add to that, the assessment offices aren’t even wheelchair accessible.

There is a lift – you have to go pass the security guards to use it and even though I’m in a wheelchair they asked me if I could walk up the stairs.

They wouldn’t let me use it because they’re not insured.

One friend of mine was so traumatised she started self-harming, cutting herself to re-open old wounds on her arms, during her actual assessment.

What kind of a system enables that?

I used to be angry with the people doing the assessments, with ATOS, now I’m angry with the people who are engineering and enforcing the system, the government.

This is about their choices, their ideology, their ideas about who does and doesn’t deserve help and it’s immoral.

If we don’t keep telling people what’s happening, shouting about how we are being treated, and challenging the system, things will only get worse.

On Friday the Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill, put forward by Lord Shinkwin, passed its committee stage in the House of Lords along with an amendment put forward by Baroness Massey calling for a review of the impact of the Abortion Act on disabled children, their families and carers.

Link to Lords debate

Briefing on the Bill

Over five years, 2010 – 2015, there was a 56% rise of termination after 24 weeks on the grounds of disability.

In his speech to the Lords Lord Shinkwin said: “I readily admit that maths was never my favourite subject at school – but even I can see from the trends in abortion on grounds of disability that the writing is on the wall for people like me. People with congenital disabilities are facing extinction. If we were animals, perhaps we might qualify for protection as an endangered species. But we are only human beings with disabilities so we do not.”

Liz Sayce, CEO DR UK comments: “We are in support of this Bill and congratulate Lord Shinkwin on raising this issue.  The Bill is not about the rights and wrongs of abortion, fundamentally it is about equality. Wherever Parliament sets the number of weeks after which abortion is not permitted, it should be exactly the same whether the pregnancy is likely to result in a disabled or a non-disabled child. All lives are equal’. This debate is timely given that this year is the periodic review of the UK by the Committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We urge peers to support the Bill at Report stage.”

We have no words.

Cuts in disability benefits should be delayed until the government clarifies how it will support those in need of extra money, a group of MPs has said.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee found there was little evidence that lower payments would motivate disabled people to find work.

The allowance is set to be reduced from £102 to £73 per week from April.

Ministers have argued that savings would be invested in a new support package for the most vulnerable.

The committee said evidence supporting the idea that introducing a lower rate of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) would enhance incentives to work was “ambiguous at best”.

It welcomed a decision to make some severely disabled claimants exempt from repeated reassessment for ESA but said it had deep concerns about assessments proposed in the recent work and health green paper.

The committee said ministers should consider using incentives such as reductions in National Insurance contributions to encourage employers to employ people with disabilities.

‘Even more difficult’

Committee chairman Frank Field said: “We expect the government to respond to this report before the proposed new lower rate of ESA is due in April.

“If they intend to proceed with these cuts, we expect an explanation of how this will not be detrimental to its target of halving the disability employment gap, by making finding and keeping a job even more difficult for disabled people than it already is.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “The number of disabled people in work has increased by almost 600,000 in the last three years, but we’re determined to go even further.

“Our Work and Health Green Paper marks the next stage of our action to confront the attitudes, prejudices and misunderstandings that have become ingrained within the minds of employers and across wider society.

“Our welfare reforms are increasing the support and incentives for people to move into work, while keeping an important safety net in place for those who need it.

“In addition to ESA, we also offer support through Personal Independence Payments, to help with the extra costs associated with being disabled.”