08 January 2024 , 12:50
900
0
Thousands of benefit claimants could be owed payouts from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after an assessment rule change.
The rule change affected Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and around 360,000 households could be due money. PIP is a benefit paid to people who have long-term mental or physical health conditions or disabilities. The benefit can pay up to £172.75 a week - or £691 a month - and aims to help with the extra costs of having a disability.
In July 2019, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment called the "MM Judgement" and this changed the way the DWP considers the definition of "social support" regarding its assessment of the Daily Living Component of PIP. Specifically, it looked at whether "prompting" should be considered social support.
The judgement ruled that the DWP got the law wrong when deciding the points PIP claimants could get for the activity of “engaging with other people face to face” during their PIP assessment. This means that some claimants did not receive points where they should have and in turn, received less money.
In 2021, the DWP started an administrative exercise looking at PIP claims since 2016 to check whether claimants were eligible for more support. In its latest update, published in October 2023, it revealed that the DWP has reviewed around 79,000 cases against the MM Judgement and approximately 326,000 cases have been identified for review.
Six teachers open up on 'difficult' strike decision - and why they are doing it
Following this, around 14,000 payments to those who were underpaid due to the new ruling have been made totalling £74million. With the total number of payments made, each payout was worth around £5,300. However, it is important to be aware how much someone receives may be higher or lower for each individual case.
Alongside the claims identified by the DWP, the department is also asking around 284,000 existing claimants to contact them if they think they may have been affected. The DWP says the MM judgment only affects the assessment of the Daily Living part of the overall PIP assessment and it is reviewing cases where additional points for Activity 9 of the assessment may make a difference to the amount of PIP someone was entitled to.
According to the charity Disability Rights UK, those who may have missed out on the Daily Living component element of PIP, or were awarded the standard rate and may be entitled to the enhanced rate include:
- People who have regular meetings with a mental health professional, without which they would not be able to manage face-to-face encounters
- People who need the input of particular friends or relatives with experience of supporting them in social situations - rather than just any well-meaning friend or relative - to help them manage face-to-face encounters
In a statement to Parliament in October, the former Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work Tom Pursglove explained that due to the “complexity of the exercise” the DWP started at a “relatively small scale” and prioritised terminally ill and recently deceased claimants to test processes and communications with claimants, to ensure they are effective “before ramping up”.
He said: “We are monitoring the numbers of, and reasons for, revised awards closely and making regular quality checks to ensure our decision-making is accurate and fair. We have listened to feedback and engaged with disability organisations, to develop our processes and communications, being sensitive to claimants who need help to provide any further information we need to decide if they are affected.”
“We are committed to making backdated payments to all claimants affected by this judgment as quickly as possible. So, as well as continuing to review claims affected by the definition of ‘social support’, we are also testing a more proportionate approach for claimants who might be affected by the timing element only.
"We will be inviting around 284,000 claimants in this group to contact the department if they think their claim is affected by this judgment and they were not previously identified as needing help to engage with other people face to face because any help they received was in advance. I believe that prioritising cases where claimants are more likely to be entitled to more support is the correct approach.”