PIP - are the results out yet of the 'pass rate' for the pilot areas?

[fedupandold]

Just wondering if anybody has seen anything that would indicate how the PIP pilot results compare to what DLA would have been awarded?

 

I understand that there is an on-going review of the 10 metre rule. Personally in my opinion it is a done deal and nothing will change despite the review. You can't very well have hundreds being currently assessed against 10 metres then 12 months down the line the DWP change it to 25/50 metres. It wouldn't be fair on those tested on the 10 metre rule, as they could well find that if 25 metres was the limit, they would have got an award.

 

I think the 10 metre limit is here to stay for their sakes.

[estellyn]

Firstly it's the 20 metre rule, and secondly there is precedent for changing something like this and screwing those assessed just before - when they changed the ESA mobilising limit from 30 metres to 50 metres.

[fedupandold]

Firstly it's the 20 metre rule, and secondly there is precedent for changing something like this and screwing those assessed just before - when they changed the ESA mobilising limit from 30 metres to 50 metres.

 

I'm sorry I thought that it was 10 metres - I apologise for my ignorance.

 

There can be no precedent as PIP is a new benefit and what happened to ESA or DLA will have no bearing. What I was trying to get at is if say 5000 claimants were refused a mobility award under PIP simply because of the 20 metre rule, then they changed the rule to say 50 metres - I can't see that it would be fair on those that lost out under the 20 metre rule. Are you suggesting that the DWP would re-invite them for another assessment because the distance rule was changed part way through the programme?

Personally I cannot see that happening - the new lower limit of 20 metres is here to stay - the rest is just a paper exercise to show that they looked at it again.

 

One of the reasons for asking this relates to those that become 65 after the 8th April 2013. As PIP is 'an under 65' benefit if on the change over to PIP for those that are 65+ when assessed, they will not be able to make a new claim if they fail under the 20 metre rule but would have 'passed' if the rule had been 50 metres or whatever it is for DLA currently. For those in that category the change over will be a 'once and for all' chance of being awarded a mobility element.

[estellyn]

I'm sorry I thought that it was 10 metres - I apologise for my ignorance.

 

There can be no precedent as PIP is a new benefit and what happened to ESA or DLA will have no bearing. What I was trying to get at is if say 5000 claimants were refused a mobility award under PIP simply because of the 20 metre rule, then they changed the rule to say 50 metres - I can't see that it would be fair on those that lost out under the 20 metre rule. Are you suggesting that the DWP would re-invite them for another assessment because the distance rule was changed part way through the programme?

Personally I cannot see that happening - the new lower limit of 20 metres is here to stay - the rest is just a paper exercise to show that they looked at it again.

 

The precedent isn't WITH PIP, but with a sickness/disability benefit changing the mobilising distance following review, and I'm not talking legal precedent, but that there has been another instance of a mobilising distance being increased following review - THAT sort of precedent. And no, they didn't call everyone in for review, and no it wasn't fair - I was affected by it as I was assessed a couple of months before the change and then had to wait a year to be reassessed and qualify for the support group.

 

It may well be a paper exercise, the Torys seem determined to reduce the benefit bill as much as possible - which is the true reason for bringing in PIP.

[fedupandold]

The precedent isn't WITH PIP, but with a sickness/disability benefit changing the mobilising distance following review, and I'm not talking legal precedent, but that there has been another instance of a mobilising distance being increased following review - THAT sort of precedent. And no, they didn't call everyone in for review, and no it wasn't fair - I was affected by it as I was assessed a couple of months before the change and then had to wait a year to be reassessed and qualify for the support group.

 

It may well be a paper exercise, the Torys seem determined to reduce the benefit bill as much as possible - which is the true reason for bringing in PIP.

 

Thank you. I just now wonder if any results are out for the pilot study?

 

As for the reduction to the welfare budget, I have a point of view on that but doubt that it would be well received on here if I suggested it - it is fairly radical but fair. I'll try and get my thoughts together on it and post it a little later.

[estellyn]

Thank you. I just now wonder if any results are out for the pilot study?

 

As for the reduction to the welfare budget, I have a point of view on that but doubt that it would be well received on here if I suggested it - it is fairly radical but fair. I'll try and get my thoughts together on it and post it a little later.

 

I haven't heard that any results are out yet.

 

I look forward to hearing your radical point of view.

[Nystagmite]

Can I point out that under DLA, they changed the rule regarding blind people and HRM. We were all contacted and asked how much sight we have. For some odd reason, my consultant was then contacted, despite me saying I don't qualify. He told them the same thing as I did.

[fedupandold]

Can I point out that under DLA, they changed the rule regarding blind people and HRM. We were all contacted and asked how much sight we have. For some odd reason, my consultant was then contacted, despite me saying I don't qualify. He told them the same thing as I did.

 

Ah! So they re-visited those that were previously found ineligible but could be eligible with the new regulations? Now that make sense to me. It shouldn't be the case that on the Tuesday for example the DM made a decision based on the old rules, but if he had waited until the Wednesday a different decision would have been made based on the new regulations. So quite rightly they re-visited those for whom there could well be a change of decision based on the new rules.

 

Much the same as having a decision made on a Monday for PIP when evidence proved that they could only walk 30 metres so thereby failed to get the enhanced mobility rate, yet on the Tuesday the government had a change of heart (highly unlikely!) and accepted that anything up to 50 metres would constitute being unable to walk and therefore the claimant would have been awarded the enhanced mobility rate. I would then expect the DWP to re-visit those earlier claims to see if the new regulations would have helped them get the award.