PIP claimants that ‘shouldn't be affected' could still be at risk
A loophole in new DWP PIP criteria could expose people to losing their benefits, according to an advice organisation. Last month, Disability Minister Stephen Timms responded to a written parliamentary question regarding the changes to PIP eligibility announced by the government in March. Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan had inquired about the impact of these changes on PIP claimants of retirement age.
Sir Stephen offered reassurance, stating: "In keeping with existing policy, people over State Pension Age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by the proposed changes." He also confirmed that the new eligibility criteria would only apply to reviews and claims made after November 2026.
Many people welcomed this confirmation at the time, which was intended to alleviate concerns for approximately 700,000 state pension age PIP claimants, according to the Mirror. However, Benefits and Work has identified a loophole that could still subject these individuals to the new criteria, potentially resulting in the loss of their benefit.
The benefit experts cautioned: "The phrase 'not routinely fully reviewed' is deeply ambiguous. It is true that claimants over pension age are likely to have a light-touch review.
"This involves the shortened AR2 review form and will not normally require the claimant to have a face-to-face or telephone assessment. But the AR2 form still asks the claimant if there have been any changes in their daily living needs since their last assessment."
After November 2026, people who do not meet the new eligibility criteria and respond 'no' on this form may technically disqualify themselves by highlighting that they don't meet the criteria. If they answer 'yes', it could initiate a new review, which will also be evaluated against the new criteria.
This loophole could leave state pension age PIP claimants in a difficult position, but the experts have reassured: "We don't want to alarm pension age PIP claimants. Reviews after pension age are much less frequent, so most claimants may not be affected. However, it seems that tens of thousands a year might be.
"Pension age PIP claimants will certainly be impacted by the Green paper changes. The only way to avoid this would be to specify that the new points system regulations will exempt pension age PIP claimants."
They encouraged people to ask their local MPs to urge the minister to clarify his statement. Many details about the Green Paper are still unknown and open for consultation, including transitional protection so this gap for state pension age claimants could still be addressed in the future.
What has been confirmed in detail are the proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria. At present, applicants need to score at least eight points across 10 activities to receive the standard rate of the daily living component of PIP and 12 points to get the enhanced rate.
The more assistance or equipment you require to carry out these activities safely and efficiently, the more points you can accumulate in each category. The updated criteria will still necessitate these minimums, but if individuals fail to score at least four points in any one category, they won't qualify for the daily living component at all.
It remains uncertain how those who currently qualify and receive PIP but don't meet this criteria will be supported during the transition. The consultation is particularly open to disabled individuals and disability organisations in England, Scotland and Wales.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Boris Johnson named as potential witness in Nuked Blood Scandal crimes against troops
In office, Boris Johnson was told of allegations about crimes by the British state in withholding information about blood testing of nuclear troops. Now he has been identified as a potential witness in a criminal investigation Boris Johnson has been named as a potential witness to a criminal cover-up at the heart of the British state. The former PM's name appears, alongside others, in evidence handed to Thames Valley Police, which is considering whether to launch a full investigation. Detectives have been urged to question him about a secret programme of human radiation experiments on servicemen, the results of which have been withheld from their personnel files. The Nuked Blood Scandal - involving blood tests taken from troops before, during and after service at Cold War nuclear weapons trials - has led to a formal allegation of misconduct in public office centred on the Ministry of Defence. If convicted, such a charge is likely to lead to a sentence of 3 or 4 years' in jail for any public official who has acted unlawfully in post, with harm caused to others as a result. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Alan Owen of campaign group LABRATS said: "Veterans and their families have been serving a life sentence of their own. Chronic illness, cancers, birth defects, bereavement, miscarriage, trauma, suicide - much of it avoidable, and all of it more treatable, had they been told what really happened. "Instead they had decades of denial from successive governments. Boris was the first PM to sit down and look us in the eye, and now we ask him to do the right thing once again. and help the veterans get the justice they have for so long been denied." Mr Johnson was first informed of the scandal by the Mirror during a showdown in his Parliamentary office in June 2022, when he was asked to authorise a nuclear test medal. We showed him a 1958 memo between atomic scientists discussing the "gross irregularity" in the blood tests of a squadron leader who had been ordered to fly through mushroom clouds. We told the PM - in front of witnesses who included ministers, Downing Street officials, and backbench MPs - that the officer's medical records were being unlawfully withheld, and that was potentially a criminal offence. "Yes it is," he agreed, before studying the memo and asking the Mirror where the records had been hidden. It is not known what action he took as a result of the information he had been given. His representatives have been asked for comment. Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, who is also named as a potential witness, confirmed he would speak to the police if asked. He said: "Just as with infected blood, I believe senior politicians have been witnesses to a live and ongoing cover-up affecting our nuclear test veterans. If the police decide to investigate, it is incumbent upon all of us to co-operate fully and tell officers what we know. Politicians must have the courage to step forward and end Whitehall's culture of cover-up." Victims Commissioner demands police investigate allegations of Nuked Blood cover-up Other names on the list of potential witnesses include lawyers who provided sworn testimony, submissions to judges and written evidence handed in to court, stating that blood testing of troops did not take place, no documentation about it existed, and all relevant records had been disclosed. Thousands of pages of orders, discussion and results have since been uncovered, and a huge database is due to be declassified. Keir Starmer, who was first informed of missing medical records while Leader of the Opposition, is also on the list, along with Defence Secretary John Healey and Veterans Minister Al Carns. Downing Street, the MoD, and Government Legal Department all declined to answer the question of whether they would co-operate with any investigation. A government spokesman said: "These claims are false and there is no evidence to back this up. The Minister for Veterans and People has commissioned officials to look seriously into unresolved questions regarding medical records as a priority. This comprehensive work is underway and will enable us to better understand what information the department holds in relation to the medical testing of service personnel who took part in the UK nuclear weapons tests." Former Conservative ministers, and staff at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, have also been identified to police as people who may be able to shed light on who knew about the blood testing, and what was done about it in government. Campaigners say all the people they have named were told, or should have known, there was evidence of criminal behaviour within the MoD, and taken steps to report it to police. A ministerial review of the records has so far checked more than a million pages of documents, including orders for blood testing, but the government has refused to tell Parliament what has been found.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves risk repeating a mistake if she changes inheritance tax
Whenever a government is desperate to raise funds, there is a good chance it will revisit mad and bad ideas before trying something that is proven to work. As Rachel Reeves stares at the prospect of a black hole in the public finances — ranging from £20 billion to £70 billion, according to various estimates — it is clear that the chancellor cannot dig down the back of the sofa to plug the gap at the next budget. If these estimates are to be believed, dramatic spending cuts or big tax rises will be required to keep within her fiscal rules. Some Labour figures have duly called for a wealth tax, to squeeze the pips out of the country's richest who are already fleeing in rising numbers. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, is said to have privately urged Ms Reeves to clamp down on the rich; Lord Kinnock, the former party leader, has done so publicly. Thankfully this unwise idea has been dismissed as 'daft' by Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, which hopefully means it has been discarded. Yet another such bad idea has floated into the public domain: reworking inheritance tax. Reports suggest that Treasury officials have been tasked with examining how assets are being given away before death to reduce liabilities. Under current rules, gifts made seven years or more before someone's death are not captured by inheritance tax. Any gifts handed over after that are taxed at varying rates. The Treasury is said to be examining whether a lifetime cap should be introduced and whether the so-called 'taper rates' on gifts given up to seven years beforehand need to be reworked. It is unclear whether these ideas have yet to reach the chancellor's desk. • Angela Rayner gives Labour a 12-month mission to save itself Were Ms Reeves to pursue changes to inheritance tax, it would represent the apotheosis of the Starmer government's all-pain, no-gain approach to governing. First, changing the rules on inheritance tax would not raise the projected £40 billion required to plug the gap in the public finances. Families would simply find workarounds to avoid strenuous new levies, just as they have done under the present regime. There is a risk that the government would go to great effort to craft new inheritance tax rules, only to find that it fails to deliver what was hoped for and it is back to square one. Second, it is political suicide. There are few issues more likely to incite fury among the electorate than a stricter inheritance tax regime. Swathes of middle England who have carefully accrued capital will punish any party that seeks to take it away. Gordon Brown realised this when mulling over calling an election in 2007, taking fright from the Conservative's plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million. And finally, it is morally wrong. Inheritance tax is a levy on those who have worked hard throughout their lives to earn something to pass onto the next generation. The chancellor must draw a line under this speculation, which will prove damaging to her personally the longer it continues. There are better options available, such as tackling the ballooning welfare bill, with spending on disability benefits set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade. There is also the dire state of productivity in the public sector, which is costing the economy £80 billion a year, as this newspaper reported yesterday. After £40 billion of tax rises in her first budget suffocated economic growth, Ms Reeves would be wise to learn and not repeat the same error.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
UK benefits bill will hit £100bn with one million more on Universal Credit under Labour – I know how to fix it
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves is walking Britain into an alligator pit of maxed-out borrowing, higher taxes and stuttering growth. But there is something else now snapping at her high-tax heels — the soaring number of people on out-of-work benefits. 2 2 New figures this week showed that, since Labour took office, there are now over one million MORE people on Universal Credit — that's the size of the population of Birmingham. By 2030, the cost of sickness benefits alone will reach £100billion — more than the entire defence budget. Thousands of people are being written off, their potential wasted. And with hardworking families set to be clobbered by further tax hikes this autumn, Sun readers will rightly ask, 'What is going on?'. As the Work and Pensions Secretary responsible for getting Britain to record employment levels in the 2010s, I know that unless they get welfare under control, taxpayers face a tax bomb overwhelming them this autumn. 'Work instilled pride' To recap, before Covid, my reforms put a hard cap on unemployment benefits and combined them so that jobseekers were always better off in work. We brought in tough new rules and a contract for claimants to sign in return for their benefits, ensuring they looked for a job and took one, with a work coach's help. With this approach, we got 1,600 people into jobs every single day. Workless households fell to their lowest level ever. And half a million more children grew up seeing a parent going out to earn a living — changing their life chances forever. I took the view that work was more than just a paycheck but, importantly, it instilled purpose and pride in your life. Sadly, in 2020, Covid lockdowns saw benefit assessments massively relaxed and sanctions suspended. Meetings were shunted online and never held in person again — a terrible error. Meanwhile, perverse incentives crept into the system, allowing more and more people on to (significantly more generous) sickness benefits. Since then, long-term sickness claims have exploded, rising to almost 3,000 per day. The number of people receiving Personal Independent Payments for anxiety and depression has trebled. Meanwhile, the number of households where no one has ever worked has also risen. Analysis by the think tank I set up, The Centre For Social Justice, found that once all benefits are totted up, you can now receive £2,500 a year more on benefits than someone would receive on the national living wage after tax. In other cases, such as a single parent claiming for anxiety and a child with ADHD, total annual support can reach nearly £37,000 — over £14,000 more than the same person would earn through wages alone. A system designed to protect disabled people in genuine need has morphed into one that too often disincentivises work, traps people in long-term dependency and leaves them without meaningful support to recover. This isn't the whole story. There are, at the extremes, young and old at both edges of the welfare crisis. With almost one million youngsters not in education, employment or training (NEET), the epidemic of school absences could yet see an extra 180,000 pupils join their ranks. And we are leaking talent and experience out of the workforce at an alarming rate, with record numbers of people aged 50-64 on out-of-work benefits. The government must start by addressing the surge in claims since the pandemic, particularly for mental health. But the government has got off to a bad start. The Treasury's push to get quick savings in time for the spring resulted in a rebellion by Labour backbenchers and a U-turn costing £3billion. Yet this ballooning welfare bill has to be tackled, and the CSJ has shown there is a way. First, tighten eligibility for benefits to people with more severe mental health conditions while reinvesting the savings in the support we know genuinely helps people to recover. In-person assessments and benefit sanctions for those failing to seek work must be restored in full. The CSJ shows that this would save over £7billion, a large portion of which should be spent radically expanding NHS therapy and back-to-work help. Second, we need to stop people falling out of work in the first place. 'Young hardest hit' Medicalising the ups and downs of life has resulted in 93 per cent of consultations with a GP ending up with someone signed off altogether rather than keeping them in their job. A proper work and health system should take 'sick notes' provision off GPs, allowing them to devote their time to people, particularly those aged 50–64, needing workplace adjustments. Third, I worry more each day about Britain's young people. The government's National Insurance rises have put up wage costs, making businesses less likely to give them a chance. Young people are the hardest hit by the £25billion jobs tax. Instead, the Chancellor should cut taxes on jobs and introduce a new tax credit for businesses hiring young British NEETS, a CSJ proposal backed by many employers who have called for this. Our post-Covid ballooning welfare bill has to be tackled urgently. But as employment numbers fall in response to higher taxes, Reeves has made it harder to do this. Getting people back to work is critical for us all.
