PIP claimants that ‘shouldn't be affected' could still be at risk
700,000 people were recently told the changes won't affect them, but a loophole may mean it does
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
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Sarwar says surprise by-election win could help Labour back to power at Holyrood
Mr Sarwar and his party celebrated in the early hours of Friday morning after Labour's Davy Russell was elected as the new MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, winning the seat from the SNP. With the votes showing a swing of more than 7% from the SNP to Labour, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Friday the result showed people have 'voted for change'. The by-election had been held following the death earlier this year of Scottish Government minister Christina McKelvie. When the votes were counted, Mr Russell polled 8,559, SNP candidate Katy Loudon took 7,957 votes, while Reform's Ross Lambie secured 7,088. And although Mr Russell was elected with fewer votes than Labour secured in the seat in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP's support fell from just over 46% of all ballots then to 29.35% in the by-election. Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice insisting they were 'delighted' with coming third – despite speculation prior to the count that they could come in second or may even pull off a surprise victory. Labour's win came after Scotland's First Minister John Swinney – who made numerous campaign visits to the area – had declared the contest to be a 'two-horse race' between the SNP and Nigel Farage's Reform. But speaking at a media event in Hamilton on Friday morning, Mr Sarwar accused the SNP leader of running a 'disgraceful' campaign. Mr Sarwar also insisted the by-election could 'help lead the way' to him becoming Scotland's next first minister in the May 2026 Holyrood elections. The Scottish Labour leader said he believed the victory to be 'even more significant' than the party's win in the nearby Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election in October 2023 – which he said had been key in helping to secure Labour's general election win in July last year. Mr Sarwar declared: 'I think in some ways this by-election result is even more significant than the Rutherglen by-election result two years ago. 'It is right to say, I believe, the result in Rutherglen helped lead the way in helping to elect a UK Labour Government and I also believe the by-election result here will help lead the way to elect a Scottish Labour government next year.' Looking ahead to that election, Mr Sarwar told the PA news agency: 'I want us to gain scores of seats across the country so we can remove this SNP government from office.' He went on to accuse Mr Swinney of running a 'disgraceful campaign' in the by-election, saying that despite the SNP having been in power for 18 years, 'the best he had to offer was 'vote SNP to stop Farage''. And while Reform UK came in third in the by-election, Mr Sarwar said Mr Farage's party could not win the Scottish Parliament elections. He insisted: 'Nigel Farage is not standing to be first minister. 'It is a straight choice – it is either going to be John Swinney, or it's going to be me.' The Scottish Labour leader continued: 'The choice is stark next year. Our Parliament is not about protests, our election is not about protest, it is about choosing a government here in Scotland. 'The choice is stark – a third decade of the SNP with John Swinney as first minister or a new direction for Scotland with me as first minister.' However, Mr Tice told BBC Radio 4's that the result in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse was 'truly remarkable'. He said: 'We've come from nowhere to being in a three-way marginal, and we're within 750 votes of winning that by-election and just a few hundred votes of defeating the SNP, so it's an incredible result.' Mr Swinney, meanwhile, said the SNP was 'clearly disappointed' with the result. The party leader said Labour had 'won by an absolute landslide' in Rutherglen and Hamilton West – noting the SNP 'came much closer' this time round. But he added: 'The people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have made clear that we still have work to do. 'Over the next few days, we will take time to consider the result fully.'
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Youngsters could face two-hour social media cap per app in online safety package
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle will announce a new 'package of measures' in a major drive to stop kids wasting their childhoods doomscrolling on social media on their phones Youngsters could have their time on social media capped at two hours per app under online safety measures being considered by ministers. The package could include blocking kids from accessing social media after 10pm and during school hours. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is drawing up plans to stop kids wasting their childhoods doomscrolling on their phones. He told the Mirror his approach "will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online". Talks have focused on curfews and restrictions on accessibility to apps in a drive to tackle a spiralling screen time crisis among teens. A two-hour cap per social media app has been suggested to ministers in the talks. Under the measure, kids would be blocked from accessing social media apps, such as TikTok or Snapchat, once they have reached the limit. Officials admit this won't solve the problem completely as kids could still rack up screen time across multiple apps but believe it could be a starting point. Mr Kyle and his team have been in discussions with current and past employees of social media firms, who have suggested they'd be prepared to block kids' access at night, during school or after a certain amount of time using an app. No decision has been made on what age bracket could apply. Elsewhere, officials have also looked at raising the legal digital age of consent from 13 to 16. This is the age at which a child may give consent for their personal data to be processed by online sites. But insiders believe this is not a silver bullet, as there is little evidence of a huge impact in countries that have introduced the move. Mr Kyle is expected to make a major intervention in the coming months setting out new measures to improve kids' relationship with the online world. The Cabinet minister told the Mirror: "I have been working really hard on a package of measures that will move online safety forwards under this Labour government, and I can't wait to start talking about it when I have the opportunity in the not too distant future. "But I can say right now that my approach will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online, but also start to embrace those measures that deliver a much healthier life for children online, and that's what I want young people to have, a developmental safe and nourishing childhood online, just as we strive to for young people offline." In April, the regulator Ofcom published a new children's code instructing social media firms to tame toxic algorithms, take faster action on removing harmful content and introduce robust age verification measures. Age checks must be vigorous, with Ofcom recommending online platforms use measures including photo ID matching and facial recognition estimation to ensure below-aged kids can't create accounts on their sites. This should also mean online sites have better access to a user's age if they were asked to impose measures such as curfews on younger people. If tech giants don't stick to Ofcom's new rules from next month(JULY), they could be fined up to 10% of global revenue or, in the worst cases, have access to their platforms banned in the UK. In April, Mr Kyle celebrated the "first step" in the journey to improving kids' safety but admitted the UK's online safety laws are "lopsided" and more action is needed. He has since been taking a step back to think about how the addictive nature of phones and social media is "disrupting the childhood experience". Parents have been crying out for action to help their kids curb the amount of time spent behind their phone screens. A major report released by Ofcom last year(2024) found almost half (49%) of parents of teens aged 16-17 said they were concerned about their children's screen time. But it also found young people are similarly worried. Just over a third (35%) of eight to 17 year olds said their own screen time is too high, which rose to 44% among those aged 16 to 17. Keir Starmer has faced calls to prioritise online safety amid concerning levels of suicide, self-harm, anxiety and depression linked to social media use among teens. Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful posts online, has called for the Government to make tackling online harms its legacy. "What is needed is for the Prime Minister to champion online safety," he told The Mirror in April. "The lead has to come from Keir himself. There's never really been a Prime Minister who's championed online safety and it's time there was." A major report released by Ofcom last year(2024) found almost half (49%) of parents of teens aged 16-17 said they were concerned about their children's screen time.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
How benefits fraud exploded – and milking the system went mainstream
Sara Morris, a 50-year-old from Stone, Staffordshire, is not the first middle-aged jogger to showcase their exploits on social media. In posts on Facebook, the mother-of-three – and member of the Stone Master Marathoners – advertised her exertions in scores of running events, including 5k and 10k races. The difference for Morris was that rather than just showing off, her posts betrayed her as a benefits cheat. In 2005 she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, but in 2020 she exaggerated the extent of her condition to claim Personal Independence Payment (PIP). She claimed that she could not stand at her cooker or get out of the bath, and that she was so anxious she ended up in tears when she went to the pharmacy to collect her medication. She did not mention long-distance running. At Stoke Crown Court last July, Morris was sentenced to eight months in prison for dishonestly making a false statement to obtain a benefit, having been overpaid £20,528.83 between October 20 2020 and April 25 2023. Between May 2019 and December 2022, an investigation found that she competed in 73 races. She accepted that her benefit application 'crossed over into the realms of dishonesty'. She served nine weeks. Last week, in a proceeds of crime hearing, in the same court Judge Graeme Smith ordered Morris to repay £22,386.02 within 28 days or serve nine months in prison in default. Benefit fraud remains stubbornly high since the pandemic Morris's case is so blatant as to verge on the comic. But Keir Starmer will not laugh at the timing of the hearing, in a week when he has faced calls for higher spending and warnings of lower growth. On Monday, the Prime Minister revealed the results of Lord Robertson's Strategic Defence Review, which included a pledge to build up to 12 new attack submarines and increase defence spending from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of national income. He had barely finished the announcement when it was reported that Nato would oblige him to commit to increasing defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035. On Thursday US defence secretary Pete Hegseth pushed for five per cent. Meanwhile, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicted that the UK economic growth would slump to a measly one per cent next year, hit by uncertainty over Donald Trump's tariffs regime and higher-than-expected inflation. Even if Starmer manages to reform the welfare system, as he has promised – and his handbrake U-turn on winter fuel payments suggest this will be easier said than done – it appears inevitable he will have to put up taxes, too. It's never a popular decision, and especially not when there is a perception among the vast majority that criminals and scammers are fleecing honest taxpayers. And that perception is borne out by the statistics: benefit fraud has remained stubbornly high since the pandemic, while convictions for the crime have fallen. Telegraph analysis of Ministry of Justice data shows that the number of people sentenced for key benefit fraud-related offences has plummeted from 4,154 to 685 since 2017. Such is public concern that Britons overestimate the true extent of benefit fraud. 'We find that the public estimate that about 24 per cent of the entire welfare budget is being fraudulently claimed, whereas the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimate 2.2 per cent of benefit expenditure is 'over paid',' says Ben Page, CEO of Ipsos. Yet in a department as large as the DWP, even a small percentage can mean a huge loss. In its report last year, the DWP reported a top-line figure that 2.8 per cent of its £268 billion total benefits outlay (which includes around £160 billion on pensions, less susceptible to fraud), or £7.4 billion, was lost to fraud. This year fraud was down to 2.2 per cent, or £6.5 billion – a sum that has more than doubled since 2020 – with a further £1.9 billion on claimant error and £1 billion official error. If fraud was its own block of spending, it would be not far from how much the government spends on the entire legal system (£8.6 billion), and more than higher education (£7.2 billion), foreign aid (£7.2 billion) and potholes (£7 billion). It would be enough to buy you a Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier with change for 11 F-35s to put on it. A 1p cut in income tax would cost just £6.4 billion. There were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024. The most recent data show that there were 39,000 new 'starts' – people receiving benefit – per week in that month from 47,000 claims, implying an acceptance rate of 83 per cent. High profile fraud cases, even if they represent a minority of claimants, are infuriating for the rule-abiding public and toxic for government. Sara Morris's was not the only recent case to make headlines. Last May, three women and two men from a Bulgarian crime gang were jailed for between three and eight years each for a £50 million benefits fraud, the biggest in British history, which involved thousands of fraudulent claims. Sentencing Gyunesh Ali, one of the gang members, Judge David Aaronberg said Ali had committed fraud 'on an industrial scale'. In December, Halton council announced it would have to write off more than £240,000 of unpaid welfare fraud debt owed by Christina Pomfrey, a Runcorn grandmother, after her death. Pomfrey had received more than £1 million in benefits over a 15-year period, having lied that her MS had left her blind and in need of a wheelchair, before she was arrested. In 2020 she was sentenced to three years and eight months, after what the judge called 'staggering' dishonesty and 'determined benefit fraud on a substantial scale'. In October 2023, Hossein Ali Najafi, 57, who was born in Iran, was sentenced to 29 months in prison for falsely claiming £349,000 in benefits, using two identities and 26 bank accounts. 'Fraudsters like Hossein Ali Najafi abuse the benefits system, which exists to support people who are in genuine need,' said Maqsood Khan, senior crown prosecutor of Mersey Cheshire Fraud Unit. Gaming the system And so on and on. Benefit fraud has rocketed in recent times. A State of the Nation report commissioned by David Cameron's government in 2010 estimated the total fraud to be £1 billion. In 2011/12, the DWP estimated that fraud was worth 0.7 per cent of the total budget. (The government's counting method changed after 2018.) The figures rocketed up during the pandemic, particularly in Universal Credit. According to the National Audit Office's analysis of the DWP data, the Universal Credit overpayments due to fraud and error went from £700 million in 2018-2019 to £1.7 billion the following year and a whopping £5.5 billion the year by 2020-2021. Last year's record figure for Universal Credit fraud was £6.5 billion. Fraud in other areas, such as housing benefit, meanwhile, remained stable or fell over the same period. State pension fraud is extremely low, with less than 0.1 per cent overpaid due to fraud or error. The fraud rate in Universal Credit amounts to around 10 per cent of the overall Universal Credit spending; bearing in mind this only registers the fraud that has been caught, the true figure may be higher still. That's not counting the men and women – perhaps following tips gleaned from a 'sickfluencer' – who are gaming the system but technically within the letter of it. It has been argued that one factor in the shocking rise in Universal Credit fraud has been the move away from in-person assessments to remote ones, often conducted over the phone. Last year Peter Schofield, the DWP permanent secretary, blamed the 'underlying growth of fraud in the economy' for the increase. Reporting on the 2024 figures, the National Audit Office's Gareth Davies said it was clear the DWP 'no longer expects Universal Credit fraud and error to return to the levels seen before the significant increase during the Covid-19 pandemic'. A DWP spokesperson told The Telegraph: 'We are bringing forward the biggest fraud crackdown in a generation, as part of wider plans that will save £9.6 billion by 2030. 'Thanks to our efforts we have reduced fraud by around £800 million – with over £400 million of savings in Universal Credit alone in the last year. We are absolutely clear we will not tolerate any waste as we protect taxpayer's money.' Joe Shalam, the policy director of the Centre for Social Justice, a think tank, who previously worked at the DWP, believes that there has been a cultural shift in recent years towards seeking out benefits. 'The rise in benefit fraud is analogous to the rise in shoplifting,' he says. 'A population-level change driven by wider economic forces, like inflation and the cost of living. Such casual lawbreaking was highlighted last week when Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary and putative successor to Kemi Badenoch as Conservative leader, released a widely-shared film in which he confronted some of the passengers on the Tube, thought to be as many as one in 25 of the total, who push through the barriers without paying. Corroding faith in government But there is a cultural dimension to it as well. The welfare system has an implicit or assumed sense that everyone who is 'entitled' will not necessarily apply for it. We're seeing a cultural shift where people are much more likely to say 'my neighbour is receiving X, why am I not?' says Shalam. 'There are some cultural and economic factors that make it harder to get back to a pre-pandemic norm.' In March, for example, it was reported that the Motability scheme, which provides taxpayer-funded cars to those claiming PIP benefits, had signed up 815,000 people last year, an increase of more than 170,000 in a year. Claimants can apply for a new model every three years. The Motability fleet is the biggest in Europe, valued at more than £14 billion. On social media, there are accounts dedicated to showing their followers how they can secure a car for themselves, too. All of which can corrode faith in government, says James Frayne, a veteran political strategist. 'Since the late 2000s, when everyone had to tighten their belts, there has been increasing exasperation that some people are wrongly living off the fat of the land by claiming benefits they aren't due,' he says. 'While people get angry at cases of systematic criminal fraud, they can get just as angry at individuals they think just can't be bothered to work. It all adds up to this sense that nobody seems to be able to govern Britain properly. Inevitably, the anger at those milking or ripping off the system rebounds towards politicians.' Soon after winning the general election last year, Keir Starmer announced that cracking down on benefit fraud would be a priority for his government. In his speech to the Labour Party conference in September, he said that new legislation, following a policy mooted by the Conservatives, would let investigators 'root out' fraud with similar powers of 'search and seizure' to those enjoyed by HMRC. This would compel banks to hand over financial information about their customers where there was reasonable suspicion of benefit fraud. The plan was designed to save the taxpayer £1.6 billion over five years and free up more money for public services. Another proposal, announced in January, was to strip benefit fraudsters of their driving licences. Starmer's reforms have met with resistance. Neil Duncan-Jordan, who was elected the Labour MP for Poole last year, has proposed amendments to the bill that would ensure only those suspected of fraud would be surveilled. Writing in The Guardian, Duncan accused Starmer of 'resurrecting Tory proposals for mass spying on people who receive state support' and that under the proposed legislation 'welfare recipients would be treated as suspects, simply because they need support from the state'. The vast sums of money lost to benefit fraud are also an incentive for a government to crack down on it, to free up money for other projects. Recent comparative international studies are thin on the ground, but Britain might learn from Finland, a high-trust society with a relatively simple benefits system and high rates of digitisation, where fraud rates amount to less than half a percentage point of the total paid. According to the latest report by Kela, the Finnish welfare institution, there were 1,104 suspected cases of benefit 'misuse' in 2024, amounting to €7.2 million (£6 million); the number of cases has been stable over the past five years. In the UK, failing a cultural reversion away from seeking out every benefit you might be entitled to, Shalam believes technology might improve efficiency. 'Analysing and assessing all the information about people's claims and their condition takes a huge volume of human resource,' he says. 'There's a lot of potential in AI to crack down on fraud and make sure the system is going to those who need it most.' Ultimately the people most angry about benefit fraud are those working on the front lines, says Amber Rudd, who was secretary of state for work and pensions from 2018-2019. 'The people who mind most about [fraud] are the people who work in the job centres,' she says. 'They find it really upsetting and frustrating. They are trying to help other people. When I went round the job centres it was the first thing they wanted to talk about. Fraud takes many different forms. The abusive form, forcing single mothers to go in and apply, then there are the multiple frauds where someone has a system. 'It's like the bank robber who says he robs banks because 'that's where the money is'. There's money being handed out; there is inevitably going to be fraud. I thought at the time we could do better with technology trying to weed it out. But it's going to be a constant battle.' In attempting to mitigate Sara Morris's sentence, her lawyer Paul Cliff conceded that her application to the DWP 'did not give the full picture,' but that 'running was one of the ways she tried to manage her MS'. 'She lost her home because of financial problems,' he also said. 'And was struggling to keep her head above water financially.' As he tries to placate an increasingly angry electorate while balancing Britain's precarious books, Keir Starmer may sympathise with her.
