DWP claimants face '50-week' wait over benefit worth £441 a month
Benefit claimants are being affected by horrendous delays, as Personal Independent Payment (PIP) applicants now face a staggering 50-week wait for assessments, as disclosed by Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation.
The alarm was heralded in front of the work and pensions select committee with calls for immediate action, reports Express.co.uk.
PIP, which supports those struggling with illness, disability or mental health issues in daily tasks, has been chucked into the spotlight following Labour's recent proposal to reform its contentious assessment procedures.
READ MORE: Almost half of pensioners born before this date facing stealth tax raid
Get breaking news on BirminghamLive WhatsApp, click the link to join
At the committee, Ms Curtice aired her concerns, saying: "The waiting time for a PIP assessment is 50 weeks. So from the day your assessment was meant to happen, you wait almost a year until it actually happens."
She spoke of systemic flaws that disadvantage both taxpayers and claimants: "There's clearly elements of the system that are not working, either for the government in terms of keeping the right people in the system, or claimants that are suffering delays."
Curtice touched at root causes behind this sluggish pace: "The slowing seems to be due to fewer assessments and fewer reassessments. It may also be due to stretched job centres being able to provide less support."
PIP is worth worth £441.60 every four weeks at the higher daily living rate, while at the lower rate it is worth £295.60 every four weeks.
Contrastingly, a Department for Work & Pensions spokesperson refuted these alarming statistics to Yahoo News, claiming the current average period for a PIP verdict remains at 16 weeks, while new applicants typically anticipate nine weeks for their assessment.
They remarked: "We support millions of people through our welfare system every year and it is a priority people receive the benefits they are entitled to as quickly as possible.."
"We have hired more staff to respond to an increased volume of claims and have special rules in place so that people nearing the end of their life are guaranteed a fast-tracked PIP award. On the rare occasion this does not happen, we will investigate to understand what went wrong."
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) has two elements, a daily living rate and a mobility rate, and claimants may be entitled to either one or both components. Claimants currently need to score between eight and 11 points to receive the standard rate daily living component.
There will be no changes to the mobility component scoring system or the expedited claim process for individuals nearing the end of life.
Individuals with 12 months or less to live who receive or are eligible for PIP can still claim the enhanced daily living component rate through the fast-track process.
Scoring 12 points or more makes claimants eligible for the enhanced rate daily living component. But under Labour's plans, from November 2026, claimants will need a minimum of four points for at least one activity to qualify for the daily living component of PIP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Temporary congestion charge considered for city
Car drivers could be forced to pay a £5 temporary congestion charge to access a city centre. Oxfordshire County Council said it was considering setting up a two-year scheme in Oxford from the autumn. It said action was needed due to traffic issues caused by the long-term closure of Botley Road for works. However, Oxford City Council leader Susan Brown said the proposal would "allow people who can afford to do so to buy access to our streets". Paying the £5 charge, which would only apply to cars, would allow drivers to go through the six charge locations until the end of the day. Permits would be available for carers, traders, blue badge holders and those commuting to or living in a central area of the city. The county council said action was needed because of delays to a planned trial of traffic filters, which cannot be introduced until Botley Road is reopened. The route is currently shut because of overrunning works at Oxford Station and the railway bridge, which are now not due to finish until August next year. The charging points for the congestion zone would be in the same places as the planned traffic filters: Hythe Bridge Street St Cross Road St Clement's Street Thames Street Marston Ferry Road Hollow Way Andrew Gant, in charge of transport for the Liberal Democrat-run county council, said: "We urgently need to see improvements to travel around the city, better bus services and less traffic overall, to help people get around. "We must take action for our residents, businesses and visitors while Botley Road remains closed." However, Oxford City Council said there has been no previous consultation on the plan. Labour leader Susan Brown said: "Yet again the city is being done to rather than engaged with in preparing transport proposals. "We need a full review of transport policies with a view to tackling congestion in our city. This is something a Greater Oxford Council would do." Campaign group Cyclox welcomed the proposals, saying Oxford's congestion had "reached crisis point". "We can't leave things as they are; if nothing is done the city will grind to a halt under the weight of car traffic," it said. "We cannot build more roads to magic congestion away." Previously Oxford Bus Group warned that congestion was at "emergency levels". The proposals will be discussed by the council's cabinet on 17 June and, if approved, a six-week public consultation would start later this month. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram. City traffic filters postponed by Botley Road delay Call for city's traffic filter plans to be scrapped Council urged for 'Plan B' to tackle congestion Oxfordshire County Council
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
'Spurious' claims about the potential impact on nature from Labour's planning reforms seek to undermine its proposals, a minister has said, as he defended overriding environmental protections. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs call for action on benefits after winter fuel U-turn
Labour MPs have broadly welcomed the government's decision to reinstate winter fuel payments for three-quarters of pensioners but some are using the U-turn to renew their calls for planned benefit cuts to be reversed. Nine million pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income of £35,000 or less will now be eligible for up to £300 to help with energy bills this winter. Labour MPs thanked the government for listening to their concerns, arguing means testing the payment was fair but that the threshold was set too low last year. However, several urged ministers to also think again on planned cuts to disability payments, while others called for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped. Under planned changes to the benefits system it would be harder for people with less severe conditions to claim personal independence payments (Pips), while the government is promising more support to help people get into work. While the two-child benefit cap policy prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017, which critics say has pushed people into poverty. Ministers are considering lifting the cap, with a decision expected in the autumn, when a child poverty strategy is published. Pressure from Labour backbenchers over the issues - as well as on winter fuel payments - has been growing since the party's poor performance at local election's in May. The winter fuel payment was previously paid to all pensioners but last year the government announced only those receiving pension credit or another means-tested benefit would be eligible in England and Wales. The original cut last year was estimated to save £1.7bn, with the government arguing it was necessary because of the state of the public finances. But the move, which meant more than 10 million pensioners did not receive the payment in 2024, was criticised by charities, unions, opposition parties and many Labour MPs. Following mounting pressure, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a U-turn last month, with the details of who will get the payment this winter set out on Monday. The chancellor said she would detail how the £1.25bn policy would be paid for in the autumn Budget. How much is the winter fuel payment and who will get it? Labour hope to put winter fuel misstep behind them At-a-glance: Key changes to benefits in welfare shake-up Imran Hussain was among the Labour MPs to call for the planned benefit cuts to be scrapped in response to a government statement in the Commons on changes to winter fuel payments. "It is clear the government has listened, so I ask them to listen again to the growing calls in this chamber and scrap their planned, devastating cuts to disability support," the MP for Bradford East said. Fellow Labour MPs Nadia Whittome and Richard Burgon also welcomed the winter fuel U-turn but urged the government to listen to backbench concerns over benefit cuts. In response, Torsten Bell, who is both a Treasury minister and pensions minister, told MPs there needed to be "a better system focusing on supporting those who can work into work". He added that the status quo - where 1,000 people a day are going onto Pips - was not "a position that anybody should support". Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has been a leading campaigner for restoring winter fuel payments, welcomed the government's change in policy, saying it was "long overdue". She told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme the £35,000 salary threshold for the payment was a "sensible measure". However, Maskell called on the government to consider a larger payment following increases in energy prices over the past year. The MP for York Central also urged a rethink on planned benefit cuts, adding: "You can't rob disabled people in order to pay older people, that doesn't make sense." Meanwhile, she was among several MPs to reiterate their calls for the government to scrap the two-child benefit cap. In the Commons Rebecca Long Bailey, Labour MP for Salford, also asked for reassurances minsters "are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible" to bring children out of poverty. In response Bell said "all levers to reduce child poverty are on the table". The minister added: "She's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this government. "We cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty." The Conservatives have called for the government to apologise to pensioners who lost out on winter fuel payments last year. Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately described the U-turn as "the most humiliating climbdown a government has ever faced in its first year in office". She told the Commons "this rushed reversal raises as many questions as it answers", arguing the move was "totally unfunded" and could lead to tax rises. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "Finally the chancellor has listened to the Liberal Democrats and the tireless campaigners in realising how disastrous this policy was, but the misery it has caused cannot be overstated. "Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating all whilst the government buried its head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who were really suffering." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
