Given my role as a representative of the UK Government, I am
frequently approached by constituents who have experienced problems with the
PIP process. Their experiences raised questions about the efficiency and
transparency of the way these payments are being processed and distributed and
prompted me to investigate further.
Personal Independence Payment is a benefit that is intended
to help with the extra costs of living with a long-term health condition of a
disability. It is non-means-tested, non-contributory and tax-free. Furthermore,
it is not linked to a person’s ability to work, it is based upon the practical
effects of a condition on a person’s life rather than the condition itself. The assessments carried out by PIP assessors are in place to record the impact a condition has on daily living for example, if an individual is able to prepare their own meals or manage their own medication. These assessments in theory, should be designed to gather as much accurate information as possible about the effects of a condition on a person’s life. The process should also take into account the varying degrees of conditions and wide variety of symptoms.
I have heard many detailed accounts from constituents who suffer from conditions where symptoms are difficult to assess due to their sporadic nature and varying degrees of severity. For example, an individual suffering from a neurological condition may be able to perform most regular daily activities on a good day however, on a bad day they may be unable to get out of bed. It is pertinent that these types of conditions are correctly recorded by PIP assessors. Unfortunately, many of my constituents have found that this is not the case. They are being told that they do not qualify for PIP or receive a reduced amount because their assessment has been on one of their ‘good days’ or the assessor has recorded that they can in fact perform tasks – not noting that they can’t when their symptoms flair up.
The Department of Work and Pensions have recently stated that all health professionals undertaking assessments on behalf of DWP must be registered practitioners for example, an occupational therapist or a physiotherapist. The Department also stated that all healthcare professionals receive training in disability analysis. Given that the number of appeals and Mandatory Reconsiderations is so high, I feel this calls in to question the accuracy of the information being recorded by assessors at the first point of contact thus suggesting failings in the training being given to assessors.
I believe the Department of Work and Pensions need to make significant improvements to the way the current system operates. They have a responsibility to protect the individuals who are going through the process of applying for PIP from ‘slipping through the cracks’ or from their needs being unfairly and inaccurately assessed. I have recently raised written questions to the Department of Work and Pensions about PIP processes in order to obtain more information about the current system. I plan to continue to hold the Department of Work and Pensions to account and highlight the issues I feel need addressed by the Department in order to hopefully evoke much needed improvement in the service received by constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and throughout the rest of the UK.
You can read my written questions on this issue here: https://goo.gl/JiOm0x