Taking the PIP

Where Social Security matters are concerned, you'd never know there had been a change of year, as there certainly hasn't been any attempt to change the record.  Having filled the usual suspects on the newstands with scare stories of hordes of Romanians and Bulgarians on their way here (to claim our benefits!), they've switched neatly back to reminding us that too many of those benefits (paid from our taxes!) go to cheats, with the duplicious Lord Freud launching a new area-based campaign promising posters, door-to-door leafleting and Facebook alerts to encourage people to 'do the right thing' and report miscreants.  Or disabled people with variable conditions who the neighbour jealous of the Motorbility car only sees out on their 'good days'...

Still, I've done that blog before.  This one is about those disabled people who can't be reported as benefit cheats because they haven't actually got any benefits yet.  Or 'PIP claimants', as we might call them.

PIP (Personal Independence Payment) replaced DLA (Disability Living Allowance) this year for all new claims.  Initially trialled in the North-West, it rolled out nationally in June 2013.  Without getting bogged down in bags of detail about the rules on assessment and qualification, essentially there are two rates (standard and enhanced) to address extra needs with 'Daily Living' tasks and two rates as above considering 'Mobility' needs.  The vast majority of claimants will have a medical examination by either Atos Origin or Capita as part of the assessment process.

In November 2013, the cancer charity MacMillan rightly complained that claims for this new benefit for terminally ill people were taking very much longer to process than their 'special rules' equivalents under DLA - whereas DLA claims were often speeded through in under a fortnight, PIP claims were taking two months or more, and claimants were dying before seeing a penny.  Minister Mick Penning ate some humble pie and promised to do better, since when it's all gone very quiet, so hopefully that atrocious situation has improved.  But there still appear to be a very high proportion of claims dating back to the early days of the national roll out yet to be considered.  I can only go on limited research from the CAB where I work and anecdotal evidence on Disability Rights websites, but if this is indeed the case, it is a national scandal.

Even if you don't have a terminal illness, if you're claiming PIP it's because you have a significant and lasting health problem.  Let's imagine, for instance, a person of working age with lasting mobility, strength and co-ordination issues after an accident or perhaps a stroke.  They've been discharged from hospital and need care for part of the day, so their partner has had to cut their working hours to provide that.  Say the disabled person is entitled to PIP at the standard rate for daily living (£53pw) and enhanced rate for mobility (£55.25 pw), and their partner/carer now earns under £100 per week so could claim Carers Allowance (£59.75) to make up some of their losses, but only if their partner qualifies for PIP.  That's £168 per week in total, £108.25 in PIP alone.

If they made their claims early in the 'new regime', by now they could be owed up to £5040.  With entitlement to the enhanced rate for daily living, they would be owed £5824.50,  and while this is close to a worst-possible scenario it isn't uncommon.  Even someone entitled to just the standard rate for mobility of £21 per week could be owed £631.

Being classed as a severely disabled person living with a carer could also mean this couple qualify for additional assistance with Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support.  PIP (like DLA) is 'disregarded' as income for these benefits so there isn't a swings/roundabouts situation for disabled people with housing costs to meet.  This also goes unpaid until the PIP is awarded and while payment is made from the date of claim, there could easily be rent arrears, loan interest or even Court costs incurred by the claimant in the meantime.  Presumably, unspent money in Government coffers accrues interest or saves the cost of borrowing...

Surely, the Labour Party should be on the Government's case about this on a daily basis because:

• The 'victims' are people with long-term disabilities, their families and carers, so self-evidently the 'deserving poor'. (Sadly, as Her Majesty's Opposition are a little weak at challenging the stereotypes these days, this is politically useful).
• PIP is a non-means-tested benefit and thus is quite legitimately claimed by 'taxpayers' with disabilities and their 'hard-working families', not just the feckless poor.  In short, any voter could find themselves caught in this trap.
• Failure to decide PIP claims also affects local businesses, for example car dealerships who supply 'Motorbility' vehicles: disabled employees may be unable to access work because they cannot afford appropriate transport without their benefit and both social and private landlords will have disabled tenants struggling needlessly with rent arrears, when this benefit - and the enhancements it brings to others - would see them lifted out of financial difficulty.
• It's a prime example of one of IDS's flagship new benefits going spectacularly wrong, despite trials in 'pathfinder' areas, so we can expect a similar fiasco with Universal Credit, and another 'own goal' for Atos (though Labour might want to keep quiet about that since they let the wrong one in there...)  

I have no idea exactly how much benefit owed to deserving disabled people, their carers and families this Government is currently sitting on.  It's £1 million for every 200 cases like the one above (not allowing for any housing and subsistence benefits also due), but I have no idea how many there actually are, or whether the DWP and their contractors are gaining on the backlog or losing ground.  Time, perhaps, for a Question or two in the House? 

And no scuttling off this time and leaving it to your minions to deal with, Mr Duncam Smith!