ESA, DLA and PIP chaos - DWP overturning more than half of it's own decisions on MR..

Morglin

Latest statistics on ESA groupings, which show a sixfold increase on those being placed into support group:


"The latest work capability assessment (WCA) outcome statistics released last week show an extraordinary rise in the proportion of claimants qualifying for employment and support allowance (ESA) and a truly massive increase in the proportion being placed in the support group since the coalition came to power.


The most recent statistics cover the period from July to September 2013.

They show that 27% of new ESA claimants were found fit for work.


In the quarter immediately before the coalition came to power, on the other hand, the proportion of claimants being found fit for work was 61%.

So the percentage being found fit for work under IDS has more than halved.


But it’s the increase in the proportion of claimants being put in the support group that has been the most astonishing.


When IDs became a minister it stood at 10%. It is now an extraordinary 57% of new claimants being put straight into the support group.

In other words, you are almost six times as likely to be put into the support group under the coalition as you were under Labour.


Meanwhile, the proportion of new ESA claimants being placed in the work-related activity group has fallen from 29% to 16%.


It’s true that there is such a massive backlog of ESA claims now that these figures may change when all the assessments have been done: there has been a particularly big rise in support group percentages in last three quarters that stats are available for.


But this isn’t just a blip: the proportion going into the support group has risen every single quarter since IDS took over. It had more than trebled by the beginning of 2012.


So, whilst the DWP press office has been crowing this week about an almost 90% reduction in appeal rates, they are keeping very quiet indeed about the growing proportion of ESA claimants who have no reason whatsoever to appeal.


You can download the full set of WCA outcome statistics here."








http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2804-support-group-chances-increase-almost-sixfold-under-coalition


Lin

Morglin

Latest on Universal Credit, as a review is going to be held:






"A cross-party review of universal credit is being launched amid new evidence that funding for the project has been cut so severely that its original aim to provide incentives for people to get into work could be undermined.


Technology flaws, implementation delays and Whitehall infighting has led to deep cynicism about the scheme, which is due to be fully implemented in 2017-18 covering as many as eight million households.


Many critics claim the scheme is dead, but although Labour has been fiercely critical of the way in which universal Credit has been implemented, the shadow work and pensions secretary, Rachel Reeves, has not yet said that she would scrap the reforms.


The expert review, to be chaired by the welfare expert Nicholas Timmins, is being launched by the Resolution Foundation thinktank and will focus on structural redesigns that may be required to restore work incentives.


The scheme is currently being implemented on a limited pilot basis in some jobcentres, and that progress is likely to be re-examined in a second report by the National Audit Office before the election.


In total, eight million households – half of them in work – will be eligible for UC, which has been designed as a single payment to replace six existing types of benefit or tax credit. Half of all families with dependent children will be eligible, so making it vital that UC's structure works and that recent revisions do not undermine its effectiveness.


Initial work by the Resolution Foundation shows that by 2018 cuts to the basic and work allowances will mean UC is £685 a year less generous for a couple with one child, saving the government £1.8bn a year.


The structure of UC may be badly targeted to protect second earners, according to Resolution Foundation. At present, a second earner under UC can lose as much as 76% of their earnings once they make enough to pay income tax.


The review will also look to see whether the coalition was wise to omit council tax support from UC. There has been widespread concern that a household receiving UC will see its earnings eaten away by the means-testing of council tax support.


The review will look at how those in work may face loss of UC if they cannot show jobcentre staff that they are unable to earn more than £220 a week. If they are earning less than this they may be required to take a different job or work longer hours.


It appears that claimants of UC could face the same sanctions regime as applied to claimants of jobseekers allowance if they cannot show they are seeking longer hours, but there is a much scepticism about how this would apply. Similarly, the self-employed under the UC regime will be subject to interviews to see that they are truly gainfully employed.


Finally, the review will examine the way tax cuts prioritised for after the election could be undermined by the impact on UC. The review team suggests families receiving UC will lose at least £65 out of every £100 tax giveaway, and £72 in every £100 where council tax is already withdrawn.


Gavin Kelly, the Resolution Foundation chief executive, said: "Universal credit is an incredibly ambitious and important reform but the recent focus on the slipping timetable together with the complexity of the underlying policy means that some of the underlying policy changes have not received the scrutiny they deserve."


He said the beginning of the next parliament was likely to be the last opportunity to make changes to UC.


The review team includes Giles Wilkes, a former economic adviser to the business secretary, Vince Cable, as well as Mike Brewer, a former IFS economist who was one of the first advocates of the reform five years ago."


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/17/cuts-universal-credit-work-incentives-review




Lin

50Twuncle

jennyjenkins wrote: »

I wonder if you will get any answer, I actually work for them, and we are in the dark, we haven't got a clue what is going on.

I will get an answer (the law requires this) - but whether it will help is another matter ...

50Twuncle

So it looks as if both UC and PIP are failing ?
Will they both go out of the window ?

Morglin

From the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/18/thousands-limbo-disability-benefit-appeals-grind-to-halt

Lin

Morglin

50Twuncle wrote: »

So it looks as if both UC and PIP are failing ?
Will they both go out of the window ?

Probably, yes - my view, shared by a lot of people, is that PIP will keep the name, but be processed as DLA used to be.

Whether that will be before or after the next election is a moot point.

Lin

jennyjenkins

Morglin wrote: »

From the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/18/thousands-limbo-disability-benefit-appeals-grind-to-halt

Lin

This is exactly what I have written on this forum.

jennyjenkins

It is such a mess do you really think that the government are going to admit it, before an election. They are hanging themselves slowly but surely.

amus

OK just to prove you aren't a troll, can you confirm to me what the computer system is called that DWP use to access ATOS medical reports? Anybody preparing tribunals for DLA will know this.

Hint: It's not the answer you get if you Google it

50Twuncle

amus wrote: »

OK just to prove you aren't a troll, can you confirm to me what the computer system is called that DWP use to access ATOS medical reports? Anybody preparing tribunals for DLA will know this.

I think that he/she is genuine
Perhaps a little naive though - why go to the bother of doing all of this - with no hope of gaining anything (except perhaps notoriety) and a (small) chance of losing everything, if caught ?