Could this article on PIP and the appeal process deter claimants?

Alice_Holt

I came across this in the press:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/26/benefit-assessor-more-afraid-state-poverty

I thought it a shame that the appeal process had been misrepresented, as an example from the article "The DWP said it had sent the summons to my old address.
It's not clear if this relates to the MR or the appeal hearing. I would assume the later, but the appeal process is so sloppily described in the article that it is difficult to establish.

I was too late to post a comment, but would have pointed out that:
- the Tribunal Service (independent of the DWP) handle the appeal and 74% of appeals succeed (the article rather implies the DWP assess, decide, and then determine the outcome of any appeal);
- PIP is points based, about specific activities and descriptors;
- a local advice agency / Citizens Advice may have been able to help him with both the application and appeal.

In my view the writer by painting such a bleak (and inaccurate) view of the appeal process is more likely to deter vulnerable claimants from appealing. I rather feel he has done a disservice to any PIP claimants reading his article and considering an appeal.

calcotti

I saw this and thought that, whilst I felt for the claimant, it was indeed poorly written and misleading. Not at all clear whether the reference to a first appeal having taken place is a reference to an MR or to an appeal.

The point that an actual appeal is dealt with by HMCTS and not DWP was picked up in a couple of comments. But then there were also comments about a second appeal which, as we know, is only possible if there is a legal error. There are also comments about DLA having criteria, as if PIP doesn’t etc.

Despite the many problems in the benefits system, to which the forum is often witness, media coverage is often unhelpful and does, I think, deter people from claiming benefits generally. There are many posts on this forum which refer to ‘all the horror stories about UC’.

The legacy benefits system was full of faults too, some of which are improved by UC.

It would be much better if these kind of opinion pieces were fact checked before publishing so as not to mislead

Alice_Holt

calcotti wrote: »

It would be much better if these kind of opinion pieces were fact checked before publishing so as not to mislead

Thanks calcotti.

I did wonder if I was over reacting, but at my local Citizens Advice I often find myself reassuring clients who are (understandably) very anxious about starting an appeal against a poor DWP decision.

I think it's important to give claimants a sense of confidence that their appeal can succeed, as well as clearly explaining, and help them navigate, the process. Misleading opinion pieces like this really don't help.

And although the cases I see are a result of flawed assessments, it should be said that many claimants are fairly assessed and do get an appropriate award.

calcotti

Alice_Holt wrote: »

it should be said that many claimants are fairly assessed and get an appropriate award.

That too is an important point - these obviously don’t make the headlines, or the help forums.

On the other side it would also be helpful if DWP would admit that mistakes are made (but that there are mechanisms in place to try and correct them) instead of the ‘official spokesperson’ always repeating bland and supposedly reassuring statements which are often blatantly untrue.

Blatchford

This isn't an "article", it's a personal reflection. Someone's lived experience. No different than many of the experiences of people on these threads. Perhaps we should ban people from posting here if they have a bad experience of the DWP in case it deters someone else?

This isn't everyone's experience. It isn't even the majority of people's experience. It wasn't my experience. But it is some people's experience. And it's important that the many people who don't claim PIP, who don't have a need to, understand that whilst the system works for many, it is still fundamentally broken and it costs some people their lives.

calcotti

I don't think the issue is about publishing a bad experience. It’s important that these are reported, both to inform others and to put pressure on the government to improve things. However it’s not helpful if there are inaccuracies in how things are reported. Although it’s an opinion piece I also think that this carries more weight than what is posted in a discussion forum.

Blatchford

calcotti wrote: »

I don't think the issue is about publishing a bad experience. It’s important that these are reported, both to inform others and to put pressure on the government to improve things. However it’s not helpful if there are inaccuracies in how things are reported. Although it’s an opinion piece I also think that this carries more weight than what is posted in a discussion forum.

I think you are missing the point. It isn't "reporting". There are no "inaccuracies" - (a) this is what this person understands from their lived experience, and (b) the word "summons" - as in being "summoned to a meeting" - is correct in the context, and you are interpreting it in a different way than meant.

The author may have a limited experience based only on their own life - which is all they are talking about. But it would be grossly unprofessional for the newspaper to rewrite his piece, or to tell him what to say and how to say it. If this were a reporter writing a formal piece of reportage, then it would indeed be sloppy in places. But it isn't. It's a considered and timely comment on what it was like for one person to apply for PIP, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. I'd rather see a thousand pieces like this than one Mail or Sun piece of alleged reporting about scroungers and cheats.

Spoonie_Turtle

Blatchford wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. It isn't "reporting". There are no "inaccuracies" - (a) this is what this person understands from their lived experience, and (b) the word "summons" - as in being "summoned to a meeting" - is correct in the context, and you are interpreting it in a different way than meant.

The author may have a limited experience based only on their own life - which is all they are talking about. But it would be grossly unprofessional for the newspaper to rewrite his piece, or to tell him what to say and how to say it. If this were a reporter writing a formal piece of reportage, then it would indeed be sloppy in places. But it isn't. It's a considered and timely comment on what it was like for one person to apply for PIP, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. I'd rather see a thousand pieces like this than one Mail or Sun piece of alleged reporting about scroungers and cheats.

Perhaps in the interests of accuracy there maybe should have been an editorial comment at the end to explain the actual procedure and how appeals work, not taking away from the person's own experience but at the same time not giving people the impression the process is always quite so terrible.

jetplane

I don't think there are inaccuracies or it is a disservice because it is a personal account and a view that I often hear from claimants.

However I do agree with Spoonie Turtle that an edit at the bottom would have been helpful and appropriate. Even the bullet comments that Alice Holt has written would have been useful. But that is the editors fault not the writer.

Some people consider that the letter is a summons (certainly feels like a one) particularly since the title of Chair became Judge. Claimants often believe that the whole process is dealt with by the DWP.

This man had low rate DLA therefore the criteria has changed, he is not to know that PIP has abolished this rate and that his sight impairment no longer qualified him. Not because his health had improved but because legislation has changed.

Even if an advisor explained this to him it still feels unfair.

Anyone who has read an assessors report knows that sentences like - can write a novel, can go to theatre, can drive a car, are used repeatedly to justify nil points. A claimant doesn't understand the point that he has no driving license is irrelevant.

Because he is trying to apply logic to a flawed system.

As advisors we know how difficult it can be to navigate the system, imagine when the claimant attempts this himself without any guidance? His point about not signing on for fear of sanctions, his point where claimants believe they are dealing with a whole organisation and give up. I see this often.

It is like living in a kafka novel.

The legacy benefits system was full of faults too, some of which are improved by UC

.
I don't want to derail this but I would be interested to hear which faults have been improved by UC.

calcotti

jetplane wrote: »

I don't want to derail this but I would be interested to hear which faults have been improved by UC.

This whole thread may have been better in a discussion forum but I will respond on this.
The main issue I consider to be an improvement, in principle, is that UC works monthly unlike tax credits which are reviewed annually. Although this could be financially advantageous to some claimants far too many were (and still are) caught out by overpayments following the year end review.
The removal of the 'cliff edge' created by ESA permitted work limits and CA earnings limits is also a good thing. There are lots of little details in UC which can work to claimant advantage, equally there are many that do not and some are simply downright unfair, in my opinion.
My main point is that to read some some of the coverage you would would think UC had derailed a properly functioning benefits system - it wasn't and isn't.
Combining a number of benefits into one is also sound in principle but means that the operation of UC needs to be at a higher standard than what went before because of the 'all or nothing' consequences of UC decisions - and that isn't happening.

jetplane

Oh your post has been edited since I looked so my reply looks a bit skewed


. I agree that Tax Credit over payments have created problems for some families, however they are mostly due to lack of reporting changes of income or change in circumstances. (With the exception of Concentrix who created a huge problem with Tax Credit over payments which were found to be due to Concentrix incompetence rather than the system or genuine over payments.)

However lack of reporting change in circumstances to UC will also create over payments but with a higher rate of recovery. In particular, UC over payments must be recovered even when caused by official error. Whereas with Tax Credits the claimant had appeal rights against any over payment particularly where official error was a factor.

UC paid monthly only works if you are paid monthly and are over 25 years of age and don't have disability premiums etc. otherwise you are paid less. However it is a nightmare for anyone paid weekly, fortnightly or 4 weekly. Particularly where the benefit cap rules are applied, where a monthly paid worker will not be capped but a weekly paid worker will be, even while on the same annual income.

In my daily experience decision making in UC is worse than in legacy benefits (particularly with EU) and at least with legacy benefits if one benefit was erroneously refused other benefits could still be paid. When UC get it wrong the consequences are dire, the claimant has nothing.

While I respect your reason, I personally don't see any of the above as an improvement, unfortunately.