PIP Review - Criteria - 10 Year 'Light Touch' Review as announced by Government

Hi all,

I am seeking updated advice whilst also revisiting a topic first raised in 2018 (though I have been unable to trace that original thread via the new search) shortly after receiving my initial PIP award for 4 years following mandatory transfer from DLA. News of a written question to parliament subsequently emerged (Sarah Newton then Minister for the Disabled I seem to recall) concerning discontinuing unnecessary reviews.

See Government Press Release and EASA & PIP Reassessments - Briefing Paper - 10 May 2019 - House of Commons Library see page 1 second paragraph.

I have suffered from a progressive Muscular Dystrophy since birth and as this now impacts upon my daily activities to a considerable amount I am these days largely housebound. My condition continues to deteriorate and with it my already limited abilities.

I am currently in receipt of an award in which the assessor noted "As he has no planned treatment nor is he currently in receipt of specialist input it is unlikely he will see any significant changes to his functional ability over the short term. I note however, as his conditions are degenerative, future functional ability is likely to deteriorate. Accordingly, a review period of 3 years is recommended." I raised the point on this forum that I saw little point in such a review being conducting in three years time as not only was my condition acknowledged as deteriorating but I had also been awarded enhanced rates for both mobility & daily living.

At the time, and as this information was then 'new' with no specific details forthcoming, Gordon suggested that I consider submitting a Mandatory Review so as to look at having the review period increased.

In common with many on this forum, the considerable stresses involved in preparing and submitting the PIP2 followed by a gruelling assessment meant that I was reluctant to risk everything for what was after all in the grander scheme an inconvenience which I anticipated would in any case be reviewed in line with this new guidance before any review fell due and thus I opted not to seek an MR.

In view of this, and now that some 4 years have elapsed (thanks to a COVID extension), I was surprised to receive the 24 Page AR1043 Review Form in the post on Thursday. I have just 2 weeks to complete and return which obviously I intend to do using the excellent guides provided here.

However I can't help but see no point whatsoever in this undertaking as it is apparent to me that I would appear to already satisfy the above published criteria and given the unnecessary expense to the public purse and especially as the DWP is already overwhelmed by significant COVID backlogs resulting in delaying essential support for new applicants such that these unnecessary reviews seem beyond frivolous!

I find these constant upheavals to be incredibly stressful let alone the risk that an individual 'Decision Maker' could even reduce, or worse remove, the existing awards leaving me to appeal to a tribunal with all of the attendant stress that invokes is not something I even care to contemplate!!

I would therefore be interested to hear of anybody else's experiences in this regard. What appears to be the DWP's current position with review periods and the 10 year Light Touch process??

PC Pilot

Hi Greekqueen,

It may indeed be prudent to seek an extension as you suggest as I have been extremely fatigued (much more so than usual) of late and whether it is just the stress & anxiety arising from this unwelcome mailshot or simply another deterioration of my Muscular Dystrophy but I can't seem to concentrate to give this Review the necessary scrutiny I know it's completion requires, which is especially frustrating.

Hi again Gordon,

To add to my earlier reply I have now found the reference which led to my confusion, namely on Page 9 of the "EASA & PIP Reassessments - Briefing Paper - 10 May 2019 - House of Commons Library" (see the link in my original post) referring to the Minister's statement which notes "Following on from the introduction of that guidance in August (2018), we have now commenced activity to review the claims of existing claimants on the top level of support to identify those individuals who, in light of the new guidance, should be receiving an ongoing award.".

Additionally on page 10 a flow chart is provided for DWP Case Managers which lays out the means of determining these 'Ongoing Light Touch Reviews'....

As I read it, from the starting point ("Has the Assessment Provider advised a review?") a route is laid down meeting the exact criteria I questioned as a valid route to such a Light Touch Review. Please accept my apologies if I am misreading this.

As I would of course always bow to your vastly superior knowledge on all things PIP and greatly appreciate your input I would also value your observations as to whether the proviso has since changed such that now only those who have been offered the 'On going award' upon their initial assessment are subsequently bestowed a 'Light Touch Review' at the review point.

I realise we live in an era were our government's promises are seldom honoured, but I believe it would nonetheless be valuable for forum members to understand what the present position is and whether there has been a subsequent change to the above ministerial statement. Perhaps there is a route by which those involved in compiling the excellent guides here could approach the DWP for a general 'clarification' which does not involve an individual case and update the guides accordingly?

I seek advice on behalf of those of us who find these complex DWP submissions to be extremely stressful and fill us with dread upon receipt of every DWP envelope as we are all to well aware how inconsistent these reviews can be so far as complex disabilities are concerned. If an alternative to these unnecessary reviews exists it would be helpful for members here to be aware of how best to approach the situation without jeopardising their existing awards.

Thinking further, is it possible the DWP is simply ignoring this (which would undoubtably represent yet another waste of the public purse!) or even that cases such as mine are falling through the net? (hence my initial appeal enquiring about other members experiences!)