DWP disability minister Stephen Timms repeatedly misled parliament by untruthfully claiming that personal independence payment (PIP) claimants over state pension age “will not be affected by the proposed changes”.  Timms has finally admitted that the DWP currently have no idea how to avoid the proposed 4-point rule affecting pension age PIP reviews.

Ever since last April, Benefits and Work has been trying to get to the truth of Timms frequently repeated statement in connection with the proposed 4-point rule that:  “In keeping with existing policy, people over State Pension Age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by the proposed changes.”

We pointed out that pip claimants over state pension age are subject to a light touch review every ten years and that they may also ask for a change of circumstances review if their condition changes.

In the year to January 2025, 12,300 pension age PIP claimants had a planned award review. 

In addition, 19,238 pension age PIP claimants had a change of circumstances review in the same period.

We wanted to know how claimants in these circumstances could avoid the four-point rule, unless the DWP was exempting all claimants over pension age.

We even went so far as to ask readers to ask their MPs to put two specific questions to Timms on this subject.

Conservative MP Alicia Kearns kindly asked those questions and Timms replied on 16 May.

In relation to whether PIP claimants of pension age who request a change of circumstances review will be required to score at least four points in one daily living activity, instead of answering “Yes” or “No”, Timms fudged desperately:

“All claimants are required to notify the Department of any change to their circumstance, be that an improvement or deterioration in their needs. Upon notification of a change, a Case Manager will consider what further action might be required to ensure the claimant is receiving the correct level of support.”

However, Chris Law of the SNP asked the same question as Alicia Kearns and on 6 June received a different answer:

“In keeping with existing policy, people on state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by these changes. We are considering further how the 4-point minimum requirement will affect claimants over state pension age who report a change of circumstances, and we will provide further information in due course.”

In other words, pension age PIP claimants who request a change of circumstances review will be subject to the 4-point rule and run the risk of losing their daily living award altogether, unless the DWP can come up with a way to get round it, which they haven’t yet.

And, in truth, the same will almost certainly apply to claimants subject to a 10 year light-touch review.  Because it isn’t a review unless you make a decision on continuing entitlement and you can only do that using the law as it stands, not the law as you would like it to be. 

It’s yet another example of the ways in which the Green Paper reforms are half-baked, at best.

When he became disability minister, Timms claimed that he would create a new era of transparency at the DWP, as part of an effort to restore trust in the department.

In this case, Timms could have been transparent and truthful from the outset by saying that the 4-point rule would not affect “the majority” of pension age PIP claimants. He chose not to – over and over again - and that choice leaves claimants with no reason to trust anything he tells them in the future.

Many thanks to the excellent Rightsnet website for welfare rights workers for alerting us to the written question and answer.

 

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 25 minutes ago
    I'm a pensioner, and I've got a traumatic brain injury. If I didn't have one I certainly would by now because Timms has completely done my head in over this, AND I'm still not sure !
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 46 minutes ago
    I'm sure Timms will suffer serious consequences for repeatedly misleading parliament.

    [Morgan Freeman voiceover] He did not suffer any consequences.[/Morgan Freeman voiceover}
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    Chancellor:  We want you to find £5bn in cuts. 

    DWP:  Ok.  No problem.  These measures add up to £5bn.

    Chancellor:  How are you going to implement them?

    DWP:  Oh.  You didn't tell us we had to do that as well. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    The government goes from one extreme to another. Winter Fuel Allowance is now going to be paid to pensioners whose income is £35,000 a year or less. 

    Let's break that down.  They think pensioners getting £673 a week need Winter Fuel Allowance, which gives them an extra £6 a week.   
     
    Where is the thinking behind that?
     
    Where is the sense?
     
    Yes, more pensioners should have got WFA - but those on £673 a WEEK?  I could understand a cut-off point of, say, £20,000 or maybe £25,000.  But £35k?
     
    And yet they want the disabled to manage on roughly £110 a week without help once the changes come into force.
     
    This isn't about who need money and who doesn't. It's about optics and votes.  

    And just to make matters worse, the IFS thinks the cost of the WFA will come from higher taxes - or cutting other benefits.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @SLB
      "This isn't about who need money and who doesn't. It's about optics and votes."

      That was always the case. On the one hand, I'm glad they've backed down on the WFA because there are pensioners struggling who need all the help they can get. On the other hand, pensioners as a bloc are the wealthiest demographic in the country while people living with long term illness or disability are among the poorest. Yet the government has backed off taking two or three hundred pounds a year off the former while still trying to take thousands a year off the latter. 

      As outrageous as that double standard is, it gives us another line to use when lobbying MPs: why is it OK to back off on the WFA cut while inflicting cuts that are anywhere from about 12 to 40 times higher than the WFA cut on the long term sick and disabled? Why is it OK to protect pensioners (as they should) but fine to plunge hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in the country into destitution? To put it another way: if hardship is bad for pensioners (as it obviously is) then why is destitution fine for the sick and disabled? There are no good answers to those questions.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @SLB The thinking is politics. They are scared of losing pensioners votes. Scared of public opinion they think the right wing media represents that loves pensioners and hates all other people on benefits. Scared of Reform and the Tories who champion returning winter fuel payments for all pensioners while simultaneously calling for bigger cuts to working age disability benefits. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    It would be easy enough for the government to at least guarantee that pensioners would not lose their existing level of award at a planned or requested review. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    From the start they've not had a clue how they would implement any of their nonsense. Unworkable, all of it, as everyone is seeing as each set of potential scenarios is exposed via the live impact assessment in progress which we all set in motion.

    Dismal though this latest is, I think it might actually help us all, because the rebel mps and campaigners who now have evidence that yet another potential catastrophe has not been accounted for will be even less likely to be swayed by the pathetic concessions so far.

    There's no way the government's standpoint that the cuts are intended to get people into work aligns with depriving people who are past working age, and that lack of joined up thinking applies across the board to these proposed measures. They should be held to Timms's original. statement when he said pensioners “will not be affected by the proposed changes”.

    There's no blinking for us, guys. The longer this fight goes on, the more the government will reveal its incompetency and desperation. Pushing Timms to further, but still vague, responses has proved that.

    We'll ask him again... "in due course".
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 minutes ago
      @sara from the start , this Gov didnt have a clue about anything,,, full stop 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    I must admit as a person who has epilepsy, but is only 53, I am rather more concerned with what will happen to those under pensionable age, I have already lost the daily living component of PIP at my last review, so I doubt I will see that again, I only now get enhanced rate mobility, and cb esa, so what happens when they abolish that I have some savings so can't get u/c so basically I am screwed, I worked for 20 years for a govt dept, in London, why did I bother, my husband and I paid for our house ehy did we bother, he gets nothing for caring for me, basically feel like topping myself.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Elizabeth Vidler I'm in the same boat,my husband worked for 40 years and last March before sunaks announcement, decided to take a pension lump sum to sort out the damp in the house all over the ground floor in every room,then the announcement came and I became very nervously ill because of it,he also gave up his full time job at the same time as mortgage was paid off,I'm saying the same thing as you, that pension money is still sitting in his account, the damp is not sorted out,my cbesa will be abolished along with yours and my pip and carers allowance lost,we will be unable to claim uc becauseof that pension money that rightly should have been spent on fixing the damp but I'm too ill now for any of that ,he can't go back to work full time as he had now developed problems of his own,what's the point in working and saving? It's looking like we will have to sell the house that we worked for and paid for to find money to live,what happens when that runs out? I can not believe we're finding ourselves in this situation after always working ( until illness stopped me),saving and doing the thing we were told was the right thing to do ( work  dont rely on benefits),if beggars belief it really does, this country is going backwards, this lot couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    Timms has said from the start that light touch reviews will not normally trigger the 4pt rule. Only a full review/reassment. And that reporting a change of circumstances would. The new information is that they are looking at making pensioners exempt even if they report a change in circumstances. If anything this maybe bad news for working age claimants with ongoing awards. If instead of ongoing awards being treated as exempt they opt for pension age exemption instead. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @John Can't see it,I'm on light touch with no 4 points in play,how can you say " no change" and then expect to keep pip without a 4 point in place?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @John @john Do you have a link to where Timms specifically said that reporting a change of circumstances would trigger a 4 point review, because there's nothing on this site that says he said that.  Or that he ever specifically said that light touch reviews would not?  Only that rather meaningless statement that:  people of state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by these changes.  And when has there been any suggestion that ongoing awards under pension age would be exempt from the 4 point rule?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    More interested to know if working age claimants with ongoing awards with light touch reviews every 10 years will also be exempt. And if they will be passported for conditionality and sanctions to the new severely disabled never expected to work group. But all the concern seems to be about pensioners. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Mr B Benefits and Work has repeatedly raised and asked MPs to ask parliamentary questions about pensioner claimants. Despite Timms position being pretty clear from the start. Did I blink and miss when they raised and asked MP to ask parliamentary questions about working age claimants with ongoing awards? Or even working age claimants in general. The danger is MPs will see protecting pensioners benefits as the issue of concern. Not working age claimants who are the target of these welfare reforms/cuts. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @John I feel the same John very frustrating . They seem to be playing fast and loose with us . Pensioners are a big vote winner 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @John "But all the concern seems to be about pensioners. "

      I 'm sorry that you feel like that, however this news article IS about.......Pension age PIP so naturally it's going to be about this particular issue!  Plenty of concern has been expressed both on B&W and elsewhere about the PIP and other proposed welfare 'reforms" in general , including ESA, UC and PIP for those of working age.  Governments-of whatever stripe - are very good at  " divide and rule" strategies and I think you may be in danger of fall8ng for it yourself!  If you 're not concerned about PIP for those of state pension age don't bother posting on articles about them! 

      Kind regards

      Mr B


         

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @John We just have to chip away at each element at a time. It's a long haul, but the longer we stick at it the more it will be shown that all the cuts are unacceptable and unworkable.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    Timms....great at opposing welfare cuts...when in opposition!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    Well done for getting to the truth- it shouldn’t be this difficult. 
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.