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.

Latest news on PIP/UC changes

What’s changing, when

What you can do

New PIP test

 

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.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    I really enjoyed this article for it's merciless mockery of Reeves and Torsten Bell in particular. I enjoyed it in the same way as my sister did staying up all night watching the Trump/Musk fallout in real time.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/09/reeves-struggles-explain-genius-labour-winter-fuel-payment-u-turn
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    I'm not disabled nor do I claim any disability benefit, the person I look after is and I don't even claim carer's allowance, I do it out of my own time on my own dime (Americanism). I've basically had enough of this today, they'll pass it and I hope they'll just water it down some what because they will not give this up, this is a politically orientated hate crime against the most vulnerable in society. 

    You know why I worry? It goes beyond the person I care for, I worry deeply that disabled people are going to be left to rot whilst the media and politicians cover the devastation up leaving Nigel Farage and Reform to cut even further if or when they go into government. I cannot tell you how resentful and bitter I've become over all of this. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    IFS director said WFA allowance U-turn will lead to higher taxes or further cuts to welfare. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    If we are going to get Timms to clarify what he says. Can we ask an MP to get him to correct the record for when he misspoke at the debate hosted by Dianne Abbot. As he said the OBR report stated only 400,000 people will lose their Daily Living Component. That is not what the OBR report said. It said 800,000 people will lose their Daily Living Component, but due to also receiving Mobility Component only 400,000 would lose PIP. And I have since heard Timms misquote the OBR on this again in the media. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Bill Oh immediately after posting my first reply it dawned on me 370,000 +430,000 = 800,000. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Bill No. 

      Timm's cited theSpring budget OBR economic and fiscal outlook March 2025 as his source "The behavioural response significantly reduces the estimated number of people who lose the PIP daily living component to 800,000 (16 per cent of those receiving the daily living component), with 400,000 of these leaving the PIP caseload entirely due to not receiving the mobility component" And misquoted it. 


      JRT report cites the Spring Statement 2025 health and disability benefit reforms – Equality Analysis by the DWP as it's source. "Changes to PIP entitlement rules where we expect 370,000 current recipients to lose entitlement (when they have an award review) and 430,000 future PIP recipients who do not get the PIP they would otherwise have been entitled" And JRT misquoted their source too.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @john @John 

      Timms was correct:

      "370,000 current recipients (when they have an award review) and 430,000 future recipients of PIP losing their entitlement to the daily living component, losing an average of £4,500 per year."

        
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    This is the most callous, cold and insidious government I've ever witnessed in my life. They have NOTHING but contempt for disabled people, we were warned. In 2013, Rachel Reeves as Shadow W&P Secretary gave an infamous speech to a Labour Party Conference, telling delegates, Labour did not want to represent the unemployed. As you can imagine this didnt go down well with the membership. Labour lost the 2015 GE largely due to Reeves & Ed Balls economic strategy.

    Sadly, they've not learnt from those mistakes, they dont even listen to their own membership or even the Unions.

    I believe they'd rather choose electoral oblivion than change course and admit they were wrong.

    The Labour Right, are worse than the Tories.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Dave Dee
      "This is the most callous, cold and insidious government I've ever witnessed in my life. They have NOTHING but contempt for disabled people"

      That's why we have to keep up the pressure on Labour MPs, as tiring as it can be to keep fighting. There is no doubt that pressure has made a big difference - a Labour rebellion that started out at 27 MPs is now around 150+. I would not have predicted that a couple of months ago. We have to keep up the pressure so those MPs hold their nerve and vote against the cuts.

      "The Labour Right, are worse than the Tories."

      Indeed. I expect this kind of thing from the Tories, but Labour are supposed to be better - and to be fair, the left of the party generally is. Unfortunately many of them have been kicked out in favour of right wing drones. However, all MPs care about holding on to their seats, so it needs to be made clear to Labour MPs that failure to oppose these cuts is going to cost them at the ballot box. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours 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.
    · 7 hours 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.
    · 8 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.
    · 9 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.
      · 8 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.
      · 8 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.
    · 9 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.
    · 9 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.
      · 7 hours 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.
    · 9 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.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Anon Don't know why my previous post got cut off. I went on to mention the Tory government failing to honour never reassess legacy disability income replacement benefits like SDA. And time limiting contributions based ESA LWC and abolishing the LWC premium. So people lost their disability income replacement benefit due to means testing, even when the new system still assessed them as effectively incapable of any and all forms of paid employment. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Anon If the Labour government goes ahead it will not be the first time UK governments have done this to people. The Tory/LibDem government failed to honour legacy disability benefit life time awards for example DLA and radically changed eligibility criteria including abolishing low rate care DLA when it replaced DLA with PIP. Causing masses of people who had life time award to lose them and get big cuts to their benefit or loss of their benefit entirely. And the Tory government failed to honour 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 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.
    · 9 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.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Bill Currently a light touch review is basically 3 questions. Have your health conditions changed, have your daily living needs, have your mobility needs. With the option of ticking no change. No change results in being rubber stamped. Reporting a relevant change in circumstances will trigger a full review/reassessment. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Bill
      Fixed end date awards get fully reviewed/reassessed when they come up to their end date. The awards basically end and they have to reappy and get reassessed just like it was a new claim. They are contacted before their existing award ends so if rewarded there is no gap between the awards. 

      Ongoing awards have no end date. They are not routinely reassessed just light touch reviewed
      Anyone given a PIP award that will take them past pension age is supposed to be put on a ongoing award. At least for health conditions that are not curable. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Bill
      Green paper "existing people who claim PIP who may no longer be entitled to the benefit following an award review". Also the green paper makes reference to "reassessment or award review" and to change of circumstances normally triggering such.

      UIN 45439, tabled on 8 April 2025
      "Our intention is that the new eligibility requirement in Personal Independence Payment (PIP), in which people must score a minimum of four points in one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component, will apply to new claims and award reviews from November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. In keeping with existing policy, people over State Pension Age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by the proposed changes"

      Debate hosted by Diane Abbot.
      If and when people are reassessed, it will be by a trained assessor, and the assessment will be of their individual needs and circumstances"
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @John @John 

      You keep saying Timms said that "a full review/reassment will apply the 4 point rule" without ever giving an example. What he repeatedly said was "In keeping with existing policy, people on state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by these changes." But according to this article at least around 20,000 a year will be affected by these changes. Or is 20,000 too few to be worth bothering about? And a light touch review can't ever "trigger a reassessment" because a light touch review is a reassessment, just one with fewer questions
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Bill
      Timms has always said a full review/reassment will apply the 4 point rule. Ticking no change on a light touch review does not trigger a reassment. Reporting a change of circumstance triggers a reassessment.

      Benefits and Works reported him repeating this stance most recently before this article in answer to a written UIN 50931, tabled on 8 May 2025. And despite this being the same position Timms has repeatedly stated and Benefits and Work knowing the answer before and understanding the answer, titled the news "Timms desperately tries to hide the truth about pension age PIP". Becausd they wanted a simpler worded response. Which they have now got and are now celebrating in this article like they have achieved something. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 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.
      · 6 hours ago
      @John PS sorry for typos in my last post! I meant to say that although the minister said the four point rule would not apply to PIP claimants of pension age it was not clear what the position of such claimants would be if they notified a change of circumstances or came up for planned review. In light of this it is good imo that clarity is being sought on this issue.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @John Well, its not for me to answer for what B&W does or  doesn"t do however as a PIP claimant of working age with an ongoing award myself I am not unhappy that they have sought to clarify the position re PIP claimants of pension age re the proposed  "4 point" rule.  The minister himself seemed to be saying this rule it is imo good that the Government are being pushed to clarify this issue.  Regarding constituents though there's nothing to stop them asking their MP to raise an issue for them in the Commons so you could perhaps contact your own MP regarding your specific concerns, if you haven't already done so that is.  In my own letter to my MP I made it perfectly clear that I was opposed to ALL of these reforms regardless of whether the claimant was of working age or not. 


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 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.
      · 9 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.
      · 9 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.
    · 10 hours ago
    Timms....great at opposing welfare cuts...when in opposition!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 hours ago
    Well done for getting to the truth- it shouldn’t be this difficult.