DWP disability minister Stephen Timms is still desperately trying to hide the truth about pension age PIP claims.  But his answers to an MP’s written questions make it clear that pension age PIP claimants will be subject to the four point rule, no matter how hard the DWP tried to hide that fact. 

From November 2026, Labour proposes that PIP claimants will not be eligible for the daily living component unless they score 4 points or more in at least one activity.

Whenever challenged about the harshness of this rule, the DWP falls back on the assertion that it will encourage claimants with less severe conditions to seek work – in spite of PIP being available to disabled claimants regardless of their employment status.

However, even this spurious justification falls apart if the 4 point rule is applied to pension age claimants, who nobody expects to start looking for work if their PIP is taken from them.

So, up until now, the DWP have repeatedly used a particular form of words to cover the fact that there is no exemption for pension age claimants:  “In keeping with existing policy, people of state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by these changes.”

It is the case that pension age PIP claimants are supposed to only be subject to a light touch review every ten years.  But a light touch review is still a review and must apply the existing law.

And, as we have pointed out, currently more than 10,000 pension age PIP claimants have a planned award review every year and 20,000 more request a change of circumstances review because their needs have increased.

So, unless they are exempt from the 4 point rule, they risk losing their award if they do not score 4 points or more for any activity.

To try to get the DWP to admit this truth, on 6 May we asked readers to ask their MPs to put two written questions to the secretary of state for work and pensions.  The questions were:

“Will existing PIP claimants of pension age who are subject to a planned award review from November 2026 be required to score at least four points in one daily living activity in order to maintain their award?”

“Will existing PIP claimants of pension age who request a change of circumstances review from November 2026 be required to score at least four points in one daily living activity in order to maintain or increase their award?”

On 8 May Conservative MP Alicia Kearns kindly asked those questions and Timms replied on 16 May.

The responses only needed to be a simple “Yes they will” or “No they won’t”.

Instead, Timms fell back once again on the “not routinely fully reviewed” form of words, but then added:

“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.”

It is a carefully crafted politician’s answer, designed to obscure the truth without telling an outright lie.

But a case manager considering “what further action might be required to ensure the claimant is receiving the correct level of support” is exactly what happens whenever any PIP claimant requests a change of circumstances review.  Either the case manager will request an assessment of the claimant by the Health Assessment Advisory Service and then make a decision or they will make a decision on the claim using the available evidence, possibly after contacting the claimant and the claimant’s own health professionals.

The decision will be based on the law as it stands at the time and, because Labour are not exempting pension age PIP claimants from the 4 point rule, that is the law that will be applied.

So, if a pension age claimant asks for a change of circumstances review with the aim of moving from standard to enhanced PIP then, unless they are assessed as scoring four points or more for one activity, they will lose their daily living award entirely.

That is the truth that Timms is desperately trying to hide with his politician’s answer.

A much smaller proportion of pension age claimants are likely to be affected by Labour’s proposed change than working age claimants, but some will still be hit. Both pension age claimants and MPs, who will be required to vote on these proposals, have a right to be told that in plain language.

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.

But it turns out that being transparent – or trustworthy - is entirely incompatible with being a DWP minister.

You can read the full answers to the written questions here and here

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.
    · 1 hours ago
    Timms is extremely good at opposing welfare cuts when in opposition. Bit different now he's a DWP minister. What a surprise. NOT!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    Timms has now uttered, on several occasions, a two part sentence.

    Part one of Timms's sentence:

    "In keeping with existing policy, people of state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed..."

    That is simply a statement of facts/a giving of information. It is superfluous to an answer to our question. We do not need background; we do not need an explanation which appears to suggest it should be obvious that/why the new rules will not apply to pensioners.

    Part two of Timms's sentence:

    "....and will not be affected by these changes." (my italics)

    That is a statement of fact/intention. Following part one of his sentence, part two of his sentence means people of state pension age - all people of state pension age, not some, not most, not many, never mind whether they are routinely or fully reviewed, never mind what their surname begins with, never mind their postcode or whether they have weatabix for breakfast, never mind anything - will not be affected by these changes.

    It would be very difficult to argue that the meaning of Timms's sentence is anything other than:

    "people of state pension age will not be affected by these changes"

    because all the other words in his sentence contribute nothing to an answer to our question, nor do any of those unnecessary words contradict his statement of fact/intention or state any exceptions.

    If Timms has tried to leave the door open, by being less than concise, to going back on what is a statement he has uttered and put in writing several times, he has done a very bad job, and we must hold him to his own declaration.

    Labour ARE exempting pension age PIP claimants from the 4 point rule:

    "...people of state pension age...will not be affected by these changes".

    According to that several times repeated declaration, any pensioner notifying a change of circumstances - be that a deterioration or a miraculous cure - or indeed being reviewed in some way, would only risk losing all or part of their pip award, or qualify for an enhanced award, in keeping with the rules as they are now, because, when you take the redundant words out of Timms's sentence,

    people of state pension age will not be affected by these changes.










  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    Hi everyone. I have not commented until now as didn't feel I had anything important to add, but have been a member for several years (lifesaving guides B+W, literally) and have been reading all your comments studiously since this utterly disgraceful, lying government came to power on the back of many of our votes, mine included.

    There is a narrative building, in fact well-established already by now, that genuinely disabled folk like us are scroungers, unworthy; somehow an unnecessary drain on an already hampered system. That we are somehow less than human beings. While this idea is in and of itself appalling, and similar in ideology to certain opinions which were held in Europe in the 1930s, it also circumnavigates a point which is crucial and in my view not being emphasised enough to further our cause and stop this madness. Which is the fact that everyone who is able to work at some point in their adult lives usually does, and enters into a social contract with whichever group of politicians happens to be in power at the time. This contract states we will pay a proportion of our wages into the National Insurance system, so that we have access to healthcare whenever we might need it, and also a little help should our jobs, or other life events, make us too physically or mentally unwell to continue working for somebody else and improving their lives with our efforts.

    This is as mentioned a form of contract, and therefore the idea that we are "scroungers" is not only laughable but obscene. In any fair society, it should also imply that any young people who happen to fall ill before they are able to contribute to this said system, should be able to be effectively taken care of proportionately by those of us who have en masse paid into national insurance, until such time as they are ideally made well again by a working healthcare service and are then able to contribute, as most would wish to.

    I watched Keir Starmer's response to a quite horrendous "joke" approximately 18 months ago by then PM Rishi Sunak about a trans victim of murder, while as far as Sunak knew the victim's mother was in the gallery at the time. Starmer recoiled, as if slapped, and sat down without saying anything. When I saw that apparent level of empathy I thought in that moment that he was the ideal person to take us out of the last 14 years of apathetic grim attitude towards us displayed by the self-serving Tories.

    It seems I and many others could not have been more wrong. Never thought I'd be wishing Sunak back!

    Wishing you all love and the courage which we are undoubtedly going to need. Just please all remember, you earned this nominal help, by trying hard until for whatever reason you couldn't. In my humble opinion this is one of those historical situations which really needs fighting for, as hard as we can despite inevitable emotional and physical cost. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 minutes ago
      @rookie The simple fact is that they are trying to penalise us for working hard and becoming ill as a result, while the people whose businesses we work for until we become ill, discard us. There is no way that these crooked people, be it businesses or government (and therefore linked to business, see Starmer) will ever work in our favour. Therefore fighting in whatever manner is the only way. X

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 minutes ago
      @Old Mother @Old Mother exactly. They are trying to create a scenario where we are scroungers; lazy, undeserving. We have absolutely earned the expectation of relatively small daily support (small compared to most countries in Europe) by working, usually harder than most politicians.
      In most cases for people who have bags of money and manipulate us. And yet because we have more serious things to deal with, like looking after kids for example, we accept certain wages. But continue to work regardless, and now are attacked when we become too ill from self-sacrifice to continue lining their pockets. To be thrown onto the rocks like this is beyond appalling. Truly horrendous, somehow they think they can justify it. The wave of horror by genuine Labour MPs appears to be finally building. Although perhaps sadly it is a wave of horror at the potential of losing their seats.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 35 minutes ago
      @The RealHenrySugar Thank you for this. I agree with all you say.  It is an attempt (continuing) to break the contract between the government and its people. It is despicable the level of manipulation towards a group of people who can least defend themselves against the animosity and vile attacks from all quarters.  

      Quite shocked with Starmer myself and agree with sentiment wishing Sunak was back.  He wasn’t this awful.  I lent my vote to Labour because I thought they had a decent leader.  I won’t make that mistake again. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @The RealHenrySugar Starmer "sat down without saying anything". Clue right there.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    Thank you to B&W for this. Please could I ask that this be given to the mainstream media? I will ‘again’ contact my MP but the media can maybe help by keeping this front and centre in the news. Much of their blurb is just rehashed old stuff so having this from a respected support service such as B&W would give it more credence. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    More in the news about the government rethinking winter fuel- which, although vital for many, pales in comparison to the level of cuts hundreds of thousands  will face if these wider welfare proposals become law. This cheaper option is another attempted trick from Labour to buy their way back into favour. I hope people won’t be blinded to the wider issue. 

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/17/no-10-steps-up-review-of-winter-fuel-payment-cut-amid-unpopularity-with-voters
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Gingin It’s so
      Notable the radio and news programs are only mentioning that starmer may U turn on the heating allowance. They have been told to do 
      Most likely and see if they get away with it. Yes it’s the cheaper option but mr starmer doesn’t realise that only u turning on that and not the benefit reforms isn’t gonna cut it. Nobody trusts starmer now even he u  turned on both matters. The very fact he was willing to even try and slide this green paper through shows he will stoop to any low to protect his own position. 
      Even the wake up call at the council elections doesn’t seem to have set in yet with him. 
      If he doesn’t u turn on both these matters I have more chance of being prime minister at the next election. So now they are gonna  give £300 back to pensioners and take it of them elsewhere. Do they really think we are that stupid we cannot see what their game is. We may be disabled that doesn’t make us stupid. 
      With starmers actions I find myself politically homeless and if his reforms happen I may be actually homeless also. 
      It’s time the people and the
      Mp, s that have any sense of decency stood up to this brutal victimisation of the weakest in society. What happened those with the broadest shoulders will bare the greatest load kier?
      Anyone one impacted by this brutality don’t give in and challenge them through every legal avenue available to you. They know some folk will give up as they are too tired to fight. It’s time to put party politics aside and stand together against these cuts. What’s next if they get away with this is it going to be concentration camps or wear stickers showing we are disabled so society can judge us without walking a day in our shoes. 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Gingin These are horse trading tactics and I would not fall for it as they will still hit the sick and disabled hard. I hope people do not fall for this trick as many more will be many more to divert attention away and mislead people and mps.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    Another example of the Blessed Stephen's Christianity at work.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    Thank you benefits and work. This is an area of great subterfuge by Stephen Timms and the Labour government. Pensioners will be subject to removal of their pip care element under the 4 point rule when being reviewed and that they are also expected to work perhaps through hardship imposed upon them that will induce a behavioural change in them even though they will be past working age and they will have disabilities. This is a very dark picture for all pensioners who may even end up becoming homeless as the care element of pip is a passport benefit for housing benefit. The words of this man and government simply do not measure up to the truth of what they are doing as they hit young and old who are disabled in one of the most devious underhand and deceptive way
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    This is crooked and wicked, but not shocking or even surprising. I hope MPs can be enlightened before they vote. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Gingin Gingin, I wonder if SLB might include a few words about this in his X missive?

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact
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.