Strokes improve health says DWP

I've dealt with a string of cases where claimants have asked for an increase in their PIP only to have it removed entirely.  Probably the most ridiculous case was that of Vic Holmes who has agreed for me to mention him here.

Vic notified the DWP of a change of circumstances in that his needs had increased due to strokes.  The DWP sent an agent to his home resulting in a report being produced that the strokes had improved his health so as to take him entirely outisde of PIP eligibility!  Well I'm not a doctor but I had never heard that strokes could improve the condition of a patient.  And, even if it was possible, the claimant had clearly stated the strokes had caused him to need more support.

Furthermore, what came across as an opportunistic removal of an entitlement, was done at a time the DWP had been informed of the death of Vic's partner who had assisted him with all paperwork.  And yet letters continued to be sent to her creating the impression the DWP believed even deceased partners of PIP claimants still absolve it of the responsibility of proper benefits administration.

DWP Officials refused to put matters right until the Treasury Solicitor was asked to assist.  And Vic finally got his benefits increased as should have happened without me, or the Treasury Solicitor, ever having to get involved.

The DWP, if left to its own devices, would have almost certainly forced Vic through the entire appeals process (about a year) before his entitlement was restored.

Vic said,

"Many thanks for what you have done. With you helping , I was never truly  alone, as I seemed to be.  I cannot thank you enough for not only a positive result, but for returning my peace of mind".

The lies behind the PIP scheme

The objective of the PIP scheme was originally stated in Parliament as being to save £1.5 billion per year.  For example in 2013 the House of Commons Library reported, "PIP was originally expected to reduce working-age DLA caseloads and expenditure by 20 per cent, giving savings of around £1.5 billion a year by 2016-17". 

So I asked the Treasury how this was being monitored because the key is the net savings figure.  I.e. the cost of the payments to Atos and Capita for doing the assessments and any bonuses paid to officials involved in delivering the scheme etc must be deducted to establish the correct figure.

You can see here that there is no monitoring of the real costs or savings of PIP.  Astonishingly MPs, and everyone else, have no means of assessing whether the policy intention of PIP is actually being delivered. That is because the real purpose of PIP was not the one stated.  In fact it is a scheme to take money off disabled people and give it to people who already have a lot of money, namely Atos, Capita and other over-priviledged people involved in the scheme.