We are having to increase our fees to 35% because of the business not being financially viable at 30%.  Our hard working and modestly paid staff have had pay cuts in some months. 

But there is no risk to customers because fees only become due if and when we win your case.  If we do not win you pay nothing at all.  And if we win a case with no money in it then there is also nothing to pay.  This is because we only charge people who we know have the money to pay, because we have got it for them.  So everyone still gets at least 65% of a sum they wouldn't have otherwise got.

We remain not for profit and money raised is for running the business.  We have no other income except for fees income.  Unlike many of our competitors we do not have a minimum charge.  We also never demand money up front, or at any other point than when there is a pot to charge against. 

We do not have executive salaries and pensions, unlike many registered charities (particularly national disability charities) who typically pay senior staff as the absolute priority, even when cutting services. 

No customer who has signed a fees agreement at a lower rate is affected. 

 

We have received a number of enquiries from people upset by what they think is an imminent risk of vouchers replacing cash for disability benefits. 

There can be little doubt that the internet, and particularly social media, is bad for mental health. 

The origin of this story, often presented as "click bait" is a Green Paper launched in the death-throws of the outgoing Conservative Government. 

You can find the consultation here.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the policy was pursued it would likely take many years to translate into anything concrete. 

When you think that Universal Credit was lauched in 2010, with many claimants still not transferred to it, you will realise there is no imminent liklihood of vouchers replacing cash for PIP.  For an idea to become law there is a lengthy Parliamentary process.  And then implementation of social security changes typically takes further time measured in years.  So the time between a policy being lauched and claimants getting a letter about changes is typically approaching, or over, a decade.  And unless, or until, you get a letter, changes in social security do not affect you.

So please don't have nightmares, do sleep well.

Over the last few years we have seen an increasing number of PIP appeals where the DWP alleges that a disabled person who is able to provide care to another disabled people must be exaggerating their needs for the purpose of claiming PIP.  The First-tier Tribunal has occasionally accepted such an argument despite the lack of legitimate basis for it.  This is because disabled carers have been around for a long time and have always been allowed to claim both disability benefits (PIP and DLA) as well as Carers Allowance (CA). 

There has been no discussion in Parliament about the alleged inconsistency between claiming PIP and CA with the relevant laws remaining constant back to a time when disabled carers claiming both disability benefits and CA was never an issue.

A Kester Disability Rights client has won her case in the Upper Tribunal to reinforce that the First-tier Tribunal cannot place undue weight on caring responsibilities when deciding a PIP appeal.  Unfortunately, the judgement stopped short of acknowledging this is a matter of wider public importance with disabled people potentially being deterred from claiming CA and/or PIP.  And that happening in the context of more responsibility being placed on disabled carers by a shortage of social care provision. 

Indeed, with the kind support of Matthew Fraser from Landmark Chambers the case was put that caring duties are more likely to exhaust a disabled person such that they are less able to reliably carry out the PIP activities - the reverse of the DWP position.  But regrettably the Upper Tribunal declined to see the matter as one of wider public importance, finding that existing case-law is sufficient.

You can read the judgement here.

 

Getting sick notes can be a real problem with increasing overload on GP services.

During COVID-19 restrictions, matters became even worse with patients advised not to contact their GP unless it was essential.

Kester Disability Rights (KDR) has had a number of cases where disabled claimants were not paid the Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA) addition to their Universal Credit (UC) back to when they claimed it, but only from the point back to which they had a flawless sick notes history. Any gaps in sick notes were said by the DWP to make the claim void for that period. This had the effect of meaning that delays in arranging a medical examination by the DWP resulted in truncated back-dating of the LCWRA element.

KDR successfully argued that sick notes are not essential because the law allows other evidence to be used where claimants are unable to provide sick notes. The Upper Tribunal in EE v SSWP: UA-2023-000846-ULCW found the law, “intended to provide a degree of leeway to a claimant who has not provided a fit note”.

It’s best to provide sick notes if you possibly can. You may be able to rely on other evidence if unavoidable gaps arise in your sick-notes history from when you claim up to when you are assessed by the DWP.

Since Kester Disability Rights (KDR) started in 2017 we have achieved over 90% success rate for PIP cases. This has become more of an achievement as time has gone on.

For some conditions our success rate is even higher – for example deafness is 100% and autism was 100%, although we have one on possible appeal from the First-tier tribunal. That means our unblemished record for autism is now on the line.

The main difficulty is the lack of objectivity from the DWP, with some staff, and especially agents (Capita, Atos and the like) appearing to work backwards from a pre-determined outcome.

And that has led to some murky waters with the DWP conjuring up “evidence” of claimants “over-stating their needs” by being carers and having jobs, even though both are allowed within the PIP rules.

A new regime of “Search-light” is being deployed with earnings figures scoured from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) records, even though PIP is not means-tested, and some “earnings” in fact being contractual sick-pay.

With such desperate tactics being deployed to disallow PIP claims no wonder our success-rate is so high.

A better way involves making fair and lawful decisions on each PIP claim following a fair and unbiased assessment. That appears a remote possibility as matters stand. We would then be out of a job, but that is the goal of advice work.

Since Kester Disability Rights (KDR) started in 2017 the fees percentage has always been 25%.  We are having to put it up to 30%.  This is because we do not make enough money at 25% to pay staff anything like a decent wage.  The director works less than the minimum wage because company directors are one of the few exemptions from minimum wage requirements.  Other staff are also paid far less than their levels of skills and commitment deserve.  This is not sustainable. 

The service is still entirely no win no fee.  There are no hidden extras whatsoever.  So in the rare event of us losing a case, the cost is entirely borne by us.  And if we win you still get over two thirds of the winnings, that you probably wouldn't have got without us, which is why you came to us in the first place!

Some cases have very little, or even no, money in them, and even for those the deal is exactly the same. 

Fee charging remains the only way to fund the service as there are no other realistic and sustainable sources of funding available for advice work.  This funding model also guarantees our independence.  As a limited company we also escape the bureaucracy and unhealthy influences that can permeate registered charities.

Please note that the increase only affects new customers.  Anyone who has signed an agreement for 25% of course remains at 25%.