Hundreds of disabled people in Coventry denied benefits unfairly

MP Colleen Fletcher has spoken out after it emerged that more than three quarters of PIP claimants successfully appeal decisions over payments



Hundreds of disabled people in Coventry are having crucial benefits denied unfairly according to shocking new statistics.

Figures uncovered by Colleen Fletcher, Labour MP for Coventry North West, show that roughly three quarters of people in the city assessed for ‘Personal Independence Payments’ (PIP) were unfairly denied the benefit or awarded a lower amount than they should have been.

PIP payments range between £21 and £139 a week and are to help with extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability for those aged between 16 and 64.

Almost 5,000 people are registered to claim PIP in Coventry according to statistics on the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) website.

The most common reason for PIP claims in Coventry is psychiatric disorders, followed by musculoskeletal problems.

Disability assessors are employed by private sector firm Capita to help the DWP decide who should receive PIP and how much.

The company is currently advertising jobs in Coventry which pay up to £38,000 for the “rewarding and essential role” which “entails compiling reports that help benefits claimants through the often daunting benefits process”.

In 2015 699 people in Coventry appealed against PIP decisions. There were a further 213 appeals set to reach the courts at the start of 2016.

According to the latest available figures (January to March 2016), 78 percent of people in Coventry who appealed against PIP award decisions won in court.

This appears to be a long-standing problem with a similar situation emerging in the figures from July to September 2015 and October and December 2015 when successful PIP appeals in Coventry stood at 69 percent and 75 percent respectively.

The most recent regional and national averages show successful PIP appeals at 65 per cent in the West Midlands and 64 per cent in England.

Mrs Fletcher says this demonstrates a failure in the system for assessing PIP claimants.

She said: “The figures clearly demonstrate the flawed and draconian nature of the original decisions being taken by the Department for Work and Pensions, to reject genuine PIP applications made by claimants in Coventry, many of whom are in a difficult and vulnerable position.

“The government must act now to ensure that improvements are made to the DWP decision-making process, to increase accuracy and prevent more vulnerable people from being forced to go through the lengthy, complicated and stressful appeals process needlessly.”

Sounds like Social cleansing in Coventry first a congestion charge then £700 licence for private land lords which was stated will be passed on to the tennant now this where people will not be able to afford to live especially those paying bedroom tax and council tax.

Having watched what's going on with the sick an disabled for sometime now, I believe you might be close to the truth Melisandre. It is far wider than just Coventry though. Yes, of course there are scroungers and fiddlers but most aren't. To attack and demonise all of the sick and disabled the way they are doing is very wrong and is creating a very false impression to those who don't look further than the mainstream press.

What happened was the civil service produced a forecast showing how much extra it would cost in the future if PIP continued to be paid to an ever growing number of claimants and a decision was taken to disqualify as many new claimants as possible. Existing PIP claimants are relatively safe.

Existing PIP claimants are relatively safe.

Many transitioning from DLA to PIP are being royally shafted

I am sure with PiP you get less money as for past fiddling I can tell you for "fact" only 0.5 percent fiddle the rest were genuine claims for any one that falls for the governments propaganda.

It’s been a thorn in the side of the DWP for many years.

Whenever they try to argue that disability and incapacity benefit assessments are fair, someone will always ask why, in that case, are so many decisions overturned at appeal?

The introduction of the mandatory reconsideration before appeal system was intended to bring tribunal success rates for claimants crashing down.

It didn’t.

In fact, only this month the Scottish government pointed out that:

“It is absolutely staggering that 65% of people who dispute their PIP award are successful in their appeal of that decision.”

But now, the government have a plan that may well succeed.

A new online system for appeals is to be introduced, along with more decisions being made “on the papers” and the ditching of medical and disability members from most panels. The result is likely to be a significant and sustained fall in both the volume of appeals and the success rate for claimants.

Case officer says ‘No’
Under the new system, some matters that are currently decided by judges will be dealt with by ‘case officers’ instead. This could mean clerks deciding whether your appeal is in time, for example, or whether your appeal will be held online, in person or “on the papers”.

More decisions “on the papers”
The government’s intention is that:

“Where a case is relatively straightforward or routine, representations will be made online in writing for a judge to consider outside of a traditional court room, without the need for a physical hearing, meaning a more convenient experience for everyone involved.”

What is really “convenient” for the DWP about this is that the success rates for paper hearings are drastically lower than for appeals where you appear in person.

At the moment claimants get to choose whether they want to appear before a panel or just submit written evidence. In the future it will be a clerk or a judge who makes that choice for you.

More virtual hearings
Even if you manage to avoid a paper hearing, the chances of having your appeal in the same room as the tribunal judge are very slim indeed.

“Where a judge needs to listen to the parties make their arguments, it will be possible in many cases to hold the hearings over telephone or video conference, without the need for the parties to travel to a court building. There will still be an important place for physical court hearings for criminal trials and other serious or complex cases, but where they are appropriate, virtual hearings offer an easy and convenient alternative for everybody.”

For some claimants, removing the stress and pain involved in travelling to a hearing will be an enormous advantage. But for others, the sheer strangeness of an online exchange – and all the technical problems it may involve – will make it very hard for them to give detailed and persuasive evidence.

More haggling
Many claimants may not even get as far as a hearing, whether online or on the papers, even after lodging an appeal. The government says:

“In appropriate cases, we will encourage parties to settle their disputes themselves, without the intervention of the courts.”

The real fear here is that the DWP will effectively be able to bully claimants into accepting a lower award than they believe they are entitled to, in order to avoid the risk and emotional trauma of an appeal.

Fewer panel members
The government also plans to “streamline” the appeals system by making much less use of additional panel members.

“In the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support), for example, many cases must be heard by a judge, a medical member and a member with experience of providing or receiving care for disability, regardless of the circumstances of the case in question.”

What this means in practice is that most appeals will be heard by retired solicitors sitting alone, with no-one with specialist medical knowledge, or specialist knowledge of disability issues more generally to assist them.

We’ll leave it to you to decide whether this is likely to lead to a rise in the success rates for claimants at benefits appeals.

The government are consulting on the changes until 27 October, though few will expect them to take any notice of the responses they receive.

Good luck,

Steve Donnison

I get that one as well Dutchman.