DLA Reform and Personal Independence
Payment - completing the detailed design
consultation (June 2012)
Response from the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)
Summary and context
RNIB is a member of the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC). We fully
endorse the DBC submission and echo the DBC by first expressing
concern that the overarching Government objective is to cut 20% of the
projected funding through the abolition of Disability Living Allowance
(DLA) and the introduction of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Like all other DBC organisations, we believe that the proposed
assessment process to move people off DLA is being designed not to
meet genuine needs or support disabled people’s essential higher costs
of living, but to meet an arbitrary reduction in expenditure. We are also
concerned that the proposed new assessment system is being delivered
in an unduly hasty timeframe without adequate recognition and redress
of the concerns of disabled people and relevant stakeholder
organisations.
The experience of the introduction of the Work Capability Assessment
(WCA) and face to face interviews for out of work benefits holds lessons
for the introduction of the PIP assessment which should not be ignored.
The WCA process costs £100 million per annum to run plus a further £26
million in the last financial year in appeals costs (of which a large
proportion – 40% – were successful). It is essential that the Government
approach the new PIP assessment process very carefully – to ensure the
process works as smoothly as possible to avoid needless suffering and
wasted public resources.
It is also essential that disabled people are able to understand the new
processes, have accessible communications with/from DWP and any
private organisations running assessments and can source expert,
independent information and advice to help navigate the new systems
and processes. This is particularly important for blind and partially
sighted claimants who continue to experience significant problems
obtaining accessible information from a range of statutory organisations,
including based on recent complaints directed through to RNIB, from the
DWP.
Chapter 3 questions – Eligibility
RNIB was pleased the Government decided the twelve month period
condition would consist of a three-month qualifying period and ninemonth prospective test.
Under current provisions for DLA individuals can re-claim a component or
components of the benefit without having to satisfy the qualifying period
where they had a previous entitlement to that component within the last
two years. We strongly disagree with proposals to reduce this period to
one year. We believe this proposal fails a number of tests. Reducing the
period would not prove cost effective. For example the DWP would need
to gather all the same evidence from claimants who experience a
fluctuation in their condition and therefore need to re-claim PIP within two
years.
Reducing the period from two years to one year would also have a
seriously adverse impact on claimants who turn 65. This is because the
reassessment window lasts for two years, from 2014 until 2016 and if a
long-term (existing) DLA claimant were to turn 65 during this period - and
were denied PIP - then they could not re-claim any component of DLA.
We have long argued that the existing age rules on entitlement over the
age of 65 to help with extra mobility costs are unfair. A change in the
linking rules would have an even greater impact on someone who
reaches the age of 65 and whose condition temporarily improves, such
that they only have one year in which to re-claim DLA if their condition
worsens again.
With regards to children approaching the age of 16, we would urge the
DWP to keep the process as simple as possible. If someone is aged
sixteen years old and they are applying for PIP on the basis of an
existing condition, no qualifying period should be needed.
2
Chapter 4 questions – Payability of Benefit
The DWP states that Section 83 of the Act provides that Personal
Independence Payment will not be available to those over State Pension
age or age 65, whichever is the higher (the upper age limit), other than
by exceptions made in regulations. DWP states it intends to make
regulations that will allow those who are in receipt of Personal
Independence Payment when they reach the upper age limit to continue
to receive their existing award for as long as they remain entitled.
DWP also states that DLA claimants over the upper age limit cannot
establish a new entitlement to either rate of the mobility component or
move between rates where they are entitled to one. These rules are in
part due to the eligibility criteria focussing on different needs rather than
a continuum of need, and in part to align with the rules for Attendance
Allowance (AA) which does not have a mobility component.
The key issue RNIB is concerned about is the potential differential in
rates between PIP and Attendance Allowance. At present a claimant who
is above state pension age and in receipt of DLA can get the same rates
for the middle and higher rates of the care component - and be subject to
the same rules - that apply where individuals receive AA at the lower or
higher rates. If AA rates are set lower than the equivalent rates for PIP
this would establish is an unfair discrepancy in the way older people who
become disabled are treated compared with individuals of working age
already in receipt of PIP.
The DWP also states that where an individual’s needs reduce, they will
be allowed to move down from the enhanced to the standard rate of the
mobility component where their condition or disability is substantially the
same. Where an individual’s entitlement has been reduced they can only
move back up to the enhanced rate if their mobility difficulties are due to
the condition or conditions that gave rise to the previous entitlement and
the change occurs within one year.
RNIB has consistently argued that it is unfair that over 65s cannot get
extra help towards mobility costs as they age. There is in our view no
logic to this if we want disabled people to "exercise choice and control".
The consultation states that those aged 65 or over on 8 April 2013 will
remain on DLA ‘as long as they continue to satisfy the entitlement
conditions’. However we understand that this applies only for the period
3
of reassessment for working age claimants. The Government also plans
to make a decision about extending PIP to those over 65. Like all other
BC members, we would welcome urgent clarity on this issue – including
when a decision is likely to be taken.
It is essential this information is made available. The lack of clarity is
causing undue worry, stress and confusion for people who rely on DLA
and have less of a guarantee they will receive it under PIP, as support
from DLA mobility payments in particular represent a real lifeline for
thousands of disabled people. We also suspect the proposals may not
make financial sense as people made ineligible for PIP are likely to be
advised to apply for Attendance Allowance (i.e. providing a net cost
through reassessments but potentially no reduction in payable support).
RNIB agrees with the DBC that it would be reassuring to older claimants
if the Government could make an early decision not to put them through
the process of reassessment especially given that over 91,000 DLA
recipients are 80 years of age or older.
The Government plans to reassess existing DLA claimants who are aged
16 to 64 from 8 April 2013. This means that some will be aged 65 and
over when they are reassessed. We believe that as the broad intention is
to reassess people of ‘working age’ over the period April 2013 to March
2016 it would be more reasonable, and clearer to explain, if anyone who
reaches 65 during that time is excluded.
Chapter 5 questions – Reassessing existing DLA
claims
In common with other DBC members, we are very concerned that the
plans for reassessment could still erect barriers to compliance that are:
avoidable; more expensive; and will deny blind and partially sighted
people access to support.
We believe that it is both possible and necessary for the claims process
to be made more efficient for existing DLA claimants.
We object strongly to the following aspects of the process:
 the "opt in" process for PIP for those claimants who already receive
DLA, particularly for those currently receiving lifetime awards;
 splitting the claim form into two parts; and
4
 setting a time-limit of just four weeks for disabled people to
respond.
All of these risk generating additional hurdles for claimants that may
cause people with high needs to drop out of the process.
Four weeks to claim PIP is not long enough. It should be six weeks. If
people reapply after DLA is terminated, the qualifying period should be
waived if the claimant has an existing condition.
RNIB is very concerned the DWP has so far been unable to assure the
Implementation Development Group (IDG) part two claim forms will be
provided in accessible formats such as braille at the same time the
standard print version with the unique identifier barcode is sent out. This
needs remedying. There is little point to obtaining claimants' need for
accessible information during the part one claims process if this doesn't
automatically lead to the timely provision of part two forms in blind and
partially sighted individuals' preferred reading format. If for instance a
Braille form were to be sent out later than the standard print form this
would unfairly limit the available period within which a blind claimant
could reasonably respond.
RNIB would also like the DWP to clarify whether one of the reasons it
hopes to reduce the six-week period in which to respond to four weeks is
because it envisages the first stage - "making a claim" via telephone or a
paper claim form - to last two weeks in its own right. We do not believe
this first stage, if indeed the DWP is determined to split the claim form
into two parts, need work like this.
RNIB also questions the basis for citing claimants with certain health
conditions and disabilities, but not those with a visual impairment, may
receive extra support with the first stage of the claims process. This
represents a serious misunderstanding of the seriousness of sight loss
and the barriers living with a visual impairment represents, particularly in
terms of completing an application and seeking advice.
Award durations and reviews (Chapter 6)
In common with other DBC members we would urge DWP to consult in
detail on the guidance regarding award durations. It is vital that people
with long-term conditions or impairments which are unlikely to change
5
over time receive appropriately long-term awards, and are not subject to
unnecessary, costly and stressful reassessments.
It is very concerning that DWP states that all PIP awards will be reviewed
at ‘appropriate intervals’. For people who have a long-term degenerative
and incurable condition or impairment and who are receiving the highest
DLA rates, we believe that a long-term award with appropriately limited
(or no) review would be a better system – limiting costs to government
and stress to individuals. At the most, reviews for these claimants should
be ‘light-touch’.
DWP should also engage with DBC member organisations and disabled
people to develop guidance as to what level or review would be
appropriate, and what would constitute ‘appropriate intervals’ in between
reviews.
Passporting arrangements (Chapter 7)
The Work Capability Assessment is flawed and inaccurate in determining
the work potential of blind and partially sighted people so having this as
the route to disability premiums is highly problematic.
It is also at variance with how the additional amount for severe disability
will be assessed within the framework for Pension Credit, in other words
through entitlement to the standard or enhanced PIP daily living
component.
The arrangements on Motability need to be more flexible. People will be
concerned about setting up payment obligations without being able to
guarantee their benefits will continue.
6
Response from Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)
For more details please contact Andrew Kaye, Policy Manager
020 7391 2136
[email protected]
About us
As the largest organisation of blind and partially sighted people in the UK,
RNIB is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this consultation.
We are a membership organisation with over 10,000 members who are
blind, partially sighted or the friends and family of people with sight loss.
80 per cent of our Trustees and Assembly Members are blind or partially
sighted. We encourage members to be involved in our work and regularly
consult with them on government policy and their ideas for change.
As a campaigning organisation of blind and partially sighted people, we
fight for the rights of people with sight loss in each of the UK’s countries.
Our priorities are to:
 Stop people losing their sight unnecessarily
 Support independent living for blind and partially sighted people
 Create a society that is inclusive of blind and partially sighted people's
interests and needs.
We also provide expert knowledge to business and the public sector
through consultancy on improving the accessibility of the built
environment, technology, products and services.
estimate of 500,000 disabled people likely to be made ineligible for
support is conservative. Far more disabled people could lose out with
dire consequences of individuals, families and even the ability to retain
employment for some of the estimated 180,0001 disabled people
currently receiving DLA in work, as well as potentially representing a new
and significant barrier to work for informal carers in the UK.
1
DWP estimate 9% of DLA recipients are in work. This is likely to be a conservative estimate as it may not
include all part time work. See: http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/dlaimpactassessment.doc for further
information on disabled people receiving DLA in work and the costs/effect of losing eligibility for DLA/PIP.
7