Help us get the truth on pension age PIP

ashmere

From the Benefits and Work site

News

Help us get the truth on pension age PIP

 Published: 06 May 2025

Benefits and Work is asking for readers help to find out whether MPs are being misled about pension age personal independence payment (PIP).

On 25 April we published the news that disability minister Stephen Timms had told MPs in a written parliamentary answer that people over state pension age “will not be affected by the proposed changes” to PIP set out in the Pathways To Work Green Paper.

In that article we expressed our concerns that Timms’ claim left questions unanswered.

Now, having had time to consider, we have concluded that we can find no plausible way that Timms’ statement could be accurate.  We need readers with a sympathetic MP to quiz Timms further.

In his written answer to a question about the impact of the Green Paper on pension age PIP claimants Timms said:

 “Our intention is that the new eligibility requirement in Personal Independence Payment (PIP), in which people must score a minimum of four points in one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component, will apply to new claims and award reviews from November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. In keeping with existing policy, people over State Pension Age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by the proposed changes.”

The phrase “not routinely fully reviewed” is deeply ambiguous.  It is true that claimants over pension age are likely to have a light-touch review.  This involves the shortened AR2 review form and will not normally require the claimant to have a face-to-face or telephone assessment.

But the AR2 form still asks the claimant if there have been any changes in their daily living needs since their last assessment.  After November 2026, assuming Labour’s rule changes go through, If the claimant answers “No” to this, and they currently do not score 4 points or higher for any activity, then they are stating that they no longer meet the legal criteria for an award of PIP.  This will be the case for around eight out of ten current PIP standard rate daily living component claimants.

In these circumstances the DWP would either have to stop the claimant’s award or require them to attend an assessment to determine if they were eligible, which would include having to establish that they scored at least 4 points for one activity.

There isn’t any way around this that we can see.  There is no such thing as a “not full review”, which ignores the basic eligibility criteria for PIP.

Timms could have said that new legislation would exempt pension age claimants from ever being reviewed again – but he didn’t. Currently more than 10,000 pension age PIP claimants have a planned award review every year.

And even if Labour did abolish planned award reviews for this group, pension age PIP claimants would still be affected by the Green Paper. 

Because some claimants getting the standard rate of the PIP daily living component will experience an increase in their needs over time and will ask for a change of circumstances review, in the hope of moving onto the enhanced rate.

There are currently around 20,000 pension age PIP change of circumstances reviews a year.  After November 2026 these claimants will not only have to prove they score at least 12 daily living points in total to get the enhanced rate, they will also have to show that they score at least 4 points for one activity.

What is more, if they fail to score at least 4 points for one activity, they will lose their current daily living award entirely.

So, pension age PIP claimants will definitely be affected by the Green paper changes.  The only way to avoid this would be to say that the new points system regulations will specifically exempt pension age PIP claimants.

But Timms didn’t say that.

We don’t want to alarm pension age PIP claimants.  Reviews after pension age are much less frequent, so most claimants may not be affected.

Nonetheless, it appears that tens of thousands a year may be.

So, to try to get to the truth, we need an MP to ask some more questions of the secretary of state for work and pensions.  Something along the lines of:

“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?”

If you have a supportive MP, please ask them to consider raising these issues.  It seems important that MPs have the fullest facts possible about the changes being planned, before they are asked to vote on them next month.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/help-us-get-the-truth-on-pension-age-pip

Trevor_PIP

Good thread and I know what I think...

On the Change of Circumstances, once claiming State Pension, it is only Daily Living you can change. You can't change mobility.

Government_needs_reform

we also wanna know about PIP ongoing awards too?

Trevor_PIP

On my calculation there are 700,000 State Pensioners on PIP. Total on PIP = 3.7m of which 3m are stated as being working age. That leaves 700,000 pensioners.

After November 2026 if the proposed changes go through, I doubt any pensioner will consider a Change in Circumstances if they currently don't have a 4 point descriptor.

WhatThe

"Help us get the truth on pension age PIP"

This Green Paper is about working-age benefits.

It wasn't and isn't anything to do with pensioners!

Girl_No1

I really don't see them giving a complete carte blanche to pensioners in this debacle when working-age/young people are about to be devastated.

Not to be too alarmist, but I can easily see them looking to transfer pensioners to AA, and remove the mobility element.

The daily living standard and enhanced rates are currently identical to the lower and higher AA rates. Carers for both benefits can claim CA for both benefits.

I think that's from where most of their next tranche of welfare cuts will come in autumn.

I think once they get the green light in June to devastate young/working age disabled people, their sights will turn to us (the elderly). I also think their unwillingness to review the WFP is an indication they will be giving no quarter to anyone.

Finally, I believe the vague 'reassurances' regarding pension-age claimants are to appease MPs rather than to reflect reality.

Rachel From Accounts' reputation must be protected at all (human) costs.

Trevor_PIP

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1025514#Comment_1025514

Good post! It is funny you mention removing Mobility as there are more than a few think they want to reduce the Motability cars. A councillor told me a few weeks ago there are 800,000 Motability cars. They have had removal tranches in the past on the Motability cars. I know three people that lost their cars the last time, reasons I am not sure about unfortunately.

A questionnaire sent out to I think 60,000 PIP claimants asked if somebody could drive you.. A strange question.

Girl_No1

That's interesting about previous removal tranches and the specific question about others driving claimants.

I have no knowledge of previous removal tranches, and have always assumed people either chose to give up Motability cars for their own reasons or they were amongst a small number whose conditions improved enough that they no longer met the criteria.

Strangely enough I've read the opposite about the Motability contracts i.e. they don't want to disrupt the car industry.

However, I genuinely think such a move would be more palatable to the public, particularly fellow pensioners who are restricted to AA only, people who are keen environmentalists, those who have personal knowledge of the abuses of the scheme by family members of the recipients of the scheme, and people who believe State Pension, + AA + Pension Credits + any benefits associated with PC is a very reasonable amount on which to live, particularly for those who have no housing costs beyond council tax.

The alternatives, so far as I can see, are to a) make PIP mean-tested, b) make PIP taxable, or c) make PIP a working-age only benefit with AA available to pension-age people.

Of course, the politicians' minds/knowledge are much more complex than mine so they probably have plenty of ideas none of us have considered.

For anyone thinking they cannot amend the mobility element, I believe they can if they legislate it, just like they can legislate for the current round of cuts.

Trevor_PIP

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1025587#Comment_1025587

Good post. The removal of Motability cars has been ongoing for a long time, as some of the cars have been found to be used for other purposes other than what they were intended for. Of course you can get people that have Motability cars that are not entitled to them, going back a long time in my town, members of a rugby team had Motability cars and would not take part in team photos... They all had the cars taken off them! I feel the DWP do what they do by area as I only know a few people with Motability cars but three lost them in that last tranche.

The questionnaire I mentioned is recent and there are a lot of strange questions within it...

It is funny you mention making PIP means tested... And I didn't want to mention this but since you have made a point. I was in the bank two weeks ago and an employee was warning customers about fraud. It has increased in the last few years. We got talking about fraud and I mentioned benefits. The employee told me straightaway that the DWP are now getting bank details. I said, this will be UC as it is means tested and she instantly replied - UC and PIP... I said PIP is not means tested, so pointless, the employee give me that look to say are you really sure... But why would they be checking PIP claimants?

You definitely cannot trust this government, there is more going on behind the scenes that we don't know about...

Cheers

Trevor_PIP

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1025679#Comment_1025679

Within this post of mine above, I should have stated that the bank employee may not have been correct in what she said about PIP, but that is exactly what she confidently said. I can't prove it one way or the other. Partly why I didn't want to mention it, but I can believe anything now as I don't trust the Chancellor after the Winter Fuel Allowance shambles....