nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Pip esa assessment together

deeds1970

Hi all,with the news that both benefits in future face to face being combined.how does this work if you have a pip award for 5 years and esa review due within 18months, does it meam the pip award looked at again.im little confused by how it will work to tie in together if esa is done every 1,2 or 3 years..
Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

calcotti

It's a government proposal to consider combining the assessments so nobody knows how it will work as no details have been been issued yet.

calcotti

Username_removed said:

The proposal has long since been “paused” i.e. kicked into the long grass.

There was a statement in February that they are looking at it again starting in London from this month. Whether or not that is actually happening I don't know.
See https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-02-19/155229

calcotti

What is bizarre about the parliamentary answer i referenced above is that primarily refers to IT systems rather than to fundamental issues that might need to be addressed when considering one assessment process for PIP and WCA. (Who comes up with names such as 'Departmental Transformation Area'?)

Of course it would no doubt be easier if the assessment services were actually run by DWP instead of being outsourced.

calcotti

Username_removed said:

It’s not so bizarre. The first attempt foundered instantly on the fact the IT was nowhere near up to snuff. This they abandoned the specific idea of joining the two processes and have decided to explore whether they could make the IT work regardless. Nothing learnt from 30 years of IT failures.

Point taken, I do so see that making sure existing systems are compatible etc is essential. However, but in my opinion, one of the reasons for many IT failures is because the people designing them aren't properly briefed about what the IT might need to do. The IT says no because nobody thought about that problem. UC might have got off to abetter start if someone had just thought about the fact that people live 'messy' lives and the IT needs to be able to deal with it. Therefore a bit more thought/discussion about what an integrated assessment is intended to achieve wouldn't go amiss.

calcotti

Username_removed said:
The UC one is interesting...So, it was deliberately premised on it not bothering to acknowledge complexity from the off.

That perhaps explains a lot. We could have a long discussion about whether it's right that claimants then end up with difficulties because the IT system can't cope with their circumstances. For a system that was supposed to save money due to automation it seems to requires a lot of manual intervention, sometimes on a monthly basis, (although I acknowledge that we don't deal with the straightforward cases which are working as intended).