Pip consultation
Pip consultation opens today till 28th of may it is so important for us to have our say i know its hard stressful but of we dont try whats the point will have to accept what they say and do
Comments
-
AI generated search result reads:
"The Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Call for Evidence, often referred to as 'having your say' survey, is a 2026 government consultation aimed at gathering views from disabled people, carers and organisations on how PIP should be reformed. The consultation runs from 19 March 2026 to 11.59 pm on 28 May 2026.
How to fill out the consultation survey:- Access the Survey. Online. Use the Official online call for evidence form on Gov.UK. Alternative formats: You can request Easy Read, large print, BSL, or audio versions by emailing timmsreview.callforevidence@dwp.gov.uk"
1 -
Mw123 i think your be intreasted in this
1 -
Thank you @Catherine21 - here's a link to this 'Call for Evidence' & the form available online:
3 -
Thankyou i hope your well x
1 -
@Catherine21, thank you for letting me know, that’s very helpful.
@chiarieds thank you for sharing the link.
I haven’t had time to read it yet, but once I have, I will certainly be submitting my response and contacting my MP. She previously confirmed that she would hold meetings with her constituents once the Timms Review was underway, so that disabled residents could share their views and concerns with her.
1 -
What concerns me is in the Timms review's Terms of Reference it's said,
''More people are living with a disability, but the increase in the number in receipt of disability benefits is double the rate of increasing prevalence among working-age adults in England and Wales.''
This isn't completely up to date, but this was somewhat refuted (& explained) by the New Economics Foundation: I'm certainly going to give a link to parts of this where they say,
''While the government argues that the rise in rates of disability is out of step with the rise in those claiming disability [and incapacity benefits], this could simply be down to greater legitimate take-up rate within the disabled population, rather than increased claims from people for whom the benefit was not intended.''
The Timms review Terms of Reference also say:
''The purpose of the Review is to ensure that PIP is fair and fit for the future rather than to generate proposals for further savings. However, the sustainability of the system is an important consideration and so the Review will operate within the OBR’s projections for future PIP expenditure, to ensure it is there to support generations to come.''
This has me sceptical that it's hoped to be a cost cutting exercise in some shape or form.
0 -
thank you for SCOPE email about review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This is known as the Timms Review its good to see that there want steering group of 12 disabled people but i also want disabled charities like SCOPE involved too
1 -
Yes i agree
1 -
Hello @145ah, there are a collective group of charities involved including Scope and we will keep working to make sure the government hears from disabled people as it makes changes to disability benefits.
2 -
I've had a look at the link and am a bit disappointed to see it's just one empty box to write whatever you like. Personally I much prefer focussed questions to give a direct answers to. The question suggestions all seem very vague too.
I'm finding the whole thing very 'wordy' as well. Doesn't seem particularly accessible to me in all honesty, and I'd consider myself above average in understanding this sort of thing.
I don't believe PIP is fit for purpose. It wasn't when I first attempted to claim it in 2018. And still isn't now, 8 years later. But I don't want to risk other claimants potentially losing money from my comments on the official review form. I will have to think carefully about whether or not to add anything at all.
0 -
Honestly there's too much for me to write here but I'll pick out a few things. Just as a quick background, my main restrictions have always been going out, dealing with food/toilets and dealing with people. I couldn't travel far or stay out for long, need strict routine without sudden changes in timing, can't access health services at all, and can't eat 'properly' to maintain my physical health.
Firstly I wrote to PIP asking for forms posted as I can't use phones. They ignored it. I had to phone and get the forms. Wrote clearly on the forms that I couldn't manage a face to face without impacting my health. They ignored that and forced me to a face to face. When I arrived at the centre I was told the assessor hadn't turned up and I'd either have to rebook for weeks later or come back in a couple of hours. I chose to come back as I couldn't bear the wait. Unfortunately that had a major impact on my physical health due to loss of bodily fluids without being able to add any more. The questions asked were clearly just trying to prevent me getting PIP, although I didn't realise at the time and just wanted to get out as quickly as possible.
When I received the decision letter, I had scored 0 points, largely because I could drive my own car and had arrived at the centre alone. The reason for that is because I couldn't use public transport or travel as a passenger, and couldn't cope with more than one person at a time. That is why my personal car is an absolute necessity and needed to be 100% reliable. PIP seems to be based on the idea that everyone with health issues needs personal assistance to score the highest points, but my problem is the opposite to that, I have to do everything alone because I can't manage other people in addition to my own body.
I couldn't access Motability when I really needed a specific type of personal vehicle because I have the 'wrong' conditions to fit the descriptors. I subsequently lost the ability to drive altogether and was then awarded standard rate Mobility for being effectively housebound, giving me more money, automatic blue badge and half price road tax, which I can't use now I'm housebound! It's utterly ridiculous the way the points and descriptors are worked out.
I also needed PIP daily living in order to get the one-bed rate of LHA as I can't live with another person due to my conditions. So I had no choice but to go through MR in order to get that, even though I knew I could never get Mobility side while I was still driving. The MR scored 0 points again, don't think they even read it. It went on to tribunal. Initially I was told I'd have to be on the phone for the tribunal, which I couldn't really cope with, but on the day they rung earlier and said they'd decided to award me high rate standard on the paperwork so no longer needed my input. Obviously this begs the question, what on earth was the F2F assessor and MR DM thinking? Clearly the assessments aren't fit for purpose either, as well as the descriptors being discriminatory.
To top it all off I ended up with around 12 months worth of backpay after tribunal…in addition to the extra income I was now getting from PIP and housing and SDP, and was then told I'd have to use this backpay within 12 months otherwise I'd lose my income related benefit (ESA at that time). This was the middle of covid lockdowns when it was impossible to make large purchases! Eventually I ended up buying a used car unseen, which had to be returned as unsuitable. Did the same thing again with another used car. Then out of desperation as a last resort, nearing the end of the 12 month disregard, I found one car manufacturer offering finance on a brand new car using a lump sum rather than monthly payments and felt forced into choosing a model from their range. Sadly, the dealership messed me around, and by the time that car arrived it was too late, my health had declined too far, and I could no longer sell it because I was past the backpay disregard. As mentioned above, I have now lost the ability to drive altogether, meaning I can't access shops or pharmacies or have any quality of life at all, and I do believe PIP played a considerable role in reducing my independence rather than increasing it.
If I could change PIP it would not be a simple monetary handout as the money is no use for people who don't have the access and ability to use it. I would have much more practical assistance offered to the people who need it, tailored to their requirements. For example, I still need accessible housing (the money alone does not give me that), I still need some way of travelling to access healthcare (the money alone does not give me that), and I still need some way of actually managing healthcare as I have multiple physical conditions that need treatment now (the money alone does not give me that).
Realistically, I don't expect PIP to change in that way, it would not be affordable, and there would be some claimants moaning that they get less money to spend on luxuries, despite the fact some of us can't even access necessities, regardless of having a bank account full of money. The whole system and society in general feels inaccessible to people like myself…but how many of me are there? Probably not that many. And of course PIP, and benefits, and healthcare, all need to cater for the majority, which will always leave some individuals stranded.
(Sorry, that ended up far longer than I was expecting, and hasn't even covered all of it.)
1 -
hi Catherine (haven’t spoken in a while ❤️) - just sent you a long pm on this topic if you don’t mind reading
0 -
It's unlikely PIP will change, it'd be Political suicide for the government if it did.
0 -
The trouble is they dont care
1 -
Hi apples so glad your back and yes we are this point again and your input is so so so vaulable and it is times like this we need to pull togeather and share ideas knowledge templates to help others send to mps and bullet points for pip consultation we dont have long lets do this xx
1 -
That all depend on what you call change I myself don't think for one minute it can stay as it is time will tell
2 -
can I ask if anyone has tried to email the address: timmsreview.callforevidence@dwp.gov.uk
I ask as apparently the online form version has a character limit and as many of us will have a lot to say emailing in our responses (via a burner email address if that makes sense) is probably our next best way to submit our views.
However this email address suggests it’s only to be used to find out alternative ways to submit a response if posting or filling out the online form are not options which seems really daftIt would be helpful if someone could email them and find out the email address we can use to submit responses and avoid this extra hoop jumping
1 -
I kind of think you both have a point.
Pip was partly brought in to save money but has ended up costing more than dla (which in many ways was a fairer system than pip - yes some of us get more money on pip but I for one miss my lifetime dla award and the recognition that autism can not be cured and it’s a lifetime disability) - in principle all parties agree that pip needs reform (a new fairer system/award would be better as pip at this point is unfit beyond purpose but reforms of an existing system is cheaper than creating a new one which let’s be frank the dwp would overspend and still fudge up) but there’s hugely differing opinions on how to reform and the priorities (another huge story that as this time is as old as time to the average disabled claimant).
The point on any significant pip reforms being political suicide - the Labour gov’s first attempt to reform pip (driven by the sole desire to cut the benefit bill, let’s be honest) actually shocked me that there was so much backlash from both the public and Labour backbenchers in a good way….getting that partial u turn was a huge achievement.
If that backlash was repeated on that scale for when the Timms pip review and reform (aka, welfare cuts/tightened criteria 2nd attempt) this autumn it would do huge damage (if Starmer survives the local elections in May the backlash would sink his premiership once and for all, if starmers been ousted by the autumn any type of backlash is dangerous for an unelected pm imo)It’s an unwritten rule in politics not to inflict deep cuts within the last year or 2 before a ge (if anything do ‘budget giveaways’) as cuts are a massive vote loser but public memory clouds over time (which is why governments try to get the unpopular cuts in the first 2-3 years of a 5 year term hoping the public may of forgiven and forgotten by then) - the latest the next election can be held is August 2029 so realistically the autumn 2027 budget is the last chance to announce major cuts (and even that’s pushing it) timing wise this 2nd attempt at welfare reform (aka cuts and tightened criteria) via the Timms review may be the last throw of the dice on the subject this Labour gov have this specific 5yr term (and because of that they may try and play dirty by forcing things through in such a way that doesn’t require primary legislation like they did last summer - pat mcfadden will almost certainly try that but by the time the Timms report is due to be submitted to the head of the dwp at the end of the summer we could have both a different pm and different sec of state for dwp)
The other thing to bear in mind is I know a lot of the public have resentment towards disabled welfare claimants and question the fairness but I’m not convinced that what could end up being a pretty inhumane criteria tightening of pip is a major vote winner (I don’t think anyone who’s already flipped from Labour to one of the parties so far, esp the far right ones would flip back due to a policy like this and if anything Labour would lose further voters to Lib Dem’s and greens as well as snp and PC)
Prehaps political suicide is too strong a term in this point in time but any 2nd attempt on welfare reform that backfires like what happened last summer could possibly do irreparable damage to labours reelection hopes in 2029 regardless of leader (if this Timms review fails due to backlash any 3rd attempt in this current gov term probably would be political suicide but I get the impression all of McFadden nasty dwp reform eggs are in the Timms review basket - pretty huge 12 months for both parties imo)
0 -
I copied the Call for Evidence questions into a Word document and answered each one in detail. When I was happy with it, I turned it into a PDF and attached that to an email with the subject line “Timms Review Call for Evidence”. In the body of the email I just wrote “see attached evidence below”.
Because the online form is only a simple text box and doesn’t allow longer responses or attachments, I used the official email address they provide. It’s one of the submission methods they list, so it felt like the most practical way to give them everything they asked for in a more detailed way.
1 -
Sharing the Benefits and Work article on the Timms Review, which outlines the concerns and offers suggestions on how people might respond from their own experience.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.9K Start here and say hello!
- 7.6K Coffee lounge
- 107 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 161 Announcements and information
- 25.3K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 504 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 874 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 585 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 643 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 883 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 942 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.3K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.1K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income