Problems with PIP and ESA assessments


In February 2018, the Parliamentary work and pensions select committee published a report saying that public contract failures have led to a loss of trust that risks undermining the operation of major disability benefits. The committee chair, Labour MP Frank Field, said that although the assessments work adequately for the majority of claimants, “a pervasive lack of trust” is undermining its entire operation and “translating into untenable human costs to claimants and financial costs to the public purse”. 


He said that recording the face-to-face assessment should already be a routine element of the process and would help to increase transparency and restore trust.


The committee also said that the current contracts have not made the system fairer, more transparent or more efficient and that the existing contractors (including Atos and Capita) “have consistently failed to meet basic performance standards”. It said the government should be prepared to take assessments back in-house.


The response to the inquiry was unprecedented and accounts “were shocking and moving, credible and consistent”, it reported.


Its publication follows a ruling in the High Court in December 2017 (in RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) that part of the rules governing PIPs are unlawful and discriminate against people with mental health impairments. The Public Law Project reported that its client had all three grounds of her case accepted by the Court. It reported that:


• the judge quashed the 2017 Personal Independence Payment Regulations (laid before Parliament in February 2017) because they discriminate against those with certain disabilities, in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998; 


• as they were discriminatory, the judge also found that the Secretary of State did not have lawful power to make the Regulations and he should have consulted before making them, because they went against the very purpose of what the PIP regime sought to achieve; and


• the judge found that the decision to introduce the Regulations was ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’ and commented that the wish to save money could not justify such an unreasonable measure.


During the trial, the secretary of state accepted that the testing carried out for PIP had not looked at whether the basis for treating those with psychological distress differently was sound or not, and the testing that had been carried out was limited. 


The government will not seek to appeal and will reconsider around 1.6 million disability claims made over the last four years. An estimated 220,000 claimants will eventually receive higher, backdated awards.