Benefits and Work has begun to hear from readers who have received letters telling them that their personal independence payment (PIP) award has been extended for up to four years under a new review process. The news will come as a massive relief to most people who hear from the DWP,  but many thousands of claimants may miss out on an increase in their PIP as a result of the shortcut.

Back in May we revealed that the DWP had enacted a new regulation, coming into force in June, which allows them to extend the length of any fixed term PIP award for claimants aged 25 and over where it was considered “necessary to do so to safeguard the efficient administration of personal independence payment”

Essentially, this means that the department can extend awards where it is facing a huge backlog of reassessments, as it is now.  The new regulations only allows the DWP to extend the award at its current rate, they can’t reduce or increase it.

This weekend, Benefits and Work began to hear from readers who have received extensions ranging from 2-4 years under the new regulations.

Joseph posted:

“I’ve currently got a pip letter today that says I won’t need an accessment and they have extended until 2030. It also says, we might be in contact a year before but we might also extend your award before then. 

“It says words for word “We have changed how we review some personal Independence Payments (PIP). This means that we have Extended your PIP award.” 

Shane told us:

“My claim was due to be re assessed in April 2027. I have been extremely anxious about it.   Today I found out i was having my claim extended until May 2029. I was over the moon.  It has taken a  massive weight on my mind for the next 2years & 10 months.  I didn’t think it was real at first, until i read this post.”

Catherine said:

“My end date for pip was December 26….letter yesterday extending it to December 28….such a relief.”

The DWP have not said how they are deciding which claimants will receive an extension, how many will be affected or how they calculate the length of the extension in each case.

What readers should be aware of, however, is that the decision to extend your award at its current rate is appealable or that they can ask for a change of circumstances review.

This is vital to know, because many claimants whose condition has worsened choose not to tell the DWP, even though they think they are now entitled to a higher rate, because of a fear of losing the award they already have.  Instead, they feel it is safer to wait until their planned award review to inform the DWP.

But these new extensions do not involve any sort of assessment, so the opportunity to present evidence that you are entitled to higher rates is lost.

As we explained in a very recent article, the percentage of PIP awards that were increased as a result of a planned award review was as high as one in four until September 2024, when there was a sudden and unexplained fall. 

So, for most people, a letter telling them that they have won a reprieve from assessment for several years will be nothing but wonderful news. But for a significant proportion, it will mean that unless they feel able to challenge the decision or ask for a change of circumstances review, they will spend years more on an award that they believe is less than they are entitled to.

Meanwhile the DWP will save itself a lot of work and a lot of money.

We’d be happy to receive a copy of the extension letter from you if you have received one, so that we can study and share the text.  You can anonymise your letter before sending it or we will do so on receipt – we will only publish the standard text, not a copy of the letter itself.

Members who do decide to ask for a change of circumstances review can download our Guide to PIP Claims and reviews from this page and members who want to challenge the review decision can download our guides to PIP mandatory reconsiderations and appeals from the same page.

Stay updated

The DWP have, as yet, given no details on how they are deciding who will receive an extension or how they are deciding on the length of those extensions, with readers posting news of extensions of anywhere from four years to just five days. We'll provide more information as soon as we have it. To make sure you know what is happening, sign up for our free, fortnightly newsletter.  

Letter text

Update: we have now seen part of the text of the letters the DWP are sending out – though we are still hoping to see a full copy of the letter, which is 4 pages long.  The excerpt reads:

We have changed how often we review some Personal Independence Payment (PIP) awards.  This means we have extended your PIP award.

What this means for you

Your current PIP award has been extended to 8 February 2030.

You do not need to do anything.  We will contact you again after 8 February 2029 to see if your needs have changed and if you are getting the right amount of PIP.

We may extend the date of your PIP award again.  If we do we will write to you to tell you about this.

We will continue to pay your PIP payments as normal.

Please tell us about any change in your circumstances

If your circumstances change, please let us know.

Call us straight away, using the phone number on the front page of this letter.

Someone else can call for you.  But you will need to be with them when they call.  You can also write to the address shown on the front page of this letter.

Update 5 July

From comments and emails received so far, it looks like most of the extensions are being given to claimants whose awards were due to end in 2026, 2027 or early to mid-2028.

Extensions mostly range from one year to four years, although there have been some extremely short ones of just a matter of days and at least one longer one, at six years. 

It looks like the DWP are taking a large number of reviews due in the next two years and spreading them across a period from possibly mid-2028 to around 2031 - again there are exceptions to this. 

The aim is to get rid of the current PIP review backlog and free up assessor time to do more face-to-face assessments for both PIP and the WCA. 

There's no evidence yet that where you live in England or Wales makes a difference or that the type of condition you have is taken into consideration.

It seems very likely that the extensions are being decided by an algorithm, with no other human involvement in the process. 

The DWP are choosing to keep the whole system secret, but we'll publish updates if things become clearer.

 

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    This is common sense. At last. For those with stable conditions and no changes it is absolutely well overdue. Putting people through the ordeal of new assessments when nothing has changed has no doubt contributed to the huge backlog.
    Whilst not wishing to stick up for the DWP - it sounds like finally some common sense. 
    Much comment has undoubtedly been made to them about this and finally they have had to listen.
    For those people whose circumstances have worsened, or improved, they can and should still report those changes and ask for new assessments. 
    Perhaps I’ve misunderstood but I see this as good news.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Moose It is good news but it's mainly to deal with the huge backlog which should come as no shock
      If they could assess more regularly they would
      This is out of necessity not because they care
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Moose I agree. It's stressful waiting for that dreaded review form to come.
      Mine was due soon. I'm glad It's one less thing to stress about for the time being. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Moose I suspect the motive in doing this is not benevolent.

      It is being done to free up staff to do more WCA reassessments. The WCA reassessments are being targeted at short term awards that were extended due to WCA reassessments being paused and at substantial risk awards. The claimants who would presumably be more likely to lose their LCWRA anyway, once the WCA is abolished and replaced by a new PIP assessment.

      In my opinion that is not cost effective it is politics. So when MPs ask how many of their constituents will lose their LCWRA if they vote to abolish the WCA the figures will be lower. As they will have already lost their LCWRA. 

      Likewise extending standard PIP award durations at assessment and reassessment. And extending current existing PIP awards. Reduces the number of people who might be adversely effected in the near future by changing the PIP assessment system. Making them less likely to lobby their MP. And when MPs ask how many of their constituents will be adversely effected if they vote to change the PIP assessment system. The answer will be x number by the next general election. And that figure will be lower due to the awards having been extended
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I'm on pip due to be re assessed in 2028 so don't know if mine will be extended or not I hope so it's very stressful having to go through all that filling forms out again 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Sue Sue, Mine runs out in 2028 too and I haven't heard anything either, fingers crossed that we'll all get an extension.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Sue Are they doing this for every person thats awarded or just the ones that run out this year and next year?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I just checked mine on the gov.uk one website. It's been extended by 3 years.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Moose You're welcome. Details are in the forum post of healthyme. 
      Who kindly shared the information a few days ago.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Lpot50 Could you please tell me how to check this. Thank you
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Lpot50 Thanks for this. Mods perhaps this could highlighted so people know how to check?

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Andy Burnham Ye see, I have a government gateway account i can use for most things but for this its looking me to create a new gov id!! Why oh why must the keep changing nonsense.... other than to usher in digital ids!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @James No problem. Thanks goes to healthyme. They took the time to work this out and posted it on the forum.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    The good news may turn into bad news if they change the PIP assessment system and apply the changes to pre-existing claimants when they are reassessed.

    Better to be reassessed this year and get a 5 year or 10 year or an ongoing/indefinite award than get a 2 or 4 year extension and then get a reduced award or no award of PIP in 2 or 4 years because the government has moved the goal posts on who is eligible. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @John To be honest, I didn't really look at incentives to push people into work or more engagement.  I am due to get state pension in the next three years and I doubt any major changes in cuts or work incentives will affect me so the "help into work" didn't really grab my attention. 

      Actually, if I had had such support to stay in work years ago, things may have been very different instead of the employers being allowed to dictate their own agenda on my sickness absence.  So I do see the advantages in early intervention that Burnham talked about.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @axab43 I do not share your view of the Milburn review.

      The interim report misleadingly uses selective data to falsely portray the current NEETs situation as uniquely bad in the UK, spiralling out of control and unsustainable. And blames the rise in people claiming for mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions.

      It downplays mental health. Blaming lack of sleep, social media, mobile phones, bad habits and a welfare system that defines them as incapable of work rather than getting them to work. And plays up work as good for mental health.

      While claiming people with neurodevelopmental disorders want to work but are deterred by the welfare system.

      And repeatedly blames the current welfare system for causing dependency and ill health through perverse financial and lack of engagement and conditionality. 

      Milburn was chosen to do the review as his known views meant he was guaranteed to produce findings and recommendations that would justify the existing plan. Of raising the age people can claim PIP to 18 and raising the age people can claim UC health to 22. And reducing eligibility to PIP and abolishing the WCA and cutting UC health. And instead having a youth deal where people are encouraged and helped towards education, employment, training. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @axab43 Burnham has said he is opposed to crude cuts not that he is opposed to cuts. There is a massive difference between those two positions. 

      Crude cuts according to Burnham are simply cuts to benefits with the aim of saving money, that leave people abandoned on benefits and in poverty. 

      Non crude cuts are cuts designed to move people into work. Because the cuts are accompanied by increased DWP engagement to encourage and help the people into work. Non crude cuts also includes cuts designed to remove perverse incentives so as to stop people being encouraged into a life out of work on benefits. 

      Burnham by what he has said about his conditional support of the Fonagy review and by his strong support of the Milburn review and Timms review clearly supports non crude cuts.

      His position on welfare cuts is in effect the same as the government described it's position under Starmer. Not the crude cuts of the Tories that abandoned people to poverty. But Labour cuts accompanied by increased help towards and into work. And Labour cuts to remove perverse incentives, so people are not motivated to claim disability and incapacity benefits in the first place. Labour cuts are being cruel to be kind and result in decreased poverty and improved health by increasing work. Labour cuts are not a cost saving exercise they are a moral crusade to help people. 


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @John He has said he does oppose financial cuts that just leave people in poverty and he is in favour of early intervention, reaching people before they become dependent, and giving support then.  He has stated this a few times, so it is worth bearing that in mind.

      The Milburn review turned out to be very positive towards young people. saying they have been demonised unfairly.  It all seems more positive/hopeful with an Andy Burnham government.  I don't trust Pat McFadden at all but he may not be the DWP minister in the Autumn anyway.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @D I think the reason they appear to be planning on directly reducing eligibility for those with anxiety and instead seeking to claim neurological disorders like ADHD and autism are overdiagnosed, comes down to polling data.

      Less than 50% of those polled believe these groups should get cash benefits. 

      For anxiety and depression the breakdown is 35% believe they should vs 55% believe they should not +10% don't know. So reducing or removing their entitlement pleases more voters than it upsets.

      But for neurological conditions the breakdown is 46% believe they should vs 43% believe they should not + 11% don't know. So simply reducing or removing their entitlements offends more voters than it pleases. So instead the government claims overdiagnoses.

      While for severe mental illnesses (with psychosis as a symptom). 70% believe they should vs 20% should not +10% don't know. So severe mental illnesses will probably get protected.

      And physical disabilities have 80%+ believe they should vs 14% or less should not. So any reduction or removing their eligibility needs to be done extremely carefully as it risks a public and MP backlash.

      Polling data by yougov for the Blair Institute. 
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.