Tell us if you support PIP awards based on disability costs

As carefully controlled workshops which appear designed to justify using costs to determine PIP awards are launched today by the Timms review, Benefits and Work is  asking readers to give their opinion.   

We want you to take a few seconds to answer a single question and, if you wish, make some comments afterwards.  Whatever happens, Timms should not be the only source of feedback on this idea.

Take part in the survey.

Last week, the Timms review September update contained the bombshell proposal to fundamentally change the way PIP awards are decided. The recommendation was buried in the final few lines of a document that contained a blizzard of other recommendations.

The review is arguing that awards should be decided based on a fair contribution by the DWP to the extra costs of disability, based on categories including “equipment and aids; mobility and transport; clothing and bedding.”

This would be a huge change from deciding individual PIP awards on the basis of the difficulties that individuals experience with daily living and mobility activities and is likely to severely disadvantage some groups of claimants.

The only opportunity disabled people will have to comment on this proposal is via 15 workshops, to which just three hundred people – selected by the DWP from 4,000 applicants - have been invited. 

There is little doubt that much of the time at the workshops will be devoted to less life-changing issues, such as making the language in DWP communications more respectful.

And, at the end of the process, the DWP is likely to argue that the Timms review was co-produced by disabled people and therefore its conclusions are supported by the majority of disabled claimants.

There is also little doubt that, after all its deliberations, the Timms review will conclude that awards based on costs are the way forward.

So, in an attempt to discover if this is really what the majority of disabled people want, we are asking readers to take a very simple single question survey to say whether you support the idea of cost-based awards. You can also leave a comment as well, if you wish.

The survey is completely anonymous, but you can only complete it once.  There is a live link to the survey results, where we will also be publishing a selection of your comments each day.  So please don’t post anything you would not be happy to see published online.  If there are a large number of comments we will also use AI to summarise them.

Take part in the survey

Tell us whether you support the idea of PIP awards being based on disability costs.

Complete the survey Please share the link.

See the live results

See how people have voted and read a selection of anonymous comments from readers.

View the live results and comments

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.
    · 8 minutes ago
    I'd need to know whether the cost element would be a voluntary or a compulsory exchange of all or part of a pip award, or an extra offering on top of a (perhaps reduced) cash payment before I could answer that question.

    I also find it strange that there is no mention of personal care or personal assistant expenses in the costs considered, when these could amount to needing to pay someone an entire wage.

    If pip awards were to be made on the basis of a tailored cost assessment, even if the payments remained cash, then a great deal of research and work would have to be ongoing to determine those costs accurately when costs are constantly changing.

    Lately, an exchange of part of a pip award for a service, namely the motability scheme, has come under fire. I wonder whether a similar sacrifice of cash for care would survive the scrutiny of those who will never be happy at the consideration they see given to the disabled.

    I also wonder what choice there would be of services offered - whether there would be an individual or one size fits all (which it clearly does not) approach. Again, a hugely complex process to arrive at a system 'fit for purpose', as they say.

    It feels precarious to vote on something so undefined, and rather as if the latest revelation of the Timms review thinking has been designed to draw us out before there is clarification of what is actually on offer.