Good work Charlie.

"A Lapsed appeal is where DWP changed the decision in the customer’s favour after an
appeal was lodged but before it was heard at a tribunal hearing".

We have to wonder how many claimants would have already given up, after being denied initially or at Mandatory Reconsideration.

Please give this flyer to any healthcare provider you come across as the more signatures we get the better. Thanks to the fab
@argentas.bsky.social for the flyer idea, the qr code and being a FOi genius! #WelfareNotWarfare

Correct. Sorry, I meant to say activity, not descriptor

Yeah, it's the fact that the points awarded during the assessments can be so arbitrary that causes so much stress. You never know how they will assess from one time to the next, even if your condition hasn't changed!

Many sections you can only score even numbers and only washing and bathing has a 3pt option, so maximum of 21 points without scoring any 4s or above. But the point you were making about scoring lots of pts but getting nothing under the new rules is 100% correct

assets.ctfassets.net/vms0u05139aw...

It would be 21/84 (one '3' and nine '2's), because there is only one descriptor that has a '3 pts' option (most have descriptors that score 0, 2, 4 etc).

The point you made absolutely still stands though. You could score 21 points and still not be eligible for daily living under the new rules.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have plenty of experience of the PIP application, assessment, and scoring criteria, but don't have any experience with ESA or with UC WCA / LCWRA, so it's taking me some time to figure out all the implications of the changes to those groups.

The daily living component is however used as the gateway for carers allowance and the carers element of UC. So there will be knock on effects from that if claimants lose the daily living component.

One think to bear in mind is that there are no changes proposed to the mobility component of PIP, which is generally what the local authorities are interested in with regard to blue badge applications. So even if someone loses the daily living component they should retain their mobility entitlement

Completely agree. It was also a disgrace that it took them 3 weeks to offer the document in an accessible format, particularly given the group the changes will affect.

Also, if the percentages they provided were for those who were not awarded at least 4 points in all ten categories, the figure for the standard daily living rate would have been 100%, as by definition anyone scoring 40+ points would be in the enhanced rate bracket and not the standard rate bracket.

I'll admit it may have been less confusing if I had posed the question the other way around, but *all* was correct in this context.
eg. "Which students scored less than 40% in *all* of their exams?" is the same as "Which students did not score 40% or more in *any* of their exams?"

DWP's wording is unhelpful, but I think actually the stats being provided re the 'all' and the 'any' FOIs are the same: if you sum 13% of 1.6m (standard DL) and 87% of 1.3m (enhanced DL) you get an overall 46% of the 2.9m total DL awards excluded.

I was hoping this was a mistake, but someone else has submitted a similar FOI, and the figures tally

13% of 1608000 = 209040
87% of 1283000 = 1116210
(209040+1116210) / (1608000+1283000) = 46% of total recipients do not meet the 4 pts requirement.

(The other FOI response says 54% do score 4 pts)

Hi Rachel. It's already gone viral on X, and I've posted links there to the full FOI response, so I'm not worried either way. Thank you for asking though!

I suspect they will drag their heels and/or refuse to release the information prior to the government's impact statement being published.

So sorry to hear this. There are so many who are perfectly happy to gaslight those with disabilities and complex long term health issues by telling them what they should and shouldn't be capable of, rather than listening to the lived expeiences of those for whom these issues are a daily reality.

The issue is that that the most significant proposals within the green paper are explicitly excluded from the the consultation