Login FormClose

Free, fortnightly PIP, ESA and UC Updates


Over 80,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.


See also British Medical Journal condemns forced psychological testing and training of claimants

The government should commission an ‘end-to-end redesign’ of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) process, says a new briefing paper from the British Psychological Society.

The paper cites a growing body of evidence that seriously ill people are being inappropriately subjected to WCA. It also argues that the WCA does not effectively measure fitness for work and that its application is producing inappropriate outcomes for claimants.

It quotes the conclusion of the 2014 review by the House of Commons work and pensions select committee that:

“Simply rebranding the WCA by taking on a new provider will not solve the problems… This will be time consuming and complex, but the re-designed ESA assessment processes needs to be in place by the time a completely new contract, involving multiple providers is tendered in 2018.”

The British Psychological Society strongly endorses this conclusion and calls for the government to expedite a full review of the assessment and its processes.

Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes, the President of the British Psychological Society, says:

“There is now a significant body of evidence that the WCA is failing to assess people’s fitness for work accurately and appropriately, with people who are seriously physically and mentally ill being found fit for work and those with acute, transient episodes being assessed as lacking capacity and treated in the same way as those with a longer term prognosis.

“Appeals against the decisions are running at approximately 50 per cent and around half of those appeals are upheld. The cost to the taxpayer from this alone is £50m, with a similar amount being spent on reassessment. The DWP is now under significant pressure to publish data on the number of people who have died whilst claiming out-of-work disability benefits.”

To redesign the WCA system the accompanying call to action advocates:

  • a reliable, valid and fully researched method of assessment to replace the Limited Capacity for Work Questionnaire (ESA 50) and the face-to-face WCA;
  • training in assessment, scoring and interpretation for the test administrators;
  • specialist assessors to assess people with mental, cognitive and intellectual functioning difficulties;
  • supervision of the assessors from qualified clinicians with expertise in rehabilitation, assessment and interpretation;
  • referral routes to specialist assessment and support for those with psychological, cognitive and intellectual functioning difficulties;
  • appropriate periods of reassessment for people with long-term conditions, based on specialist advice to accurately reflect the prognosis.


+2 #2 Bill24chev 2015-06-13 09:27
i posted this on the Forum

I am concerned about this so have done a bit of research my self.

First of all Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is not recognised as a Physiological Intervention and “Master Practitioners in NLP” are not recognised as Psychologists by the British Psychological Society (BPS).

If the DWP (or members of staff etc.) are claiming that this therapy is carried out by Psychologists they could be committing an offence under the HCPC rules for Protected Titles. Psychologist is a Protected Title, see

You can make a formal complain to the HCPC

The BPS recommend that before any “Psychological Intervention” is undertaken you should check that the Practitioner is registered to practice with the HCPC.

Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) does have an association that may perform a regulatory function but Master Practitioners in NLP” are not listed as practitioners regulated by the HCPC but they may be registered with the HCPC in some other capacity if they meet the requirements for another profession which could of course be a Chartered psychologist.
+3 #1 Blackcat 2015-06-10 19:12
The BBC got a reporter to register his cat as a 'Master Practitioner' in this particular 'Therapy'

I believe I have already posted that it is listed as one of the top ten useless interventions.
If a surgeon tried to operate on you without your permission,he would be in trouble. Dr Harold Shipman was guilty of 'mechanical' clinicide what about 'organic' clinicide bogus and untested psychiatric processes.Clear ly the MIND needs as much protection as the BODY. I make no comment as to which intervention I am referring to,but CBT is about the only one recognised by NICE.
If I was forced onto a treatment programme I would complain to the BMA. They cannot force people to change their religion,so why are they allowed to force people to change the way they think?

You need to be logged in to comment

Subscribe Now

Get Instant Access to all our guides