The DWP have hammered the final nail in the coffin of Labour’s recently announced Right To Try work legislation before it even begins on 30 April. The department has told decision makers that they should look at the type of work claimants start in order to decide whether to subject them to a work capability assessment and/or personal independence payment (PIP) review.
When the new Right To Try work regulations were unveiled in April, we argued that they were worthless because they didn’t actually change anything at all. Now, a new memo in the DWP’s Advice for Decision Makers staff guide proves that we were correct.
The memo tells universal credit (UC) staff that:
“When notified that a claimant is working DMs should continue to consider whether the nature of the work undertaken might indicate that a change in functional ability has occurred. Where this is the case, a determination can be made that a further WCA should be carried out in order to consider whether the claimant continues to have LCW or LCWRA.”
In other words, every time a claimant says they have started work or voluntary work, decision makers will look again at their award to decide whether a new WCA should take place.
In relation to PIP, the memo confirms that a claimant is not obliged to report starting work. But if there is a change in their circumstances they reasonably know might affect their entitlement to PIP they have a duty to report it as soon as possible.
In practice, this means that if you start work but don’t tell the DWP and they later decide that the work shows that your functional abilities have improved, you may be liable for a huge overpayment.
The memo goes on to confirm that a claimant “undertaking work of a particular nature” may lead the decision maker to instigate a reassessment of their PIP award.
The document gives a range of examples, including:
“Peter is entitled to UC with the LCWRA element on the basis that he is unable to mobilise a distance exceeding 50m. Peter commences work for 35 hours per week as a labourer. The DM considers that the nature of this work may provide doubt as to whether Peter continues to have LCWRA and determines that a further WCA should take place.”
“Nigel is entitled to UC including the LCWRA element. He has LCWRA because he was born without hands and cannot press the buttons on a keypad or turn the pages of a book. Nigel starts office work, earning 16 x the NMW every week. The DM establishes that the job is in the family business where Nigel uses voice-activated equipment. The DM decides that a further WCA is not required, and Nigel’s UC award continues to include the LCWRA element.”
“Mark was awarded the standard rate mobility component of PIP due to their mental health and anxiety leading to the satisfaction of mobility descriptor 1d Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. Mark reports they have started work in a job that involves frequent business travel. The DM decides an award review will be instigated by this information.”
These examples are all fairly clear cut, although it may be the case that Mark will always be travelling with a colleague on business trips or is receiving funding for a travel companion.
But in most cases, where a claimant starts work, it may not be so obvious whether they still meet the criteria for their benefit award. There is a very good chance that they will deliberately be pushing themselves to do things that they have not managed in the past, knowing that it may prove too much for them but determined to give it a try.
If the Right To Try was genuine, then they could do so secure in the knowledge that they could keep their benefits if their attempt was not successful.
In reality, decision makers are being told to pounce as soon as they become aware the attempt to try work is being made.
As we said before:
“Nothing has changed.
“The Right To Try Work guarantee is worthless.”
And that’s now official.
