Claimants who had a face-to-face personal independence payment (PIP) assessment last year were almost a quarter less likely to get an award than claimants who had a telephone or video assessment, figures released by the DWP have revealed.

The statistics were given in a written parliamentary answer by DWP disability minister Stephen Timms.

They show that over the last three years the gap between face-to-face assessments and telephone/video assessment success rates has been growing, rising from 11% in 2022 to 13% in 2024.  The full figures are:

  • 2022  Face-to-face: 42% Telephone, video: 53%
  • 2023  Face-to-face: 44% Telephone, video: 56%
  • 2024  Face-to-face: 44% Telephone, video: 57%

The difference in success rates does not appear to be explained by, for example, by the DWP inviting people who have less severe conditions face-to-face assessments, because allocation to assessment types appears to be largely random.

According to Timms, where claimants need a specific type of assessment, such as a telephone assessment because of difficulties with travelling, then they will be allocated that.

But all other claimants will get the next available appointment, regardless of whether that is face-to-face, telephone or video. 

Part of the difference in success rates may be the opportunity to for assessors to undermine claims with baseless “informal observations” at a face-to-face assessment, such as:

“Is tanned.  Suggests good health.

Overweight.  Suggests good appetite.

Smartly dressed.  Suggests good drive.”

In November 2024, the latest statistics we have for assessment types:

77% of assessments were remote, either telephone or video, but overwhelmingly these were telephone

18% were paper

4% were face-to-face

1% were unspecified

So the chances of having a face to face assessment have been small since the pandemic. 

However, Timms has also revealed that the proportion of face-to-face assessments is set to rise from Autumn of this year, so the risk will increase in the coming months.

As a method of reducing the number of successful claims and cutting the cost of PIP, switching to more face-to-face assessments appears to be an effective strategy.  It also requires no legislation whatsoever.

But claimants can ask to have  their assessment type changed, for example because travelling to an assessment centre for a face-to-face assessment would be painful or distressing.

The right to a review of the type of assessment you are allocated and the right to a further review are explained at pages 105-107 of our member’s Guide to PIP Claims and Reviews, along with sample written requests for a change of assessment type.

We have also updated the section of the guide headed “What kind of assessment will you have?”  at page 103, to inform readers about the different success rates for different types of assessment.

Members can download the current Guide to PIP Claims and Reviews here.

You can read the full parliamentary question and answer here.

 

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.
    · 1 months ago
    Going by yesterday's The Times report a few posters linked here, if true & not another manipulative piece of clickbait, they'll go about cutting £5bn with not only stricter criteria for all new claims, but more frequent reassessments of existing ones. If confirmed, it's a concern I share with others because future assessments will be skewed even more to fail us. Labour also have the huge majority to expedite the process. As if people with long-term health issues don't have enough to worry about just getting through the day ahead. Many are virtually housebound for various health issues. 

    Now they may push vulnerable people into poverty or worse; the scrap heap. I must say what hard-faced frauds Reeves & Starmer are proving so far. They could spare so much distress to vulnerable people by (temporarily) increasing tax on the very wealthiest & even reversing unaffordable NI cuts that cost some £20bn annually. If they did that, they could even raise the tax threshold before people pay tax to protect lowest earners. A true Labour Party would do this. But this lot seems more concerned about not offending their wealthy backers. 

    I've said before, I didn't vote for this lot as I trusted them no more than the Tories. I can only hope that when any plans are confirmed, they prove less nasty than what we read about. Until then, we may indeed hope for the best, but also prepare for tougher times ahead. If the latter, we'll need to come together & support any campaigns that challenge such callous policies. - GLA. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @slb Good points. I agree that it'll take time before the government's plans to save $5bn begin to affect current claimants. However, when the proposed new eligibility rules kick in & it becomes progressively harder for most new claimants to receive any added help in future, no surprise if that waiting list is gradually reduced. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Ivan The current delay for reassessment result is about 10 months.  They're not going to add to  that by doing more frequent reassessments any time soon. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    People are losing the plot over on Scope's forum, it disturbs me how all of these leaks or briefs to the media are being done without any consideration for the people who will be effected. This is a terrible look for Labour and sections of the British media. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Disturbing that PIP and UC they are going after people with autism and ADHD to throw them off benefits en masse. The NHS doesn’t do anything for either condition other than diagnosis, without PIP in particular how are people with those conditions going to get help? Or pay for their social care?

    And has the government even considered the issue of mass default on social housing rents, social care payments etc when benefits like the LCWRA component are slashed 50%?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    What I understand from The Times is that:
    1. Prompting would be a descriptor in every activity as it is now except for:
    a) Toileting
    b) Mixing with others.
    2. Descriptors that would be removed are:
    a) Microwave
    b) Help with washing, dressing and undressing the lower part of the body.

    To qualify for PIP you need to get 4 points in one activity and other 4 from any other activities.

    The purpose of these changes is to take many of those who have less severe conditions, mentally or physically, out of PIP.

    What we need to do is to say no for any changes the government is proposing not because it is going to hurt less severe conditions but because you would never know what are these severe conditions they are talking about.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @sevenbees Yes l read exactly the same today. Not that l understand the relevance of upper but not lower body washing: you either need help or not.
      Hope everyone is doing as well as possible 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Why are they trying to make lcwra less money while still in the process of moving esa claimants to u c?I thought this money was protected by article 19 in law.It will definitely be brought to court if some people through no fault of their own migrate later.Also pip is a protected benefit to rise with inflation by law,that is why it needs primary legislation to change this.Pip cannot be removed without an assessment either,and health would have to be improved to do this.Are they going to do a millon more assessments, I don’t think so.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Michael Once again: tell us how many times existing claimants have had their payments cut in recent years? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB What you forget is that if they don't abolish reassessment and instead keep reassessing claimants, then the current claimants too would be affected, as they could lose their current award due to upcoming harder assessment criteria and then become no different from new claimants. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB I hope you're right, I really do
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Claire It is protected, at migration. But only migration. There is nothing stating that it can't decrease, or increased, at a later date. No vote required, either.

      This of course should tell you one important thing, even if these changes wete to happen, they won't be enacted until the last person has moved over to UC at the end of the year. Even then, some people will still remain on esa claiming contribution based, like myself. (I have partial ESA & partial UC payments) So a further question arises, how does a deduction effect us. Very complex to work over 2 benefits & 2 systems, or do they just reduce the UC part, and take it away from the transustional protection.

      I'm sure we will find out in due course. Because one thing is fir sure, they really haven't thought about this properly.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Claire It is.  It most likely wouldn't affect current claimants.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    They parrot, “welfare system is broken”, "We need to get a grip' on welfare".

    In fact, it's Keir Starmer's Labour that's broken.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Scorpion He needs to get a grip on some morals 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-68570042

    From last year, the bloody nerve of Labour
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Dave Dee Vicky Foxcroft was a red herring to get us to vote labour.  7 months later, here we are with LK.
      I could never vote labour again
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Dave Dee Wow, this government is the most  duplicitous I've known, completely two-faced. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    If what Steve has put is right about the 4 descriptors changing will it apply to everyone or new claims and how long does it take to kick in 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Dale Initially new claims, then everybody when they are reassessed
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    I think at times like this comments need to be stopped, or moderated. People are frightened and this may push many people over the edge. Especially those with mental health issues who are probably scared witless right now. 

    Things that have been leaked aren’t set in stone at all, and it will have many phases to go through in government and we all know they’ll be watered down. They cannot legally take away the LCWRA component from people already getting it, if there’s any changes surely there will be some form of payment protection for existing claimants? If they do decrease the amount you get on LCWRA, it will undoubtedly effect new claimants as a deterrent from claiming for LCWRA IF you going to be looking for work will make you better off??? (Wrong if you can’t work I know, but I think that’s how it’ll go!) 

    PIP changes to daily activities will take a while to implement (don’t forget the proposed changes to WCA where deemed unlawful! I’m sure it’ll be the same if the proposed changes to PIP are radically unfair!) 

    Just try to remember guys, much of this will likely be scaremongering (pip vouchers spring to mind!) 

    Let’s just wait and see what the green paper proposes (key word there PROPOSES!) none of this is definitely happening. 

    Sorry for the long post, I hope this reassures some people. Love to all worrying and suffering right now. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @MJ MJ I think the likelihood of cuts will be taken to court, multiple other benefits changes have been rightfully taken into court, and won because changes they’ve tried to make are unlawful. 
      All we can do is hope for the best. I didn’t mean to give false hope to anyone by saying “it’ll be watered down” but going on past consultations that is exactly what has happened when it gets to the white paper stage because of backlash from charities etc, and them finding out the legal challenges they will be faced with. That’s fact. 
      I understand you’re a realist, and I don’t wish to have any conflict with anyone of here by what I post. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Richard Dont leave the site, your comments are as valid as the next mans. Can't please everyone.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon What you are suggesting is that those looking fir work will get more money than those on LCWRA.  That isn't true. We will lose money, and they will gain, but we will still get considerably more money than they do.  For full details of what has been said, please see my post about the discussion on the Peston  show.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon N You make a good argument that it should be taken to court. But that doesn't mean it definitely will be. And even then overturned. The government will know this and they will check with the Attorney General before making the proposals and have their best lawyers ready if need be.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB You say false info, but what is false info, we don't know. What you consider false info someone else might think is correct. And all the above you have written albeit quite logical is still speculation and what was done with something else previously doesn't necessarily mean it will be done here.

      "Nobody has said it WILL be watered down"

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    In relation to freezing PIP payments the the UK government could potentially face a legal challenge if it were to this as PIP is a benefit designed to help people with long-term health conditions or disabilities cover the extra costs they face. If the government were to freeze or reduce PIP payments, it could be challenged in court on several grounds for example-

    Human Rights Violations: If freezing or reducing PIP payments leads to violations of individuals' human rights, particularly the right to an adequate standard of living or protection against discrimination, it could lead to a legal case. The UK is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and changes to PIP payments that negatively impact people's well-being could be seen as a violation of these rights.

    Disability Discrimination: If freezing or cutting PIP payments disproportionately affects people with disabilities, it might be argued that such a move constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The law protects against discrimination based on disability, and reducing support for disabled individuals could be viewed as discriminatory.

    Previous court rulings have emphasized the need for proper procedures and justification when making changes to welfare benefits. If the government fails to follow the correct process, including providing adequate reasoning and evidence, a legal case could arise based on a failure to comply with the law.

    In practice, legal cases of this nature can be complex, but there is always the possibility of legal action, especially if there is a belief that the government's decision violates the rights of citizens.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Not so Great Britain I’ve got my fighting gloves on and ready! I refuse to be targeted, I’ve had enough of being shamed for having a genetic illness I was born with and suffer daily because of it. We will stand up and show them we MATTER! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Not so Great Britain Politico are claiming that the freezing of PIP for 2026/7 has been scrapped.  Whether that's true or not is something we don't know just yet.  Although the PIP freeze is probably the least worrying element of what has been discussed.  That's about £20 a month - unlike losing PIP through eligibility changes which would see people losing hundreds a month.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon N I would assume they would as it relates to disability. We need to fight back here.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Not so Great Britain We seem to have strayed very far from a simple freeze of PIP; however, the last govt froze benefits without issue, so doubt there would be a legal case in that. As for the changes to PIP, I'm sure Labour will dot their i's and cross their t's, so as to not repeat the last govt's consultation mistakes. The bigger worry is UC - as the Time's points out these changes will happen "immediately"; and we don't know how much LCWRA claimants will lose, as that hasn't been leaked.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Not so Great Britain Amazing points raised, would the same rules apply if they cut LCWRA? I assume so. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    The far right are linking to this website, as part of their attack against motability. Social media is awash with people calling for the scheme to be scrapped. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @MJ I think you misread what I stated
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @MJ Bertonomics?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Bert So no need to balance the books then if the economy is on the up as you make out. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Neil Cook I think the answer to that is rather obvious. They don't think they should have to provide for the disabled because they're "the party that rewards hard work" and if you don't fit their slanted worldview and refuse to get with the programme, you can perish.

      And also because we're an easy target and money talks in this world. When you're wealthy, you have Starmer defending you against higher taxes by unironically saying you're not a "bottomless pit". Because wealth comes with power and respect.

      However, if you're barely scraping by on benefits, you're a parasite of the highest order and you must be dealt with for the sake of your "betters".

      My apologies for the brutal language but it's how these rich politicians think. They haven't known a single day of difficulty in their pampered, upper class lives so why would they feel any sort of empathy towards those who have? You may as well ask one of us here what it's like to be Jeff Bezos. We live in an entirely different world to that and that's what makes this so easy for them despite them saying they're the ones making "tough choices" and whatever other manipulative jargon they want to fall back on.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Rik Any evidence for the "far right" linking to this website as you say. Let's try and not get paranoid and alarmist. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    I am really scared both the Times and Daily Mail the Pip cuts are going to hit people with cognitive mental health disorders like autism and adhd . I am not posting the link as it is not fair to put excessive stress and worry as I am mentally at breaking point at the thought of being reduced to poverty. I feel for people going through what I Might be going through just now. I am really sorry if these proposals go ahead.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon N What phases will it go through? Genuinely interested here. Maybe I've missed something but apparently most of it will not have to go through parliament or the House of Lords which people kept saying previously. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @WorkshyLayabout
      Comment got chopped off.

      Most are struggling to cope living day to day in a world built for neurotypicals by neurotypicals.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @John Mental health problems being the main targets again. The policy makers must watch all the dramas with a savant autistic as the lead character and think all autistics are brilliantly minded abet a bit aloof. Wrong. Most are struggling to cope living day to day
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon And only proposals until anything is confirmed - which will be at least six months away, in all likelihood.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @John Please don’t be scared! This will be a long way off yet. It’ll have many phases to go through, a green paper simply proposes what they’d like to happen, not what will happen. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    According to The Times:
    1. Preparing Food: Microwave (out)
    2. Washing: Help with hair and body below the waist (out)
    3. Toileting: Reminder or prompting (out)
    4. Mixing with other people: Prompting (out).

    That means the DWP are making changes to 4 activities by removing a descriptor each. 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB Having to eat ready meals is a big reason why people need pip, it is expensive
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Dale Probably 18 months
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB Thanks I was told when I phoned up the Scope helpline, staffed by welfare experts, never listen or read to any newspaper headlines or even all the speculation in the news/, as it is just speculation and the timescale could be many months before any of it even goes through anyway. The only time I see newspaper headlines now is on this group in the comments section.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Dale @Dale Unfortunately any changes will be applied to the new claimants and the existing claimants when they reassess their needs.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @axab43 The Times says it come from a leak.  But it's actually about the way the points are scored.  The things listed by Steve are supposedly still "in" but you will need to score 4 points on at least one question in order to qualify, and the things Steve lists won't supply those 4 points - but they would still  be worth 2 points to help towards the 8 points you would also need to qualify.  BUT there's going to be challenges.  

      Saying it's not a problem for people to prepare food every day via microwave is basically saying its alright for the disabled to live on ready meals - meals that are processed foods and generally full of salt and high in fat.  Considering many disabilities and health conditions affect the heart anyway - including things like inflammatory arthritis - such a move would actually cost the country money by the pressure it would put on the NHS.  

      The other thing with such a leak is that it might not be the full story.  There might be new questions added to the form that have never been there before, and others might be removed altogether.   If anything, that's what Labour should be selling at this point - that they are going to scrap the current form and start again, as that is what is actually needed.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Sure would love to hear how they're going to safely argue that being able to cook a microwave meal actually means you can prepare a meal. There's no fundamental difference between a microwave meal and a pre-prepared frozen meal that Mum has given me. 

    It's still a meal that somebody somewhere has pre-prepared for you and I find it utterly ridiculous that I might have to go to tribunal and waste everybody's time and money to explain all of this just so I'm entitled to the standard rate of the daily living component. 

    In fact, I tell a lie about there being no difference: a microwave meal costs money and that's the whole idea behind PIP and "costs related to being disabled". It would be great if we all lived in a utopia where we could prepare Gordon Ramsay-style meals from scratch that take calorie intake and nutrition into account but we're simply not physically AND mentally capable of doing such a thing. And we're likely to get food poisoning and a potential trip to the hospital if we're forced to try.

    Hopefully, everybody who has to pass judgement on these proposals will point and laugh at them for the absolute nonsensical, money-saving scheme that they truly are.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Papers are so making disabled claimants very worried about cuts that are being planned a lot of these proposals will be watered down in time and will take a lengthy time to implement also we all remember the media worrying us last time about vouchers coming in I’m sure these these papers do it for clickbait take care everyone we will stick together with charities and other organizations to build a case for us all thank you for reading post 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Diceman24 Agreed! It’s scaremongering in the cruelest most vile ways. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    I mentioned this rather tongue in cheek the other day but it's looking like I was right! Unless your lying in the chapel of rest you will be expected to look for work! The government seems to think the solution to everyone who claims benefits problems is a good old fashioned weeks hard graft! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    I posted a comment yesterday, that did not make it through. I’ll try again. If everyone on pip gave a nominal one pound, that would total a huge sum of money, money that could be used to fight these draconian, harmful cuts, cuts that we know will result in awful outcomes. Call it a fighting fund. That would send a really powerful message. 
    On politico, it says that the freeze on pip is not likely to make it to reality, after the disquiet from their own mps. Is this the only concession that will be made?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @(No) hope Your comment did get posted. 

      [Just an idea, but if everyone on pip,( is it 3.6 million?)gave just one pound each, this would raise an extraordinary sum, a sum that would be used to challenge through the courts the cuts that are coming, watered down or not, cuts that are going to affect all of us. That would send a really powerful message.]
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    According to the Times front page 1 million claimants to be affected by cuts
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    "immediate cuts. Top rate of Universal Credit incapacity - LCWRA - will be cut. Basic rate will be increased - a bit - to offset and reduce the financial incentive to be signed off sick" The Times
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Rik They just think, so cynically, we are on benefits for free money, not because we just want to recognised as disabled and are unfit to work. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Announced in today's Times newspaper: "Cost-cutting reforms due to be ­announced next week are set to deny payments to many people with mental health conditions and those who ­struggle with washing, dressing themselves and ­eating."

    Labour are going to make PIP incredibly difficult to qualify for - they seem to specifically making it more difficult for physically disabled claimants.