Thousands of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants could be owed money dating back as far as April 2016 following a rule change.

The change, which refers to the assessment rules for the Daily Living component, specifically addresses the definition of “social support.”

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is currently urging around 284,000 existing claimants to get in contact with them if they think they may have been affected.

The move comes after the Supreme Court handed down a judgment in July 2019 following an Upper Tribunal decision, known as the “MM” judgment. The “MM” judgement changed how the DWP considers the definition of ‘social support’ for Daily Living activity number nine.

It revolves around face-to-face interactions and when ‘prompting’ should be considered ‘social support’ in the PIP assessment. Additionally, it addresses the timeframe for providing social support in advance.

In September 2016, the DWP initiated an administrative exercise to examine PIP claims since April 6, 2016, to determine potential eligibility for increased support. According to an online update, the DWP identified approximately 326,000 cases for review.

The latest report publshed in October revealed that by the end of August 2023, the DWP had reviewed approximately 79,000 cases in alignment with the MM judgment. This encompasses instances where claimants were previously assessed as needing ‘prompting.’

Following this, some 14,000 arrears payments totalling around £74million have been made.

The amount a person receives may be higher or lower for each individual case, but on average, that works out at around £5,285 per PIP claim.

Who may be affected by the rule change?

The MM judgment can only affect a claimant’s assessment of the Daily Living part of the PIP assessment.

The DWP is reviewing cases where additional points for Activity 9 (‘prompting’ or ‘social support’) may make a “material difference” to the amount of PIP that claimants are eligible for.

People who may have missed out on the Daily Living component element of PIP, or were awarded the standard rate and may be entitled to the enhanced rate include:

• People who have regular meetings with a mental health professional, without which they would not be able to manage face-to-face encounters.
• People who need the input of particular friends or relatives with experience of supporting them in social situations – rather than just any well-meaning friend or relative – to help them manage face-to-face encounters.

Nobody should see their PIP reduced because of this exercise.

The DWP is not reviewing claims if:

• The enhanced rate of the Daily Living component has been awarded continuously since April 6, 2016
• A Tribunal made a decision on a claim since April 6, 2016
• A decision not to award PIP was made before April 6, 2016.

in a recent statement to Parliament, Tom Pursglove, the former Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work explained that due to the “complexity”, the exercise” that was started at a “relatively small scale” and prioritised terminally ill and recently deceased claimants to test processes and communications with claimants, to ensure they are effective “before ramping up”.

Mr Pursglove said: “We are monitoring the numbers of, and reasons for, revised awards closely and making regular quality checks to ensure our decision-making is accurate and fair. We have listened to feedback and engaged with disability organisations, to develop our processes and communications, being sensitive to claimants who need help to provide any further information we need to decide if they are affected.”

“We are committed to making backdated payments to all claimants affected by this judgment as quickly as possible. So, as well as continuing to review claims affected by the definition of ‘social support’, we are also testing a more proportionate approach for claimants who might be affected by the timing element only.

“We will be inviting around 284,000 claimants in this group to contact the department if they think their claim is affected by this judgment and they were not previously identified as needing help to engage with other people face to face because any help they received was in advance.”

He added: “I believe that prioritising cases where claimants are more likely to be entitled to more support is the correct approach.”