Post by nickd on Feb 20, 2012 22:53:06 GMT 1
"House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee
Government support towards the additional
living costs of working–age disabled people"
Link to report
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1493/1493.pdf
Seventh Report of Session 2010–12
Potential impact on the Tribunals Service
150. Our Report on the IB reassessment drew attention to the increased number of social security appeals heard by the Tribunals Service. Our colleagues on the Justice Select
Committee had found that appeals had increased from 242,800 in 2008–09 to an estimated 436,000 in 2011–12, mainly due to the introduction of ESA. They also reported that the cost to DWP of social security appeals heard by the Tribunals Service had increased significantly in recent years from £1.3 million in 2008–09 to £9 million in 2009–10 and an estimated £21.1 million in 2010–2011
193
151. The Times recently reported that the Government had recruited 84 new judges to the Social Entitlement Chamber of the Tribunals Service in order to deal with the “bottleneck”
of cases arising from the Government’s welfare reforms. It reported that appeals in 2010– 11 were up 23% on the preceding year and 72% on 2008–09 and that this “unprecedented
workload” was a major contributory factor in increased running costs of the Tribunal Service.
194
152. We agree with the Government that more reassessment of claims is necessary than has been the case with DLA. However, too frequent reassessment risks wasting public money and causing stress and anxiety to disabled people. The personal interview should play a part in assessing many PIP claimants. Face-to-face assessment should include the option for home visits where this is agreed to be appropriate. These steps may help to avoid cases going to appeal, with the accompanying costs and delays in resolving claims.
153. We consider that there is a case for automatic entitlement for some claims. The WCA is being carried out annually in a number of cases, which can cause considerable stress for some people. The case for annual assessment is less compelling for PIP than for WCA which is judging people’s ability to re-enter employment. We recommend that there should be flexibility in the frequency of PIP reassessment and that the Government monitors the impact of this.
154. Once the initial assessments for PIP have been completed in the first geographical area, we recommend that the Government looks again at the value of face-to-face assessments for PIP claims where the condition is severe and unlikely to change. The
Government should reconsider whether, in many cases, reliance on medical evidence gathered over a period of time and based on detailed knowledge of the claimant would have more validity than the snapshot of a claimant’s condition and its impacts on their
ability to participate in society which can be gained in a relatively short interview with a healthcare professional who is not an expert in their condition.
Mylegal view
Where do they get their costings from? These have been reported to be £50 million by Professor Harrington who expressed shock at the number and cost of appeals.
These costs are grossly understated. Here's the maths..
The correct figure for the number of HMCTS Social Security appeal receipts was 418,500 in 2010 - 2011. A figure of £21.1 million is quoted by the select committee.
Take £21 million and divide it by 418,500 and you get £50.18.
There is no way on earth an appeal hearing costs as little as £50.18.
The real figure is much more likely to be around £500. You have to consider the overall costs and the number of appeals brought by appellants, these are the real costs.
Now multiply 418,500 by £500 and you get £209,250,000 that's £209 million pounds per year.
Previous Mylegal research showed the figures to be an absolute minimum of £121 million, but this was using average costs for fairly straightforward appeals and was based on a 2008/2009 FOI request for costings from the DWP.
What's as clear as crystal is that the select committee is way out in its costings.
All the basis for this is here..
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=434
Government support towards the additional
living costs of working–age disabled people"
Link to report
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1493/1493.pdf
Seventh Report of Session 2010–12
Potential impact on the Tribunals Service
150. Our Report on the IB reassessment drew attention to the increased number of social security appeals heard by the Tribunals Service. Our colleagues on the Justice Select
Committee had found that appeals had increased from 242,800 in 2008–09 to an estimated 436,000 in 2011–12, mainly due to the introduction of ESA. They also reported that the cost to DWP of social security appeals heard by the Tribunals Service had increased significantly in recent years from £1.3 million in 2008–09 to £9 million in 2009–10 and an estimated £21.1 million in 2010–2011
193
151. The Times recently reported that the Government had recruited 84 new judges to the Social Entitlement Chamber of the Tribunals Service in order to deal with the “bottleneck”
of cases arising from the Government’s welfare reforms. It reported that appeals in 2010– 11 were up 23% on the preceding year and 72% on 2008–09 and that this “unprecedented
workload” was a major contributory factor in increased running costs of the Tribunal Service.
194
152. We agree with the Government that more reassessment of claims is necessary than has been the case with DLA. However, too frequent reassessment risks wasting public money and causing stress and anxiety to disabled people. The personal interview should play a part in assessing many PIP claimants. Face-to-face assessment should include the option for home visits where this is agreed to be appropriate. These steps may help to avoid cases going to appeal, with the accompanying costs and delays in resolving claims.
153. We consider that there is a case for automatic entitlement for some claims. The WCA is being carried out annually in a number of cases, which can cause considerable stress for some people. The case for annual assessment is less compelling for PIP than for WCA which is judging people’s ability to re-enter employment. We recommend that there should be flexibility in the frequency of PIP reassessment and that the Government monitors the impact of this.
154. Once the initial assessments for PIP have been completed in the first geographical area, we recommend that the Government looks again at the value of face-to-face assessments for PIP claims where the condition is severe and unlikely to change. The
Government should reconsider whether, in many cases, reliance on medical evidence gathered over a period of time and based on detailed knowledge of the claimant would have more validity than the snapshot of a claimant’s condition and its impacts on their
ability to participate in society which can be gained in a relatively short interview with a healthcare professional who is not an expert in their condition.
Mylegal view
Where do they get their costings from? These have been reported to be £50 million by Professor Harrington who expressed shock at the number and cost of appeals.
These costs are grossly understated. Here's the maths..
The correct figure for the number of HMCTS Social Security appeal receipts was 418,500 in 2010 - 2011. A figure of £21.1 million is quoted by the select committee.
Take £21 million and divide it by 418,500 and you get £50.18.
There is no way on earth an appeal hearing costs as little as £50.18.
The real figure is much more likely to be around £500. You have to consider the overall costs and the number of appeals brought by appellants, these are the real costs.
Now multiply 418,500 by £500 and you get £209,250,000 that's £209 million pounds per year.
Previous Mylegal research showed the figures to be an absolute minimum of £121 million, but this was using average costs for fairly straightforward appeals and was based on a 2008/2009 FOI request for costings from the DWP.
What's as clear as crystal is that the select committee is way out in its costings.
All the basis for this is here..
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=434