Understanding the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Points System: Inclusivity and Potential Biases

A System Designed For You To Fail

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a UK benefit designed to support individuals with long-term health conditions or disabilities, assisting with extra costs related to daily living and mobility challenges. Eligibility for PIP is determined through a points-based assessment, where claimants are evaluated across various activities and assigned points based on their ability to perform specific tasks. The total points accrued influence both the qualification for PIP and the rate at which it is awarded.

“The PIP assessment test questionnaire should be abolished, as it fails to accurately reflect the diverse and complex needs of disabled individuals. Instead, eligibility for financial support should be determined based on credible medical evidence provided by healthcare professionals. To ensure an accurate review, claimants should be required to obtain a cover report from their GP following a dedicated appointment where they discuss their day-to-day barriers and challenges. By having doctors perform the assessments instead of outsourcing to private companies like Capita, the government could save significant costs while ensuring a fairer and more medically accurate evaluation process.”

“The PIP Assessment: A Narrow Definition of Disability and Potential Discrimination”

Under the PIP system, if a claimant is deemed capable of performing all the Daily Living and Mobility activities without significant difficulty, they are unlikely to be awarded PIP, which implies that, in the government’s view, they are not sufficiently disabled to require financial support.

Discrimination & Ableism

This approach can be seen as discriminatory and ableist because:

It enforces a rigid and narrow definition of disability – Disability is highly individual, and some conditions impact people in ways not captured by the assessment criteria. Just because someone can technically perform an activity does not mean they can do so reliably, repeatedly, safely, or without pain or distress, which are legal considerations under PIP.
It ignores fluctuating conditions – Many disabilities, such as MS, fibromyalgia, and mental health disorders, have good and bad days. The “majority of the time” rule disadvantages people with variable conditions.
It prioritizes functionality over needs – Someone may be able to dress themselves but still require significant help in other areas, such as managing medication or navigating social interactions. The system often disregards how impairments affect overall well-being.
It contradicts the Equality Act 2010 – The Act protects individuals from discrimination based on disability, including policies that disadvantage disabled people. A system that excludes people from support simply because they do not fit rigid, outdated descriptors could be challenged as indirect discrimination.

“Legal Challenges to PIP: Discrimination and Unfair Assessment Criteria”

There have been notable legal challenges to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment criteria on the grounds of discrimination. A significant case is RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWHC 3375 (Admin), where the High Court ruled that amendments to the PIP regulations were discriminatory against individuals with mental health impairments.

Background of the Case

In March 2017, the UK government introduced the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI No 194). These amendments sought to exclude claimants from qualifying for certain mobility components of PIP if their difficulties in following a journey were primarily due to psychological distress. This move aimed to reverse an earlier tribunal decision that had allowed individuals with psychological distress to qualify for higher mobility rates.

Legal Challenge and High Court Ruling

The claimant, known as RF, challenged these amendments on several grounds:

Discrimination: Argued that the regulations were discriminatory against individuals with mental health impairments, violating Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ultra Vires: Claimed that the amendments were beyond the powers granted by the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Lack of Consultation: Contended that the government failed to consult appropriately before implementing the changes. The Guardian

The High Court found in favor of RF on all counts, stating that the 2017 regulations were “blatantly discriminatory” against those with mental health impairments and lacked objective justification. The court emphasized that cost-saving measures could not justify such discrimination. Consequently, the amendments were quashed. Garden Court Chambers

Government Response and Impact

Following the judgment, the Secretary of State announced that the decision would not be appealed. This led to a comprehensive review of approximately 1.6 million PIP claims to identify individuals affected by the unlawful regulations. Garden Court Chambers

Recent Developments

In March 2025, the UK government proposed further changes to disability benefits, including stricter eligibility criteria for PIP. These proposals have sparked significant backlash, with experts warning that up to 1.2 million disabled individuals could lose essential financial support, potentially exacerbating mental health crises and poverty. The Guardian (1), The Guardian (2).

These developments highlight ongoing concerns about the fairness and inclusivity of PIP assessment criteria, particularly regarding individuals with mental health conditions.

Overview of the PIP Points System

The PIP assessment comprises two main components: Daily Living and Mobility. Each component includes specific activities, and claimants are scored on descriptors that best describe their ability to perform each activity. The points assigned to each descriptor vary, reflecting the level of difficulty experienced.

Daily Living Activities:

Preparing Food: Assesses the ability to prepare and cook a simple meal.
Taking Nutrition: Evaluates the capability to eat and drink.
Managing Therapy or Monitoring a Health Condition: Considers the ability to manage prescribed therapies or monitor health conditions.
Washing and Bathing: Assesses personal hygiene tasks.
Managing Toilet Needs or Incontinence: Evaluates the ability to manage toilet needs.
Dressing and Undressing: Considers the ability to dress and undress.
Communicating Verbally: Assesses the ability to express and understand verbal information.
Reading and Understanding Signs, Symbols, and Words: Evaluates the ability to read and comprehend written information.
Engaging with Other People Face to Face: Considers social interaction capabilities.
Making Budgeting Decisions: Assesses the ability to manage financial decisions.

Mobility Activities:

Planning and Following Journeys: Evaluate the ability to plan and follow the route of a journey.
Moving Around: Assesses physical mobility.

Each activity has specific descriptors detailing varying levels of difficulty, with corresponding points ranging from 0 (no difficulty) to higher points indicating greater challenges. To qualify for the Daily Living component, a claimant needs at least 8 points for the standard rate and 12 points for the enhanced rate. The same thresholds apply to the Mobility component.

Consideration of Fluctuating Conditions

The PIP assessment guidelines acknowledge that some conditions are variable or fluctuate over time. To address this, the assessment considers the claimant’s abilities over a 12-month period, focusing on whether a descriptor applies on more than 50% of days. If multiple descriptors apply across different days, the one that reflects the highest level of need for the greatest proportion of time is selected. Benefits and Work

Potential Exclusion of Certain Disabilities and Illnesses

Despite provisions for fluctuating conditions, concerns have been raised that the PIP assessment may not fully capture the complexities of certain disabilities, particularly those that are episodic or less visible. For example, individuals with mental health conditions, chronic pain disorders, or autoimmune diseases like lupus may experience significant difficulties that are not consistently present every day. The requirement that an impairment affects activities on more than 50% of days may disadvantage those whose conditions are severe but less frequent.

Allegations of Bias and Legal Implications

Critics argue that the PIP assessment process may contain inherent biases, potentially leading to unfair outcomes for certain groups. For instance, the emphasis on physical tasks might overlook cognitive or psychological impairments. Additionally, the assessment’s standardized nature may not account for individual variations in how disabilities manifest. Such biases could result in breaches of equality laws designed to protect disabled individuals from discrimination.

Disabilities Potentially Overlooked by the PIP Questionnaire

Several conditions may not be adequately assessed by the current PIP framework, including but not limited to:

Mental Health Disorders: Conditions like depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia may not be fully accounted for, especially if they do not consistently impact daily activities.
Autism Spectrum Disorders: Individuals with autism may face challenges in social interaction and communication that are not sufficiently captured by the assessment.
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): The fluctuating and often invisible nature of fatigue can be difficult to quantify within the assessment criteria.
Fibromyalgia: Widespread pain and fatigue associated with fibromyalgia may not align neatly with the assessment descriptors.
Epilepsy: Seizures that occur infrequently but have a significant impact on safety and daily functioning may not meet the 50% threshold.
Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: These conditions can cause unpredictable and severe symptoms that are challenging to assess consistently.

Conclusion

While the PIP points system aims to provide a fair assessment of disability-related needs, its structure may inadvertently exclude individuals with certain conditions, particularly those that are fluctuating, less visible, or not primarily physical. Ongoing reviews and reforms are essential to ensure that the system equitably supports all individuals requiring financial assistance due to disability or long-term health conditions.

“It is imperative to provide supporting medical history records as well as documentation such as a diary/journal of your daily living routine. Smartwatches can provide data, although they may not cover everything, such as overactive bladder, for example, or certain mental health conditions.”

References:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/get-involved

Andrew Jones

+ posts

Andrew Jones is a seasoned journalist renowned for his expertise in current affairs, politics, economics and health reporting. With a career spanning over two decades, he has established himself as a trusted voice in the field, providing insightful analysis and thought-provoking commentary on some of the most pressing issues of our time.

Spread the love

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31