This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/12/dwp-to-restore-benefits-of-disabled-woman-it-called-lying-bitch
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| DWP to restore disability benefits of woman it called 'lying bitch' | |
| (3 days later) | |
| The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has offered to restore the full benefits of a claimant whom it called a “lying bitch” in legal papers after she appealed against a decision to strip her of some of her disability entitlements. | The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has offered to restore the full benefits of a claimant whom it called a “lying bitch” in legal papers after she appealed against a decision to strip her of some of her disability entitlements. |
| The DWP has apologised to the woman and, following outrage when it emerged the insult had been inserted into appeal tribunal papers, has said it no longer plans to cut her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) entitlement. | The DWP has apologised to the woman and, following outrage when it emerged the insult had been inserted into appeal tribunal papers, has said it no longer plans to cut her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) entitlement. |
| DWP document refers to benefit claimant as 'lying bitch' | DWP document refers to benefit claimant as 'lying bitch' |
| It also said she would be considered for a “consolatory payment”, issued in exceptional cases where departmental action had resulted in claimants suffering “gross embarrassment, humiliation, unnecessary personal intrusion and … severe distress”. | It also said she would be considered for a “consolatory payment”, issued in exceptional cases where departmental action had resulted in claimants suffering “gross embarrassment, humiliation, unnecessary personal intrusion and … severe distress”. |
| The incident, which was revealed with the claimant’s permission last month by her welfare advice worker, was condemned at the time as exposing “a canteen culture of contempt among many decision makers at the DWP”. | The incident, which was revealed with the claimant’s permission last month by her welfare advice worker, was condemned at the time as exposing “a canteen culture of contempt among many decision makers at the DWP”. |
| The DWP’s offer to the claimant to drop its previously vigorous defence of the original PIP decision is likely to be seen as a damage-limitation exercise, amid continuing scepticism over the accuracy and reliability of disability benefit assessments. | The DWP’s offer to the claimant to drop its previously vigorous defence of the original PIP decision is likely to be seen as a damage-limitation exercise, amid continuing scepticism over the accuracy and reliability of disability benefit assessments. |
| Just a fortnight ago, the DWP was preparing to go to court to defend its PIP decision in the case – in effect arguing the woman was not disabled enough to claim mobility support. It had already reviewed the case internally in a process called mandatory reconsideration and upheld the initial assessment. | Just a fortnight ago, the DWP was preparing to go to court to defend its PIP decision in the case – in effect arguing the woman was not disabled enough to claim mobility support. It had already reviewed the case internally in a process called mandatory reconsideration and upheld the initial assessment. |
| However, since the Guardian reported the case, the department has hastily reconsidered its verdict after yet again reviewing the available medical evidence. It has apologised to the woman and told her it would like her to agree to close the case before it is brought before a judge at tribunal. | However, since the Guardian reported the case, the department has hastily reconsidered its verdict after yet again reviewing the available medical evidence. It has apologised to the woman and told her it would like her to agree to close the case before it is brought before a judge at tribunal. |
| The new disability minister should listen to us. Don’t merge benefit tests | Frances Ryan | The new disability minister should listen to us. Don’t merge benefit tests | Frances Ryan |
| A redacted copy of a letter, again published with the woman’s permission on the Rightsnet website by her advisor, Derek Stainsby, of Plumstead Community Law Centre, reveals that a DWP official wrote to the woman earlier this week offering “sincere apologies” for the distress the incident had caused her. | A redacted copy of a letter, again published with the woman’s permission on the Rightsnet website by her advisor, Derek Stainsby, of Plumstead Community Law Centre, reveals that a DWP official wrote to the woman earlier this week offering “sincere apologies” for the distress the incident had caused her. |
| It said: “I want to assure you the department takes these matters extremely seriously. We expect the highest standards of professionalism from all colleagues and are thoroughly investigating the circumstances brought to our attention. Whilst I cannot go into the details I want to assure you that appropriate action will be taken once that investigation is concluded.” | It said: “I want to assure you the department takes these matters extremely seriously. We expect the highest standards of professionalism from all colleagues and are thoroughly investigating the circumstances brought to our attention. Whilst I cannot go into the details I want to assure you that appropriate action will be taken once that investigation is concluded.” |
| It continued that officials had “fully reviewed” her case, using a range of evidence already in its possession, and concluded that “you are entitled to mobility [payments] at the standard rate in addition to standard rate for daily living” – the benefits she was entitled to before she was reassessed. | It continued that officials had “fully reviewed” her case, using a range of evidence already in its possession, and concluded that “you are entitled to mobility [payments] at the standard rate in addition to standard rate for daily living” – the benefits she was entitled to before she was reassessed. |
| The woman has yet to decide whether to accept the DWP’s offer to drop the tribunal case and reinstate her contested benefits. | The woman has yet to decide whether to accept the DWP’s offer to drop the tribunal case and reinstate her contested benefits. |
| The offending passage was contained in the DWP’s submission to her PIP appeal tribunal. In it, an official questioned whether she was genuinely entitled to a carer’s allowance, a benefit for people who care for another person for at least 35 hours a week. | The offending passage was contained in the DWP’s submission to her PIP appeal tribunal. In it, an official questioned whether she was genuinely entitled to a carer’s allowance, a benefit for people who care for another person for at least 35 hours a week. |
| The official wrote: “In this lying bitches [sic] case she is receiving the mid-rate carers [sic] allowance component for providing day time supervision to another disabled person. The tribunal may wish to explore this further.” | The official wrote: “In this lying bitches [sic] case she is receiving the mid-rate carers [sic] allowance component for providing day time supervision to another disabled person. The tribunal may wish to explore this further.” |
| A DWP spokesperson said: “We have apologised for any distress caused and are thoroughly investigating this matter. Any behaviour like this is completely unacceptable and we will take appropriate action against any staff who breach our clear standards.” | A DWP spokesperson said: “We have apologised for any distress caused and are thoroughly investigating this matter. Any behaviour like this is completely unacceptable and we will take appropriate action against any staff who breach our clear standards.” |
| Last month the thinktank Demos called for the DWP to be stripped of its responsibility for providing disability benefits because it said years of failings have eroded trust among ill and disabled people. | Last month the thinktank Demos called for the DWP to be stripped of its responsibility for providing disability benefits because it said years of failings have eroded trust among ill and disabled people. |
| There is widespread concern that PIP assessments, which are carried out by private firms on behalf of the DWP, are inaccurate and unfairly discriminate against mentally-ill claimants. Nationally, at least 70% of appeals against PIP decisions are successful. | There is widespread concern that PIP assessments, which are carried out by private firms on behalf of the DWP, are inaccurate and unfairly discriminate against mentally-ill claimants. Nationally, at least 70% of appeals against PIP decisions are successful. |
| This headline was amended on 15 April 2019 to reflect the Guardian’s style guidance around disabilities. | |
| This headline was amended on 15 April 2019 to reflect the Guardian’s style guidance around disabilities. | |
| Welfare | Welfare |
| Disability | Disability |
| news | news |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |