Research and analysis

Summary: Experiences of PIP applicants who received zero points at assessment

Published 7 October 2024

Introduction

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a benefit which can help with extra living costs where someone has both:

• a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability
• difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition

DWP commissioned Basis Social to conduct qualitative research with PIP applicants that had received a zero point outcome after DWP decision to explore their understanding, expectations and experience of applying for PIP.

Method

Between 16 February and 7 March 2023, in-depth interviews were conducted with 29 PIP applicants, with coverage of a wide range of disabilities and health conditions.

Through this research, Basis Social set out to explore the following research questions:

• How do applicants understand the PIP eligibility criteria?
• What information do applicants receive before, during, and after assessment? And how does this impact their decision to apply?
• What are applicants’ reflections on the assessment process? For example, is there information that would have been beneficial to have known at the start of the process? Or would they have done anything differently if they had earlier advice?
• What is applicants’ level of confidence when applying to PIP? Did this change during the process (and if so, how), and did individuals with low confidence consider dropping out?

Zero point outcome

How much a PIP applicant is entitled to depends on how difficult they find everyday tasks and getting around. This is determined based on the information provided on an application form, any additional evidence provided such as care plans or information from a doctor, and through assessment by a qualified health care practitioner. PIP uses a points system where points are allocated based on the level of need associated with each activity assessed (e.g., washing, dressing, moving around)^{[footnote 1]} measured against a list of standard statements (“descriptors”) describing what someone can do.

Whether a claimant scores points against a descriptor is based on their ability to carry activities “safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period”^{[footnote 2]}. The PIP criteria consider an individual’s ability over a 12-month period, ensuring that fluctuations are taken into account. For each activity, if a descriptor applies on more than 50 per cent of the days in the 12-month period, that descriptor should be chosen^{[footnote 3]}.

The term ‘zero points’ or ‘zero point outcome’ describes an outcome in which an applicant receives no points against any of the twelve activities. This could be either because a customer’s disability does not affect their function sufficiently to score points against a descriptor, or because their disability does not affect their function sufficiently regularly to the fluctuation criteria etc.

A high-level description of the PIP application and decision making process is included in Appendix 1 for reference.

Key takeaways

• Participants had a range of conditions that they feel significantly impact their lives. They therefore broadly felt eligible and deserving of PIP, although some went into the process more confident in their outcome than others. Levels of confidence impacted how participants went on to seek information or support, their experience with the PIP application and assessment process, and how they responded to the zero point outcome.
• Participants reported being encouraged by others to apply for PIP. This included family, friends, and peers as well as service providers such as Citizens Advice and DWP. Their understanding of PIP eligibility was vague but relatively accurate, aligning to that detailed on gov.uk which many reviewed in advance of deciding to submit an application.
• Participants who were more confident tended to find the application easier than those who were less confident and those who had more anxiety and fluctuations in their conditions. Participants had varied experiences of assessment: some had a positive experience, some struggled to make their case, some felt they were not understood by the assessor, and some felt unprepared for the process of being interviewed. All participants were unhappy when receiving a zero point outcome given they felt eligible though some had lower expectations of getting PIP (due to lower levels of confidence in their applications and expectations having been set by others).

• Participants wished they had done a number of things differently during their application and assessment process. Notably these included:

  • Seeking support with application and assessment
  • Providing (more) medical evidence in support of their claim
  • More fully making their case by focusing on their worst days
  • Being more directive in their assessment in terms of what they wanted the assessor to hear about

• Participants wished they had more information throughout the process including:

  • Concrete information on eligibility to inform decision, such as case studies or eligibility pre-checker
  • What evidence should be included in their application
  • Signposting to more detail on how their case was scored in the outcomes letter
  • Signposting to information on the appeals process in the outcomes letter

• Participants also wished for:

  • The ability to request a different mode of assessment, e.g., in-person, telephone, or video call. To be able to speak directly with someone at DWP during the application and post-decision to better understand eligibility.

Summary of findings

Below shows the findings of this research aligned to different stages in the PIP application and assessment process. These are expanded on in the body of this report.

Step 1: Decision to apply

Influenced by

People were influenced or directed to apply by others, notably non-professionals:

• relative or partner
• support worker
• friend or colleague
• health practitioner
• self

Step 2: Pre-aaplication

Information seeking

Some participants searched for eligibility information, others did not.

Applicant confidence

Some people went into the application process more confident in achieving a positive outcome than others.

Step 3: PIP application 1 day to 3 months

Applicant experience

Common challenges with the application experience related to the amount and type of information required, and the impact of their condition.

Support received

Confident customers were more likely to progress their application with no outside support.

Step 4: PIP assessment

Applicant experience

Confidence, support or research had no bearing on experiences of the assessment – main influence was the assessor interaction.

Step 5: Outcome

Applicant emotion

A range of emotions were described by participants, that largely related to their incoming expectations – those who were more confident in their application were more angry and upset.

Step 6: Reflections

Issues experienced with process

Common issues with the assessment related to the assessor (not feeling heard), the process (PIP eligibility) or their ability to communicate their issue.

Step 7: Next steps

Future plans

People who were appealing tended to be those who were both confident and capable of making an appeal.

1. See www.gov.uk/pip for full list of activities covered. See further information on the assessment criteria https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers/pip-assessment-guide-part-2-the-assessment-criteria ↩

2. The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) – regulation 4 ↩

3. The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) – regulation 7 ↩