Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people identifying as having a primary condition of epilepsy have been awarded personal independence payment (a) after mandatory reconsideration of their initial assessment and (b) at a tribunal in Scotland in each year since 2013.
The information requested is shown in the tables below.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| Of which: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial year of initial decision | Initial Decisions |
| Initial decisions - disallowed due to failing the assessment | MR - new decision award changed | Appeal - decision overturned | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013/14 | 10,470 |
| 2,490 | 140 | 160 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014/15 | 55,740 |
| 13,180 | 360 | 1,190 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015/16 | 49,020 |
| 12,680 | 370 | 1,180 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016/17 | 52,820 |
| 13,500 | 510 | 1,170 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2017/18 | 57,580 |
| 15,910 | 560 | 1,620 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
April to Sep 2018 | 27,710 |
| 8,130 | 150 | 90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total Decisions | 253,340 |
| 65,890 | 2,090 | 5,410 |
Table 3: Personal Independence Payment (PIP) new claims for claimants with a primary disabling condition of Epilepsy - initial decisions, Mandatory Reconsiderations (MRs) and appeals, Scotland | |||||
|
|
|
| Of which: | |
Financial year of initial decision | Initial Decisions |
| Initial decisions - disallowed due to failing the assessment | MR - new decision award changed | Appeal - decision overturned |
2013/14 | 160 |
| 50 | # | # |
2014/15 | 790 |
| 450 | 10 | 40 |
2015/16 | 510 |
| 410 | 10 | 40 |
2016/17 | 550 |
| 440 | 10 | 50 |
2017/18 | 700 |
| 500 | 30 | 80 |
April to Sep 2018 | 400 |
| 200 | 10 | 10 |
Total Decisions | 3,110 |
| 2,050 | 70 | 220 |
Under PIP, 27 per cent of working age claimants with epilepsy recorded as their primary disabling condition receive the highest level of support compared to 6 per cent under Disability Living Allowance when PIP was introduced.
Notes
Tables 2 and 3 are for PIP new claims only, whereas Table 1 is for both new claims and DLA reassessment claims.
In the application process, claimants’ primary disabling condition is only recorded for collation by the Department at assessment. Therefore the initial decisions in Table 2 will include claims where the disability has not been recorded due to the assessment not being completed, and are therefore not comparable to the figures in Table 3.
Data is based on primary disabling condition as recorded on the PIP computer system. Claimants may often have multiple disabling conditions upon which the decision is based but only the primary condition is shown in these statistics.
The disability subgroup of Epilepsy in the PIP Computer System includes Cataplexy, Generalised seizures (with status epilepticus in last 12 months), Generalised seizures (without status epilepticus in last 12 months), Narcolepsy, Partial seizures (with status epilepticus in last 12 months), Partial seizures (without status epilepticus in last 12 months) and Seizures - unclassified.
PIP data includes normal rules and special rules for the terminally ill claimants.
Data has been rounded to the nearest 10.
Appeals data taken from the DWP PIP computer system’s management information. Therefore this data may differ from that held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
Decisions overturned at appeal may include a number of appeals that have been lapsed (which is where DWP changed the decision after an appeal was lodged but before it was heard at Tribunal).
Some decisions which are changed at MR, and where the claimant continues to appeal for a higher PIP award, are then changed again at tribunal appeal. Therefore the number of people who had a decision changed at MR and the number of people who had a decision changed at tribunal appeal cannot be added together.
Claimants who have received benefit decisions more recently may not yet have had time to complete the claimant journey and progress to appeal.