Introduction
The replacement of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with Personal Independence Payment (PIP) under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 marked a significant change in UK disability benefits. A key legal and practical issue that arose from this transition is the evidentiary weight that should be afforded to a claimant's previous lawful DLA award during a reassessment for PIP. This is particularly relevant given the central role of private assessment providers, such as Atos (now operating as Independent Assessment Services), whose reports are often criticised for inadequately reflecting a claimant's condition. This essay will argue that while a previous DLA award is legally considered relevant evidence, it is not binding on a new PIP decision. The practical weight given to such awards is often diminished by a procedural over-reliance on the reports of private assessors, which creates tension between legal principle and the lived experience of claimants.
The Legal Framework for PIP Decisions
The transition from DLA to PIP is not a simple review but constitutes a new claim for a different benefit. The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 introduced a new set of criteria and descriptors for assessing an individual's ability to carry out daily living and mobility activities. This legal distinction is fundamental. The decision on a PIP claim is a fresh determination made by a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Decision Maker (DM) based on how the claimant satisfies the specific PIP criteria at the time of the decision (Social Security Act 1998, s.8).
In this process, the DWP contracts private companies like Independent Assessment Services (formerly Atos) and Capita to conduct assessments and provide reports. These reports are intended to provide an independent, evidence-based view of the claimant's functional abilities. However, they are not the decision itself; they are a piece of evidence for the DM to consider alongside all other available information, which should include the claimant’s own application, medical evidence, and any prior DLA award documentation.
The Evidentiary Status of the Prior DLA Award
The central legal question is whether a DM is bound by the findings of fact that led to a previous DLA award. The position established in the Upper Tribunal is clear: they are not. In RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC), Judge Jacobs clarified that a First-tier Tribunal hearing a PIP appeal is not bound by the decision that led to the earlier DLA award. The judge reasoned that "the issues are different, the claimant’s condition may have changed, and the evidence may be different" (para 17).
Therefore, a previous DLA award, even an indefinite or lifetime award, does not create a legal presumption of entitlement to PIP. However, Judge Jacobs confirmed that the DLA award and the evidence on which it was based are part of the "evidentiary picture" and must be considered. A DM or tribunal cannot simply ignore a prior award; they must be able to provide reasons for departing from the earlier findings, especially if the claimant’s condition is unchanged. The failure to consider the prior award as relevant evidence could constitute an error of law. This establishes the DLA award as an important but non-determinative piece of evidence.
The Role of Private Assessors and the 'Underscoring' of Evidence
The title’s reference to "underscoring by ATOS" highlights a significant practical problem in the assessment process. While the law states that a prior DLA award is relevant evidence, its actual weight can be diminished by the assessment report. DMs often place significant weight on the assessment report provided by the private contractor (Work and Pensions Committee, 2018). If that report is flawed, inaccurate, or fails to properly engage with the claimant’s full history, including their previous DLA entitlement, the DM’s decision is likely to be similarly flawed.
Concerns about the quality of these reports are widespread. The Work and Pensions Committee (2018) heard evidence of assessors not understanding the claimant's condition, reports containing factual inaccuracies, and a failure to consider all submitted evidence. In this context, the prior DLA award is effectively "underscored" or ignored at the initial stages of the process. While a claimant can challenge this at appeal, where tribunals may take a more holistic view of the evidence, many claimants are deterred from this process. This creates a situation where the practical reality of the assessment process, dominated by the role of the "3rd party interloper," undermines the legal principle that all relevant evidence, including a DLA award, must be properly weighed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the legal position on the evidentiary weight of a prior DLA award in a PIP reassessment is settled: it is relevant evidence that must be considered but it is not binding. The decision in RF v SSWP (PIP) confirms that a DM must make a fresh determination based on the distinct PIP criteria. The core issue highlighted by the question is not a failure in legal doctrine, but one of administrative practice. The heavy reliance by DWP DMs on assessment reports produced by private contractors, which have been subject to sustained criticism for their quality and accuracy, frequently results in the practical "underscoring" of a claimant's history, including previous lawful benefit awards. This creates a disconnect between the legal requirement to consider all evidence and a system that, in practice, often prioritises the snapshot assessment of a private contractor over a long-term, legally-determined finding of disability.
References
- RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC).
- Social Security Act 1998.
- Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/377.
- Welfare Reform Act 2012.
- Work and Pensions Committee (2018) PIP and ESA Assessments: First Report of Session 2017–19. HC 829. London: The Stationery Office.
