Supplementary Memorandum submitted by Disability Alliance
(DLA 12)
BENEFITS INTEGRITY
PROJECT—STATISTICS
Figures are taken from the 31 January 1998 DSS statistics.
DSS statistics: As usually presented the DSS figures
are confusing. This is because they include renewal cases as well
as those covered by BIP. They also include double counting where
claimants have had reductions in both their mobility and care
components. The DSS figures do not include exempted cases though
they do give a total number of exempt cases�.
Renewal cases: The inclusion of renewal cases is particularly
unhelpful in giving an accurate picture of the reliability of
current awards. Where a claimant's condition is expected to change
they are given a limited time award and at the end of the period
of the award are asked to complete a renewal form—which
is similar to the BIP form and the ordinary claim form. A high
proportion of renewal claims result therefore in a change of award㬬
per cent according the DSS more detailed breakdown of figures.
This is as it should be and is not an indication that there is
a problem with the integrity of the benefit.
In order to get a picture of the integrity of the benefit
and the real size of any incorrectness problem it is necessary
to focus on the BIP caseload, ignore double counting and take
account of exempt cases. Exempt cases include tetraplegics, paraplegics,
people who are both deaf and blind, double amputees, terminally
ill people and those with severe mental impairment. They are exempt
because the DSS accepts that there is no problem with the integrity
of their awards.
These statistics have been prepared with the information
available from the DSS to date. As a fully detailed breakdown
is not available an assumption has been made that all exempt cases
would have been included in the visiting programme (rather than
as part of the postal process).
BIP figures for visited cases (higher rate mobility
with higher rate care components) including exempt cases.
This gives 19,685 visit BIP cases. Of these:
1.8 per cent had their mobility component disallowed;
2.6 per cent had their care component disallowed;
0.17 per cent had their mobility component reduced;
4.6 per cent had their care component reduced.
Note: There is no scope for increases as these are
all awards at the maximum rate. These percentages may reduce once
those whose benefit is restored on review or appeal are taken
into account.
BIP figures for postal cases (higher rate mobility
with middle rate care components). Thirty-two thousand three
hundred and forty-five cases have been dealt with by post
under BIP. Of these:
6.4 per cent had their mobility component disallowed;
9.3 per cent had their care component disallowed;
0.5 per cent had their mobility component reduced to a lower
rate;
4 per cent had their care component reduced to a lower rate;
3 per cent had their care component increased to the highest
rate.
Note: These percentages may reduce once those whose
benefit is restored on review or appeal are taken into account.
REVIEWS AND
APPEALS
The DSS figures indicate that two-thirds of people whose
benefit has been reduced ask for a review of the decision. Of
those 25 per cent had their benefit restored.
Very few cases have gone through the appeal process so no
statistics are available as yet.
Lorna Reith
Disability Alliance for the Disability Benefits Consortium
| 
