{"id":128567,"date":"2026-11-10T13:35:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T13:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/?p=128567"},"modified":"2026-11-10T13:34:14","modified_gmt":"2026-11-10T13:34:14","slug":"dwp-explains-new-120-day-rule-pip-claimants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/dwp-explains-new-120-day-rule-pip-claimants\/","title":{"rendered":"DWP Explains New 120-Day Rule That Affects PIP Benefit Claimants"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has defended extending its timeliness benchmark for new Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims from 75 to 120 days, despite concerns that disabled people could face longer waits for financial support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DWP Faces Questions Over Its New PIP Processing Target<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The change came under scrutiny during a Work and Pensions Committee<\/strong> hearing, where officials were challenged over whether improved performance figures reflected faster decisions or a more generous deadline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Birmingham Live<\/a><\/em>, committee member Rushanara Ali questioned DWP director Neil Couling about the department’s handling of disability benefit applications<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn 2025-26, the Department processed 82.2% of new PIP claims in a timely manner,\u201d Ali said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat is up from 62.4% in 2024-25. That looks very positive and encouraging, but the downside is that you have increased the measure of timeliness in processing a new claim from 75 to 120 days.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

She challenged the justification for changing the benchmark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cCan you talk us through why you think that shift in goalposts, where the processing of a disability benefit will take six months, is acceptable?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs you will appreciate, it would be pretty bad if we had to wait six months for something quite straightforward, but this is for disability benefit.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The revised standard means the department now measures timely processing against a 120-day threshold, rather than the previous 75-day benchmark. The figures therefore reflect different performance measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"DWP\"
Credit: Shutterstock<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

DWP Director Admits He Personally Changed the Rules<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Couling acknowledged responsibility for introducing the revised target, arguing that the previous system encouraged misleading performance results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cYou are looking at the guilty man. I made this change,\u201d he told Ali.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen I came in to start my job in April 2025, I looked across and there were not standards for producing timely benefit awards. The PIP one was nonsense.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He argued that the earlier approach allowed officials to concentrate on meeting targets without addressing every outstanding application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBasically, I could have played that target\u2014I know how to play targets as well as set them. I could have done 75% of the cases and left the others, and I would have hit that target and you would all be saying, \u2018Well done. You\u2019re hitting that target.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Couling said he instead introduced a 90% performance target across several major benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSo I set a 90% target across all the major benefits in my area. Carer\u2019s allowance, attendance allowance, DLA and child benefit all got 90% targets. That is because you cannot game a 90% target.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He rejected the suggestion that the department had simply relaxed its standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cI am an old operator here, so I know how to sort these systems out. It was not about moving the goalposts; it was about having goalposts that worked.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Why the DWP Says PIP Claims Need More Time<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Couling also defended the longer processing window by pointing to the difficulties involved in arranging assessments for vulnerable applicants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cLet me explain why that is the period of time. The process involves assessment,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Committee has rightly\u2014I applaud it for this\u2014talked about the importance of handling vulnerable people carefully, and with sensitivity and humanity, in this process.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He added that missed appointments frequently complicate the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFifty per cent of assessments are not turned up at\u2014people fail to attend, often for good reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Couling, rushing assessments previously created pressure to close applications prematurely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe allow lots of \u2018failed to attend\u2019 circumstances in the process, because of this vulnerability.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He explained that much of the processing period is spent arranging assessments without forcing claimants into deadlines that could disadvantage them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Couling said previous performance pressures had led staff to close some claims inappropriately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat is why we have allowed that period of time.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The DWP has defended its new 120-day PIP processing benchmark after MPs questioned whether improved figures conceal longer waiting periods.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":108299,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economy","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-33","no-featured-image-padding"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128567","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128567"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128567\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":128569,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128567\/revisions\/128569"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/108299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}