DWP PIP claimant asked “do you watch TikTok” in latest assessment horror story

Revelations around a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment have sparked fresh concerns about the relevance and sensitivity of assessors’ approach to chronically ill and disabled people – just as the government further embeds the narrative that claimants are ‘scroungers’ and ‘benefit cheats’.

“Do you watch TikTok”?

In a story that highlights ongoing concerns surrounding the DWP PIP assessment process, a claimant recently recounted a bizarre question an assessor asked them:

Do you watch TikTok?

The claimant, whose expectations for a serious evaluation were dashed, felt that such a question was irrelevant and perhaps intended to deceive. They expressed frustration on Reddit, stating:

I found that highly irrelevant but it felt like some sort of trick.

It’s highly likely that the assessor asked the claimant this for one of two reasons. Either they were phishing to see if the person spent time on social media (and if so, surely they shouldn’t need so much support from DWP PIP). Or the assessor was trying to coerce them into admitting they got information about the assessment process from TikTok (another government propaganda campaign currently ongoing).

Other people agreed – suggesting that assessors often probe into areas beyond direct health inquiries, possibly believing that understanding a claimant’s social engagement can reflect on their motor skills and cognitive functions. Yet, critics argue that this may trivialise the serious nature of disabilities.

DWP PIP is failing disabled people

A woman from Somerset described the entire PIP application process as “emotionally draining,” underscoring the psychological toll that lengthy and seemingly irrelevant forms can impose on those already facing significant challenges.

In this context, the inquiry about TikTok seems almost incredulous, as individuals endure extensive evaluations centred on their health conditions.

Statistics only compound the distress surrounding the PIP system. Recent data revealed that a staggering £870 million in DWP PIP support went unclaimed between 2023 and 2024. Many potential claimants, unable to navigate the convoluted processes or fearing judgment and scrutiny, miss out on vital support.

This situation highlights a significant gap in the assistance designed for chronically ill and disabled people, where the government’s focus appears misaligned with the real needs of the communities it aims to serve.

The DWP claims its PIP assessments are meant to evaluate how conditions affect day-to-day activities, and they have introduced revamped guides and resources on their website in an effort to aid potential claimants.

However, the reality indicates that while digital resources are available, the essence of assessment remains unchanged.

Catching disabled people out via DWP PIP

Citizens Advice encourages claimants to detail how their condition affects daily life and offers guidance on preparing for assessments—suggesting that individuals bring evidence and a companion for support. Still, the system overlooks a crucial aspect: how might repetitive and irrelevant questioning engage, rather than uplift, individuals navigating their disabilities?

The move to remote assessments, coupled with a stark tendency towards efficiency over empathy, has rendered many claimants feeling unheard and undervalued in their search for support.

The experience of the claimant and the wider sentiments expressed reveal a long-held frustration at the DWP’s approach to PIP assessments. Of course, none of this is new. The Canary documented the so-called ‘DWP kill yourself‘ scandal – where assessors were asking claimants why they hadn’t taken their own lives yet.

They underline a significant disconnect between the government’s intention to streamline services and the real-world implications these decisions hold for disabled communities.

As DWP PIP assessments persist in their convoluted and daunting form, the question lingers: are those tasked with evaluating individuals’ needs listening closely enough to the voices of those they aim to assist, or are they merely conducting a checkbox exercise, far removed from the complex realities faced by many – and more often than not, trying to catch them out?

Featured image via the Canary