SINGAPORE: Benefit claimants are being offered coaching that can allegedly secure them a lifetime of disability payments for a fee of £49.99, The Telegraph can disclose.

Karol Slusarczyk runs the website pipexpert.co.uk, which claims it can help people secure higher payouts in just 30 seconds.

Customers who sign up are given step-by-step instructions on how to maximise their Personal Independence Payment (Pip) by answering questions on government forms in a way that emphasises the severity of their alleged disability.

The website invites claimants to spend £49.99 on a guide that it says will help them apply for benefits. It states: “A single Pip award is worth hundreds of times the cost. Don’t lose thousands because of wrong wording on the form.”

The latest figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) show that four million people were claiming Pip in England and Wales in April 2026. This reflects a 2 per cent increase over three months, while 3.3 million recipients (83 per cent) were working-age individuals.

Critics fear that the surging numbers are imposing an unsustainable benefits bill on working Britain, and that many applicants should not be entitled to the money.

The size of a Pip payment depends on how claimants answer a series of questions about their condition, which cover topics such as how it affects their ability to eat, sleep, and look after themselves.

They are awarded points for each answer, with a higher number of points indicating a greater need for support. These points are added up at the end, and the resulting score is used to work out how much money should be paid to them each month.

People who buy Mr Slusarczyk’s guide receive a personalised set of step-by-step instructions on how to apply for the maximum amount of Pip for any given condition.

There are 131 different medical conditions covered on his website, along with additional guides for non-medical conditions.

The Telegraph purchased a guide on the premise of an applicant suffering from fibromyalgia. It generated a personalised analysis that read: “Your fibromyalgia causes chronic pain and fatigue that makes it unsafe to stand at the worktop for more than 5 minutes.

“This places you under descriptor 1f – cannot prepare and cook a simple meal (8 points), because the reliability criteria (safely, repeatedly, to an acceptable standard) fail on the majority of days.”

It then provided a carefully worded paragraph designed to be copied directly onto the Pip2 form issued by the DWP: “My fibromyalgia makes it unsafe to prepare hot food on most days.

“I can stand at the worktop for about 5 minutes before the pain forces me to sit down, and my grip weakens without warning. On 14/02/26 I dropped a hot pan and burned my hand – my GP has this on record. I have a perching stool and adapted utensils with thick handles, but even with these I still need my wife to cook hot food 4-5 days a week.

“When she works late, I just go without a hot meal. I cannot prepare a simple meal safely or to an acceptable standard. I cannot do it repeatedly without exhausting myself, and a simple meal takes me over an hour on the days I do attempt it.”

The guide goes on to supply tailored responses in the event that an assessor asks follow-up questions, advising applicants to use “exact DWP descriptor language” along with “concrete numbers”, “specific dates”, and a “frequency which meets the majority of days test”.

It warns that using vague language will yield only 0-2 points, whereas the guide’s advice can secure the maximum score for the question.

Another condition that the website offers advice on is “hoarding disorder”. It suggests that benefits will be awarded based on “a diagnosis or letter from your GP, mental health team or CBT therapist confirming hoarding disorder or any depression, anxiety, OCD or ADHD alongside it”.

The site advises claimants to obtain letters from environmental health services, the fire service, housing providers or social care, and to take photographs of “inaccessible kitchen, bathroom and exits” blocked by hoarded items.

It warns applicants not to tidy their living room, saying: “State plainly that … you cannot let anyone in and hand over the environmental health or fire service letters.”

The Telegraph did not submit any documents to the DWP, and it is not clear whether a claim based on such documents would have been accepted.

Mr Slusarczyk’s website claims that the £49.99 report provides “complete personalised guidance for your entire Pip claim”.

The website also offers a premium option for £99.99. This includes a “done for you” report, featuring “fully written answers ready to copy straight into your Pip2 form”, with instructions to “just paste and submit”.

For claimants rejected on their first attempt, the site offers a £149.99 “mandatory reconsideration pack”. This includes a “full done for you report”, a template letter, a point-by-point rebuttal, and an “evidence gap finder”.

Promotional copy on the site reads: “If your Pip claim was rejected or scored too low, don’t give up. Around 1 in 3 Mandatory Reconsiderations result in a changed decision, and if that fails, around two-thirds of tribunal appeals are won by the claimant.”

If potential customers are not yet sure about signing up, the site allows them to “try one Pip activity completely free of charge”, pointing out that 30 seconds of online form-filling could generate £10,119 in benefits per year.

Mr Slusarczyk, who was born in Poland but lives in the UK, is described on the website as a “Benefits Expert, a self-employed sole trader registered with HMRC in the United Kingdom”.

He also runs esaexpert.co.uk, which employs exactly the same business model to guide claimants towards securing maximum payments via the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).

With an identical layout and design, the WCA site invites applicants to spend £49.99 on a guide to secure £22,761 in benefits over three years, which is framed as a “151x return on investment”.

The site notes: “A WCA award is worth hundreds of times the cost. Don’t lose thousands because of wrong wording on the form.”

The company also operates a TikTok account that features hundreds of posts offering insights and answers about various medical conditions, with some individual posts drawing more than half a million views. Posts on the account offer targeted advice about claims, featuring titles such as “5 phrases that SCORE you dressing points” and “5 things to NEVER say on your Pip form”.

Mr Slusarczyk said he launched his websites because the benefits system “fails people who cannot describe their own disability in the words the law requires”.

He added: “I am firmly against benefit fraud, and nothing I sell is designed to help anyone obtain money they are not entitled to.

“My guidance is built from the published rules, principally the descriptors in Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 and official DWP guidance, and from what each customer tells me about their own conditions and daily life. Nothing else goes into it.

“My systems are expressly instructed never to add, embellish or invent symptoms, dates or severity. Customers are told to edit the wording into their own words, they complete and submit the form themselves, and they sign the declaration on it confirming the information is true. Nothing is submitted to the DWP by me.”

Pointing out that the form is only one stage of the process, Mr Slusarczyk added: “Every claim is tested by the DWP against supporting medical evidence and, in most cases, an assessment with a health professional. A well-written form makes sure genuine difficulties are not overlooked; it cannot create an award, because the decision rests on the evidence and the assessment. I have never promised anyone an award, and my site says so in plain terms.

“The ‘descriptor language’ referred to is the wording of the regulations themselves, not a trick. No solicitor, accountant or advice charity can vouch for the honesty of every person who comes to them; the duty to tell the truth sits with the claimant, and my site says so plainly. What I can control is the design, and a report can only describe difficulties the customer has declared themselves.”

Following The Telegraph’s investigation, Mr Slusarczyk said he had removed the line comparing the cost of his guides with the value of an award, adding: “Disability benefits are a legal entitlement, not an investment, and my wording should have reflected that better.”

Pip replaced Disability Living Allowance in 2013. The benefit is not tied to employment status, and comes with no requirement to search for work, paying claimants between £1,580 and £10,120 annually based on need.

The total number of Pip claims in England and Wales has risen by around 400,000 under the Labour government, climbing from 3.6 million to four million.

Since the 2020 pandemic, an increasing share of new claims relate to mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions. Claims for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, depression or anxiety accounted for roughly 16.5 per cent of the total in 2020; by 2026, that figure had reached 24 per cent. Only last month, Sir Stephen Timms, the disability minister, labelled PIP “not fit for purpose” in an interim report, advocating a major reform of the assessment process.

I am a disabled person myself. In my own country, I hold a disability certificate. I have scoliosis, which has left me with a curved spine and chronic problems with my knees, and it stopped me growing. I am 148cm (4ft 8in) tall.

That is a large part of why I left Poland for the UK. Work was hard to find with my conditions, and the way I look caused people to mock me. Eight years ago I came to England to find some peace, a job and a bit more tolerance.

In March, a friend asked me why I had never applied for Pip. I did not even know what it was, so I started reading everything I could find: government guidance, the regulations, articles and forums. I also joined a number of Pip support groups on Facebook.

What I found there changed the direction of my life. I read hundreds of sad stories from people who were far more unwell than I am.

The thing that came up again and again was not their illness. It was that they could not find the words to describe how their condition affects their daily life on the form.

People were being turned down at the first stage, not because they were not entitled, but because they could not express themselves in the way the system expects. That is when I thought: what if I built something that helps with exactly that, based entirely on the regulations, the law and the DWP’s own guidance?

I had also intended to use it to apply myself. As I read more deeply into the activities and descriptors, I concluded that I manage well enough independently that I would not meet them, so I have never made a claim, even though there are parts of my life that my conditions do affect.

Pipexpert was never designed to help anyone obtain something they are not entitled to. My customers have real conditions and real difficulties.

What they lack is the wording, the key to describing honestly what they already live with. That is not an attempt to deceive anyone, and nothing we produce bypasses the process. The DWP still requires evidence and still carries out its own assessment.

For some people, I am one of the few options left. The free advice services do excellent work, but they are overstretched, and people wait.

Solicitors are far beyond the reach of someone living on benefits. There is also something that rarely gets discussed: a great many of these people are frightened of leaving the house, frightened of phone calls, frightened of sitting across a desk from a stranger. Online, nobody is looking at them and nobody is judging them. They do not have to feel embarrassed about themselves.

I have never wanted to help anyone defraud the system. That is not why I built this.

There is a large amount of free guidance on the site, a free preview that shows anyone how to approach the form without paying a penny, a free Pip symptom diary and other free tools.

When somebody writes to me, I point them to the free tools first. I do not push anybody towards buying anything, and when somebody explains their situation honestly and says they cannot afford it, I help them for nothing. I have never treated this as purely a business.

I should also address my TikTok content. Everything I publish comes from the law and from published DWP guidance. Explaining which activities relate to which difficulties, or what kind of wording actually reflects a person’s needs, is not a cheat code. It is public information put into plain English, and the same information is published by disability charities. That is precisely why the DWP verifies evidence and carries out its own assessment.

If there is a story here, I think the real one is systemic. Almost everyone who is refused makes the same mistake, and it is an honest one: they write about their diagnosis.

They list the condition, the medication, the consultant, the years of treatment. But PIP is not awarded for a diagnosis. It is awarded on how a condition affects what you can actually do on an ordinary day: whether you can prepare a meal, wash, dress, leave the house, and whether you can do those things safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time.

Two people with the same diagnosis can be entitled to completely different amounts, or to nothing at all, because the test is the effect and not the illness.

Most of my work is simply explaining that difference to people. Why is the language of this process so difficult that ordinary people, often worn down by illness and by life, cannot get through it without help? If the DWP set out clearly what it actually needs to see on that form, services like mine would not need to exist.

England gave me a second life and a job I still hold, and I am grateful for it. I work hard, I have never claimed a benefit here, and I would never want anybody to receive one they are not entitled to.

Any guidance can be misused by someone determined to misuse it, including the free advice a charity gives, and I cannot control that any more than they can, but I can tell you honestly that it was never my intention and it is not what I stand for.