To think that my PIP assessor has deliberately told lies?

[Godstopper]

Previous thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3107566-AIBU-to-be-terrified-of-my-PIP-assessment

To update: I requested a copy of the assessor's report which arrived today. If the DWP decision maker follow this (as I expect they will), then I will lose £90 a month as I'll only receive standard care. I have a total of ten points: 2 for requiring an aid to bathe and 8 for communicating (deaf).

I recorded the assessment (with permission). The assessor can be heard on tape 3-5 times asking if I wanted to stop as I was visibly upset. She can also be heard offering me a tissue.

Here are some of the lies (I have no qualms about making this public - people need to see what is going on):

Cooking: "Reported restrictions that her partner will do most of the cooking. She feels that she is unsafe due to vertigo, reduced concentration, reduced motivation, requires supervision and prompting to be able to cook. Whilst acknowledging that she receives some cognitive behavioural therapy once a week for her mental health she appears well nourished. Therefore it would be clinically probable that she is able to carry out this task independently on the majority of days in a repeated, reliable, and safe manner."

Managing Therapy: "Reports that she is taken to therapy once a week by her partner. Functional history however reports that she will go into therapy on her own. She did not appear withdrawn and did not require prompting. She attends the therapy sessions on her own. Therefore it is clinically probable that she is able to complete this activity independently in a repeated, reliable, and safe manner on the majority of days."

Engaging with People: Reports to have restrictions engaging with others. Functional history reports that she is able to engage with her partner. Informal observations - did not require prompting, did not appear anxious, able to engage adequately well at assessment, adequate eye contact and rapport was maintained at assessment. Whilst acknowledging that she has cognitive behavioural therapy she did not appear withdrawn or anxious. Therefore it is clinically probable that she can perform this task independently on the majority of days in a repeated, reliable, and safe manner."

Mobility: "Reported restriction that she is unsafe due to her deafness and mental health problems. Will attend GP appointments on her own (THE SURGERY IS LITERALLY DOWN THE ROAD!). She did not appear withdrawn and did not need prompting. Therefore it is clinically probable that he (!!) could carry out this activity independently on the majority of days in a reliable, repeated, and safe manner."

And on it goes.

We are obviously off to appeal: it is now my mission to ensure that the cost of this dwarfs the £90 a month that they will save by awarding me a reduced rate. All lies are on tape. I am also going to do my best to impact her professionally by complaining to her registration body and taking it as far as I possibly can. A complaint about the quality of the report will also be made to ATOS.

Their response will determine if the recording makes it into the public domain. I am not afraid to name and shame either.

She couldn't lie about my deafness (I had an interpreter) but thought she could get me on my MH issues. This is what is happening to vulnerable people under reforms and it's disgusting.

What I don't understand is why everything is justified by what happened in the room: I have, and supplied, evidence of my MH issues, but because I was not "sweating", " trembling" and had a " normal facial expression" (?!?!), amongst other things, my MH issues are not significant.

I don't understand how going into a therapy session on my own is evidence of being able to engage with people unaided. It would be beyond inappropriate to take someone else in with me. Is my assessor seriously suggesting that I should?

She asked what I eat when my partner doesn't cook. I said cereal (true). So now that is proof I can cook unaided most of the time?

I am so very tired and feel like I've been called a liar. If this does reach tribunal at least I can be confident that I've a 20 year history of MH issues.

I thought that I was doing a good thing by going to therapy for the first time in my life rather than taking meds. Now I am penalised for it.

Report also makes a big deal of me not taking medication for mental health: what it ignores is that the GP took me off them as I developed an irregular, and potentially dangerous, heartbeat. This is all documented and has been ignored. As long as I don't take meds I am apparently fine!

Yes! They lie and twist things about a lot. I should’ve appealed the decision they found at the end of my assessment. I just didn’t want to have to go through with the stress of it though

That’s the worst thing though.... you feel disbelieved, you feel like they have put and out called you a liar.

Hi Bairns,

Thanks for replying - very helpful!

I too am confused by being awarded two points for using an aid to shower (stool in case vertigo strikes - comes on when I tilt my head) but none for cooking. I don't think I should receive a high no. of points, but the reality is that there are safety issues related to my deafness. A new ruling is supposed to reflect this.

I thought it applied from Nov and not Dec though?

Now, I suppose I need to choose my battles carefully. I have evidence of social issues going back years. Less so for things like cooking and dressing (GP gives a diagnosis but may not be the best person to describe your daily life - who is?). The mobility thing should be clear cut. I have no idea of how walking to the GP fifty yards down the road translates to going to unfamiliar places.

At the bare minimum, my assessor needs training on deaf issues. As for the MH stuff, it shocks me that she's being let loose on people. I have the resources to pursue this and will if ATOS fob me off with a standard reply.

I know hippo: it's insane that someone with minimal knowledge of your condition can override the view of your gp and consultants who have been treating you for years.

I would like to know what not sweating, trembling, having a normal facial expression, being of average build, and looking well kempt has to do with PTSD. The "mental state examination" is a complete joke. Many of us can present well for short periods of time. Was I supposed to go in my pyjamas with unbrushed hair?

Theyre obviously assuming therapy is constantly talking. I've have therapy where I've literally sat staring at the floor, or wall saying nothing the whole appointment. I've sat crying, sobbing and even screaming.

Yes I might go through the door doesn't mean I'm able to speak. It's like the assumption a PP mentioned about planning a journey meaning you can make a journey. I spend a lot of time looking at places online I'd love to visit or go to again, but I never will now, I've even booked tickets to go but am simply incapable of going (or accepting deep down I can't).

Cereal is actually mentioned in case law as not being a meal so you've no problems there.

I've heard about the issue of meds before and that being used as a reason to dismiss a claim. It was also used as a reason for me to be discharged from secondary mental health services because the consultant recorded it as 'failure to engage and comply with treatment' and claiming I didn't want to get better.

The reality is, and it is for others as well, that not everyone can have psychiatric meds. Personally I've a rare neurological condition which combined with epilepsy and another puts my life at risk unless I am in an inpatient facility with three specialists and a consultant psychiatrist which has been impossible. Not what I'd call failing to engage or comply.

The DWP took the same view.

I know exactly how you are feeling, I spent over 30 years being called a liar about what I go through. My last hospital admission I was bullied by a nursing assistant who wouldn't accept my disabilities for what they are and refused me meds and help I desperately needed.

Being called a liar doesn't make you a liar. No matter who is calling you a liar - my specialist told my that over ten years ago, and he was right. It doesn't matter how many qualifications anyone has, even him, they don't know your life and what you go through. I know it's hard, really hard, but you know the truth.

You are doing the right thing, please don't think you aren't.

that was meant to be a PM. Sorry.

Bairns,

If the report is submitted in 30 minutes then I'd expect better than sometimes calling me "he" (!), and the spelling/grammar is appalling. It appears to be a copy/paste job of stock phrases.

I also don't understand how she can say I had eye contact, rapport, and engaged well with her after she offered to stop.the assessment several times due to my being upset. Forgive me, but that looks like a calculated attempt to reduce my award.

The other scandal with PIP is the way that GP and consultant reports are totally ignored in favour of the face-to-face assessment report.

My friend had 3 consultant reports, her GP (who has treated her since the narcolepsy started) plus copies of 6 or 7 hospital admissions from injuries sustained. They were all ignored in favour of the face-to-face when the decision is made.

This is why my GP practise will no longer provide patients with a report or letter, even if you pay them. They'll only give a report if the DWP ask for one. Of course, the DWP will often say that it's down to the claimant to provide medical evidence so they get stuck in catch 22. The practise manager quite understandably says that it's a complete waste of the GP's time. Only the tribunal will take any heed of it so they only send reports to the tribunal when they request them.

Yes, lala, you are exactly right: it appears that most of my evidence has been ignored by the assessor herself. She doesn't even understand an audiogram from reading it which is pretty basic stuff. It's only due to my requesting an interpreter that I've got points for communicating.

No reference is made to my GP letter. It's all about my alleged "rapport", " eye contact" etc. I note how she's used things that can't show up on tape to justify zero points on some descriptors. However, she can be heard saying:

• If I'd like to stop due to being upset multiple times.
• That it's not reasonable to expect me to take SSRIs due to side effects.
• That she can clearly see my deafness and PTSD impacts much of my daily life.

You can also hear me getting upset in parts.

Is she stupid? Because this is all going to emerge. I doubt that my complaint to the Nursing and Midwifery council will have serious repercussions, but it must surely go on file. If others do the same, then that paint a picture of someone unfit to practice.

Just read somewhere that the average cost of an individual tribunal is several thousand pounds. The cost is borne by the taxpayer. This is going to wipe out the money they think they will be saving. A misuse of public funds it seems to me since it's due to the assessor telling lies.

I generally do PIP2 forms for my clients and ask them to get whatever evidence they can for the form, as many can be assessed Paper Based and not have to go to assessment centres. I ask them to provide details of anyone they see ( inc Carers), and often the assessors will phone for additional info.
Tribunals cost an arm and a leg, and have a high success rate. It takes me at least 2 working days in total to prep a tribunal case inc interviewing the claimant after I get the papers, preparing the submission and sending it, and then going to the tribunal. Then we have 3 panel members getting paid for sitting on it, plus a Presenting Officer from DWP, client and I's expenses ( travel). I had 8 tribunals last month.....

IT is reasonable though, as a society, to tighten criteria to lower the bill.
It's not reasonable to lie.

IT is reasonable though, as a society, to tighten criteria to lower the bill.

Is it? I don;t think it is. All tightening the criteria will do it take money away from those who need it. For example the PIP/DLA enhanced award for mobility used to be if you can mobilize 50m. Its been changed to 20m. But those who cannot walk 50m have not got any better but have had their award lowered/taken away randomly...do you see what I mean?

IT is reasonable though, as a society, to tighten criteria to lower the bill.

Why is it reasonable?

The claim is that it needs tightened due to fraud despite the governments own figures showing that 'error and fraud' is a tiny percentage in disability benefits. What's reasonable about that?

There will always be a bit of fraud in any system. Fraud in disability benefits is very very low. Using this low rate of fraud to justify taking money away from very ill people is ideological and wrong.

I know this has been covered before but are we really sure that all Cambridge applicants will be emailed tomorrow 10th January? The only source for that seems to be the thread on the Student Room. The Jesus website specifically says they will post letters on 12th January and Clare says they will post letters to arrive no earlier than 11th. Neither mention emails at all. And there is no mention of it on the main university website.

Very much want to hear tomorrow though!

Oh whoops, I'm so sorry, wrong thread!

IT is reasonable though, as a society, to tighten criteria to lower the bill.
And yet both the supreme court and the European Court of Human Rights have stated that it isn't.

Approx 60% of appeals are successful. That means these often incompetent hcps are getting it wrong 60% of the time. I don't know of any other job that that would be accepted.

Apparently its closer to 80% if the claimants have representation. So welfare rights tell me anyway. My local office reckon they have a 90% success rate. So that means 9 out of every 10 people denied PIP/ESA are actually meant to be having it. What other job would such a high failure rate be accepted?

And obviously that does not include those who are too ill to actually go through with appealing. Its disgusting really, yet is widely supported or people just ignore it as its only disabled/ill people

I'd like to know the percentage of people who give up as well. And when.

There's a guy DH knows who works for cab who (in his totally non-scientific study) thinks that around 6 months in people get so sick of waiting/fearing the envelope with the date in they just abandon it.

I wonder how many people exactly have dla/pip removed don't get it back. Say within 2 years (to take into account appeals and people who reapply after not being able to face appealing). Not many I bet.

It's reasonable as a society to decide different criteria. Or amounts. That has to be so as otherwise you could get into a situation where every single person is entitled to support and no one to give it!

A country with more wealth tends to provide more, and countries that are poorer, such as an African nation tend to provide less. It doesn't mean globally that poorer countries are less caring, just they have less money!