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 She did not appear withdrawn and did not require prompting.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 Whilst acknowledging that she has cognitive behavioural therapy she did not appear withdrawn or anxious.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.

Bourdic. I can't tell if my assessor is lying or incompetent. Perhaps both. The quality of writing on the report is shocking. I am not exaggerating when I say that it appears to have been written by someone semi-literate making liberal use of a copy/paste function. Maybe it was done in a rush. Maybe I became a blur after she assessed many that day. I don't know. But I do know that, when I was able to work, I'd have been pulled up had I submitted a report remotely like that.

Boston: '2 people are allowed to have different opinions'.
Yes they are, but this isn't about opinions. It's about a professional judgement. The difference between the two is huge, and the first one has no place in a PIP assessment.
I've never for one second thought the OP is 'out to get' the assessor, but they should certainly be retrained, as should the assessor who made a report for my dc, which was factually incorrect and made a clinical judgement which was wrong, then based the report on it and then went on to make a judgement which was correct, but then totally ignored it in the report.

I have it in writing from DWP in reply that the person does not have to be able to do the journey in real life, they just have to be able to PLAN it.

Beyond cuckoo.

If you can’t tell which you think it is, say so. Say it is either shoddy inadequate rushed work full of errors which could be incompetence and corrected by training or its misconduct because it’s not accurate or honest.

I think the way they apply the PIP descriptors to real life situations is awful and they will find blatantly unfair reasons for not scoring points, but with regards to the planning a journey descriptor, under the mobility section which only has two descriptors, this is not I don't believe about physical mobility but cognitive problems or extreme anxiety that restrict journeys. They still underscore on this though.

The assessing nurse did not wake up and think, right I'll bring Godstopper down today

Unless you are that nurse, you can't speak for her or her intent.

Some people doing this job are lying. Not typing imperfectly or having a slight difference of clinical opinion: lying.

Mine claimed I didn't use walking aids when I did. Others cited above include assessors describing non-existent steps, claiming a person drops her child off in the car park when she doesn't even drive.

These aren't typos which get corrected when you point them out: they're ignored and the DWP stops the benefit which is keeping people mobile and clean/fed, leaving it the toughest to take it to tribunal.

I'm perfectly happy with a HCP being disciplined by their professional body or, in repeat cases, losing their registration in those circumstances. I mean good grief, would you want a lying HCP who falsifies documents involved in your care in hospital?

My partner is a PIP assessor and it is the hardest job he has ever done. The standards he has to work to are incredibly high and he has immense pressure on him from above. He does his damndest to be fair and equitable for his claimants and is often thanked for his kindness and understanding.

@Debka, I am very glad your partner tries his hardest to be fair and do a good job, we need more like him. However, this doesn't negate the fact that there thousands of claimants who have been underscored for spurious reasons. Success rate for appeal is high. For some reason too many assessors, note not all, are making unfair decisions. I would love to know if there are subtle targets.

Duchess, I'm willing to believe it isn't even a majority who are dishonest. I wouldn't want people to assume they'll be lied about and so not apply for disability benefits.

But even if say 80% were trying to do an honest job, and only 20% were deliberately confecting false or misleading reports, that would be 20% too many.

And I can't see why anyone would defend the dishonest ones.

Hi OP

I just wanted to chime in as someone on a professional register like your assessor to say I absolutely applaud your fire here and your decision to ensure she's held accountable for blatant lies on an incredibly important official document that impacts your life in a huge way. They get away with it because so few people have the resources, energy or know how to cover themselves like you have with recording, and so few have the energy to fight it afterward after being called a liar basically. It sickens me that her opinion from meeting you once overrules all of the professionals involved in your care and it shouldn't be allowed. I'd also absolutely complain about the poor quality of the report, being misgendered off and on, blatant copy and pasting as that's not appropriate from a clinical professional and looks very sloppy.

My very close friend is terminally ill and had to go for an assessment recently, he's registered blind and was asked if he could watch the tv or read, he said no of course and that he listens to the radio. She accepted this then after they'd formally finished tried to catch him out asking if he'd seen a certain documentary recently on ITV! Of course he said no, I told you I'm blind (he was with his guide dog!) but the sneakiness astounded him. I'm so sorry you have to go through this.

My very close friend is terminally ill and had to go for an assessment recently, he's registered blind and was asked if he could watch the tv or read, he said no of course and that he listens to the radio. She accepted this then after they'd formally finished tried to catch him out asking if he'd seen a certain documentary recently on ITV! Of course he said no, I told you I'm blind (he was with his guide dog!) but the sneakiness astounded him. I'm so sorry you have to go through this.

@Lemonshark, I am very sorry about your friend. The whole assessment process now seems to be set up with the assumption the claimant may be trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the assessor and the assessor must do everything they can can to find the claimant out. I find it very different to the DLA process. I suspect the culture and training at Captia and Atos views claimants as potentially untrustworthy and training is about focusing on where the claimant could be not being truthful. It's very stressful.

Hi Lemonshark,

That's very kind of you to say, thanks!

I think it's important that I complain wherever possible. I am confident in expressing myself in writing (as you can tell!) and have the benefit of literally being qualified in how to argue. I am also unafraid of the DWP removing my award altogether. I have a good support network too.

I don't even know what to say about your friend. Of course it's logical to think a blind person watches documentaries. Just shows that they ask questions designed to try and catch you out. I hope he has the enhanced award and doesn't have to go through this again whilst he is ill.

Regarding pressure from above- assessments are strictly audited and graded, so there is a lot of pressure to get it right. Occasionally my partner has had an assessment returned to him to rewrite because the auditors disagree, as a professional who assesses the person in front of him this is incredibly frustrating, to be overruled by an anonymous stranger who has not met the claimant. And if he does not acquiesce, he is penalised.
Regarding targets, yes, there are targets, a percentage of people who have to be awarded PIP.

The whole assessment process now seems to be set up with the assumption the claimant may be trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the assessor and the assessor must do everything they can can to find the claimant out

Yes that's precisely it and is what many are trying to do. The tactic about trying to catch people out is not a new one. Here is an example of how part of mine went.

DA: "Do you drive?".

Me: "No. I don't have a full license".

I have a provisional but I have never gotten around to actually taking the plunge and doing driving lessons. The ID she asked for was my provisional license. Takes details of my ID down.

goes off on a tangent about something else

Literally minutes later:

asks me how long I've been driving for

She did not forget in those few minutes.

The whole purpose of introducing PIP was to catch the fakers out. It doesn't catch the fakers out. The fakers know how to play the system. They can and still do get PIP.

However you would be surprised at the number of people who are trying to pull the wool over his eyes. He has had people fake seizures (when he says he will end the interview they suddenly recover), people he sees walking to the centre then claim not to be able to stand, the list goes on.

He has had people fake seizures

and people he sees walking to the centre then claim not to be able to stand, the list goes on.

A person may not be able to stand or walk far reliably, repeatedly and safely. Your partner's statements are concerning to me. Are these auditors within the health assessment company? If so, if the company has targets then it means little. Independent auditors would be different.

@Bourdic
Acting outside sphere of competence then - breach of standards

Damn right!

Godstopper I'm pasting a link here to the NMC Code which sets out the professional standards all Registered nurses and midwives in the UK must uphold

www.nmc.org.uk/standards/code/read-the-code-online/

I hope it will assist you when you set out your complaint about this nurse to the NMC. I suggest you pay partcular attention to the sections on Record Keeping and, as Bourdic has said, Recognising and workng within the limits of competence.

Good luck!

@Godstopper - I think sometimes though, just because you can complain it doesn't mean you should morally.
I also think you have stated to the DWP that you have reduced concentration, reduced motivation, and requires prompting for everyday tasks so that you can claim PIP, yet here you openly say
'I think it's important that I complain wherever possible. I am confident in expressing myself in writing (as you can tell!) and have the benefit of literally being qualified in how to argue'
You can't eat lunch without prompting, yet you have the emotional energy, and the concentration and motivation to compose and send letters of complaint regarding a nurse doing her job.
Anyways, I'm out. I wanted to add some balance to the thread and say there are fair and kind assessors out there.....but clearly they must be few and far between.....

@DuchessofLondon, thank you for sharing your example of the assessor trying to catch you out.

Debka,

Frustration at being overruled by a stranger who doesn't know us is precisely how many claimants feel: specifically, it's insulting to realise that the opinion of our G.P's and other professionals who have on-going input into our care is often overruled on the basis of a snapshot assessment by someone who lacks expert knowledge of our condition(s).

Many conditions won't be apparent during a short assessment. These people are potentially in trouble. I have evidence of episodes of vertigo. On some questions the assessor wrote "not dizzy at assessment" and used it to partly justify awarding me zero on that activity. I never said I had it 50% + of the time. I said it was unpredictable and poses a safety risk in some situations. That's been ignored despite a new ruling which says the severity of harm should be taken into account and not just the likelihood of that harm occurring.

Since I should receive a PIP award, I'll be included in the statistics. But it's quite disingenuous since I'll have lost money in the process. If more behaved like your partner then things would obviously be better.

yes, there are targets, a percentage of people who have to be awarded PIP

If that's true, it's crap.

So I get awarded PIP depending on how many other people have decided to apply for it? Not on my actual needs?

If I scare off other disabled people by telling them it's too hard, then I'm more likely to get it? Or if I get all the fit people in my whole road to make applications that will obviously be turned down, then I'm more likely to get it?

'Cos that's how percentages work...

I think sometimes though, just because you can complain it doesn't mean you should morally

Bollocks to that. Like I said, if the assessor has done nothing wrong professionally then nothing will come of the OPs complaint will it?

Morality won't pay the OPs bills or get her to her appointments etc.

Debka does your partner often talk to you at home disparagingly about vulnerable people? It just seems wrong to me.

@bostonkremekrazy, I have poor concentration after doing a task for a short time. During the short time I can do a task (and it is erratic I can seem ok). I am writing this in my bed and between posts I am resting with eyes close. My pain has increased too from typing this. This will be my limit typing today. Being able to do a task for a short period does not mean you can do it repeatedly. I am sure there are some good assessors but with so many wrong decisions some are underscoring.

There simply cannot be 'targets' for something thats meant to be about need like PIP. Its similar to sanction targets IMO. How can there be a target amount of people to be sanctioned, when sanctions are meant to be only applied if the claimant does something bad? Makes no sense.