According to numerous former colleagues, most of whom worked very closely in dla for years, it was generally accepted that the bar was lower for DLA and that a prognosis was in fact one of the major requirements, at least asr at one period of time.
Pip IS about measuring people's ability to complete everyday tasks. Whether the descriptors are fair is another issue, but it is about ability to complete everyday tasks.
I'm fully aware his word isn't gospel. I'm also aware that dla came in in the early 90s and lasted until around 2013 for new claims? And there was a labour government in between. I presume over that almost 20yr period, that processes and other things change. Perhaps his recollection isn't entirely correct - however given the cases in the news of historic benefit fraud, the fact that he worked there for 20yrs, and the fact that I personally knew someone who drank for two days straight and spat on Dr's hand and got dla (my auntie, nothing wrong with her, fully boasted to anyone who'd listen of her marvellous plan to get money), I'm inclined to believe that processes weren't always so stringent.
And each case should be dealt with on its own basis. I do agree that lifetime awards be given sparingly and reviewed, for all but the worst cases. Again, a PIP five year award for eg does not mean that they expect the condition to have gone away in 5yrs! It simply means that resources change, there are new developments all the time, and quite frankly peoples ability to deal with things can differ. Look at the poster who's sons condition changed for example. That doesn't mean her son no longer has autism! Pip isn't about 'you have a disability'. It's about how you manage certain tasks. No one is disputing they have the condition. It is ridiculous to say a person's ability to complete certain tasks will remain the same forever, considering all the different possibilities.
I worked on Pip as admkn and before anyone jumps on me, I helped people. I often helped vulnerable people, DV victims and signposted them, I called people back to check they had got home OK, I gave tips and advice, I raised issues no one else seemed bothered with, I helped people access substance misuse charities, among other things.
The number of people who would call up having been disallowed Pip, wanting a reconsideration without even reading the scores, was shocking. For many people, they thought their condition hadn't changed so they should be receiving the same Pip. While that would be nice, the benefits are completely different and while the condition hasn't changed, the guidelines now have changed. I always advised people to read the scores first before asking to reconsider - advising that if they disagreed with content then OK, but if the content was fine they disagreed with the benefit, that's a matter to raise with their mp and a reconsideration would be highly unlikely to change that.
Some people did that, and actually read the scores. Some people got angry and demanded we put a reconsideration on, despite the content being accurate. I'd often hear things le 'I can walk to the shops and dress myself, I'm still disabled.' however hard I tried, however many times I explained, many could simply not grasp that we were not saying they weren't disabled. No one was disputing that. They didn't fit the criteria, as they say themselves, which means they were not suitable for Pip. It was quite shocking how few people actually read the criteria, how for some a first response was to ring up.
Op, the first step is asking for the report. I would reiterate reading, highlighting and finding evidence. Request by phone a d letter as letters take weeks to be processed. If the assessors comments were derogatory or unprofessional, you can ask dwp to give you number for assessors complaint line. I'm more than willing to give advice if you decide content is wrong and you go forward - feel free to pm me