PIP Decision Maker AMA

[Owmyback]

What do you want to know

I attend PIP assessments in my role as a corporate appointee & with my mum & dad as their daughter - the difference in the assessors attitude when I'm with a client as opposed to a parent is astounding.

With a client they are falling over themselves to be nice, understanding & empathetic and the reports are generally reflective of the clients circumstances with a parent they are very clinical, at times rude & the reports do not match up with what either my parent or I have said.

I think it's telling that with 12 clients I've never had to appeal a decision but with only 2 parents I've had to appeal both - my mum is due a review soon & I think I may just drop into conversation what I do at work!

I think my main question would be “how do you sleep at night?” I couldn’t, if I were part of a system that routinely and deliberately shatters so many lives.

I think it is wrong to say "deliberately shatters lives.".

People seem surprised that the OP hasn't come back when theres about 4 posts saying "how do you sleep at night".

I disagree with the process, it's too strict and dictated by targets and it's very business orientated. But no one working in these roles deserve to be described as if they are evil. Its just people doing jobs that need to be done.

I'd be curious to know peoples alternative systems. The previous one did seem very lenient and just based off diagnosis. We would have people transferring from DLA with a diagnosis of dyslexia, who have managed to attend mainstream education with no support and get PhDs confused as to why their payments have stopped. Or someone who's got elipsely but not had a seizure or any symptoms for 25 years. We once had someone come in from a dla transfer for having a toe amputated as a child and she was now a 30 year old woman.

'We once had someone come in from a dla transfer for having a toe amputated as a child and she was now a 30 year old woman.'

Yes and that is shocking, you wonder how the obvious cases slipped through the net.

Ime it is things like booking private health spas to do the assessments, so vulnerable anxious people sit nervously while people waft around in robes drinking cocktails. Surely there are more appropriate rooms to book? Also, key is when the claimant explains their issue the assessor types in the computer but doesn't tell the claimant if they disagree. So, for example I have a relative who has significant breathing problems evidenced by their specialist nurses report. The assessor nodded and then when the report came they had scored them as 0 saying they had not seemed breathless. How can they dismiss a specialist nurse's report?!

It would increase specialist nurses workload obviously, but if the dwp stopped using atos and paid the NHS to do the reports then they'd get a more accurate report from people who actually understand what they are talking about.

I disagree with the process, it's too strict and dictated by targets and it's very business orientated. But no one working in these roles deserve to be described as if they are evil. Its just people doing jobs that need to be done.

So how far along the scale do people have to slide before we can judge them ? Or does anyone who is "just doing a job" get a free pass regardless ?

Given the number of people who are doing this job, simple statistics tells us at least one person is doing it because they actually like the power and ability to cause other people utter misery not only legally, but with the encouragement of their employer.

Sorry but I am very wary of anything which even begins to start to sound like "just obeying orders". Maybe because it's been used before and there is zero defence in "can't happen here".

@GetOffYourHighHorse

It would increase specialist nurses workload obviously, but if the dwp stopped using atos and paid the NHS to do the reports then they'd get a more accurate report from people who actually understand what they are talking about.

The thing is, if a healthcare professional that was the claimants nurse/GP/other specialist took the role of basically deciding whether or not someone got benefits, well that would cause all kinds of issues. Firstly, there may be some pressure on the HCP to write reports in a certain way that supports the claimant receiving benefits, whether or not they require them. If it was up to say a family GP to decide whether or not the claimant got benefits, it would potentially be unbiased, as it may be a family GP who has known the family for years and who doesn't have the heart or the assertiveness to not write a report which heavily pushes for their patient to get benefits. Secondly, it also puts HCP's in the position of benefit gatekeepers, which isn't and should never be their role.

I know my own GP, who after I had an operation, I went back to see him as I had some issues to discuss. He did ask if I needed a line for being off work and I said that I would be ok and would ask for lighter duties for the next week; he gave me a note and signed me off for 4 weeks as he thought I was perhaps downplaying my issue, which I wasn't. He is a kindly man and I can imagine would be very inclined to write reports in favour of a person not working and receiving benefits if they were to be little pushy about it.

I do believe we need independent people to carry out the reports. My friends who have worked as benefit assessors did say that many a time, it was obvious when someone was laying it on thick to get benefits which really, they shouldn't be entitled to. Conversely, there were those who completely downplayed their symptoms.

I don't know what the answer is. Surely if there isn't some kind of independent assessment process then there will be a glut of people claiming disability benefit who don't need to be? No matter how the assessments are carried out, if people who claim (the disingenuous ones) don't get what they want, they will kick off, jut like they do with the current assessments. It's a tricky one.

' I do believe we need independent people to carry out the reports.'

Yes thinking about it you're right. I just find it bizarre that, say a paramedic who is excellent at front line practice can fully understand complex chronic medical issues after a 2 week course.

The appeals panel are probably the best people to advise DWP and atos on where they are going wrong.

Perhaps it would be best to get reports done by HCP's with specialist training in that area ie those applicants claiming benefits for mental health issues having their assessment carried out by a mental health nurse. Those claiming due to musculoskeletal issues to be assessed by a physiotherapist. And so on and so forth. I don't know what the appeals panels are made up of, whether it's a panel of healthcare professionals of just more 'decision makers'.

Yes having the health professionals they work with decide if they are eligible would raise too many issues as they would probably all feel obligated to support them and if they didnt I dont imagine that person would ever want to be treated by that professional again.

Also I've never heard of the assessments being done at spas. I'm not saying it's not true just that the ones I went to the pip assessments all had an independent building.

I'm not sure what would be right. I think it does have to be done independently from the NHS. All I could think is getting rid of the rigidity of the criteria and allowing the professionals to actually use clinical judgement, but that also comes with a lot of issues.

I think where I worked there the yearly average is 55% of new claims scored for PIP. My personal opinion on top of that is there were about 20% of people who should be entitled but didnt meet criteria. I would say then there was likely another 15% of people where I could see why the claimant might think they were entitled but I appreciated we had to draw a line somewhere and why they shouldn't be eligible. And the remaining 10% were people who were completely disillusioned thinking they should be entitled due to having a poorly finger or were just completely faking something.

Obviously those arent real statistics just based of personal experience, so to me it shows there definitely need to be a system in place or anyone with any diagnosis would try and apply. But to me 20% of people who should get something but don't is very significant.

'Those claiming due to musculoskeletal issues to be assessed by a physiotherapist. And so on and so forth. I don't know what the appeals panels are made up of, whether it's a panel of healthcare professionals of just more 'decision makers'.'

Yes that's more what i was thinking, not their own specialist nurse just those with knowledge and experience in a specific field. It would be difficult obviously as there's so many chronic conditions and disabilities. Just perhaps Atos or whatever it's called now could use hcps with MH qualifications to assess those with MH issues and as you say physios to assess those with mobility issues etc

Appeal panels as far as I know are doctors and actual independent legal professionals. The DWP can send advisors to attend but aren't actually on the panel. May have changed.

Also while I appreciate the idea of being assessed by someone with the relevant background e.g respiratory nurse for respiratory conditions I think they would struggle recruiting that specifically. Also the majority of assessors I worked with were mental health nurses and they actually had a reputation for being the most strict with mental health assessments as their version of significant mental health is quite different than those who haven't worked on psychiatric wards.

Yes, that is a good point @Blahblooblah ; if a nurse had worked long and hard, perhaps done further training ie masters level or PG cert and progressed far enough in his/her career to become a nurse specialist, then I can't imagine them then wanting to give all that up to become a benefit assessor.

I've been told that mental health issues are commonly used to back up a benefit claim; three of my aforementioned friends who did PIP assessments were from a mental health background. They did say that they felt that they were often able to judge the mental health cases more accurately than their non mental health colleagues simply due to their clinical knowledge and experience. However I'm sure that in turn, there was areas that they weren't as good at assessing as their general nursing colleagues/paramedics etc due to their limited personal experience in that area.

I think it is wrong to say "deliberately shatters lives."

So what would you call it when there are multiple cases of assessors lying on the report about people’s needs, abilities and disabilities, misreporting their findings to ensure claims are rejected? What is that if not deliberate? It’s a hideous system that has directly caused actual deaths, I genuinely couldn’t be a part of it.

Too many people with ongoing impairments are put through the ringer unnecessarily. Further, if the disability is long standing and will always affect them then ffs leave them be. Anything changed? No as I still have disabilities and life sucks.

Tizzwazz, they do need reviewing though as the person above saying casses where poeple have claimed unecesserily because they have not had a review in years. Situations do change, in fact in theory it could help you as your condition could get worse. (which may mean you can get more help.)

@june2007

Tizzwazz, they do need reviewing though as the person above saying casses where poeple have claimed unecesserily because they have not had a review in years. Situations do change, in fact in theory it could help you as your condition could get worse. (which may mean you can get more help.)

There could be a much better system for reviewing it though.

If you have a 21-year-old lad with a severe brain injury sustained at 4-years-old who can't read, can't write, can't do buttons or zippers, fits multiple times of the day and night and can't be left unsupervised who is on the highest level of award then there is absolutely no need to review him in full every 4 years.

Or if you have someone in their 40s who has been blind since birth it should be accepted that they are highly unlikely to suddenly become full sighted.

The system atm is just designed to put people off claiming. Pure and simple.

How often are reviews? GEnuine question as oh claims pip.

June2007

Review time frames are decided by the assessor. Though the dwp does often fiddle this part. It is usually;

6 months - for something that is likely to recover such as a broken leg or an injury. Very rare this is awarded though as pretty much by the time the paper work is sorted you are back in.

12 months - similar to rationale of 6 months but perhaps the claimant is waiting for surgery so they are given extra time to recover. Or perhaps a mental health or a neurological condition and the claimants about to start on a trial therapy or treatment course. So they are given time given to see if that helps.

18 months - Usually given if under going or about to have specialist treatment or if they have just been recently diagnosed with something and are awaiting referrals for specialist. This is to see if the specialists can improve their condition.

2/3 years - (I don't remember which one) This is the most common one given. Usually given if there is any chance of variability such as mental health, fibromyalgia or MS. It can also be awarded if assessors think theres a chance of significant deterioration.

5 years- this is the maximum assessors can give, I think there is an option for no recommended review but from what I recall every time I tried submitting that I was told that we can't. This is pretty much just given if it's a long term chronic condition with no chance of change and theres no surgeries or medical interventions to try.

I might not have that 100% as not done it for nearly a year now but it is roughly correct.

I think the dwp can award longer review periods in exceptional cases but they are the norm.

You can get an 'ongoing' award, which is light touch every 10 years (just looked it up - thought it was 15), where basically they just check you are still alive. This is what my husband has, converted from his lifetime award.

Going by that my husband likey to be 2/3years. Which in his case is probably fair enough.

@june2007

How often are reviews? GEnuine question as oh claims pip.

It'll tell you his end date on his award. Reviews can be anytime, but are generally in the last 12 months of the award.

My DD was given a 4 year award that runs out in 2022. I'm expecting her review to be next year.

Any AMA needs to be verified, it's a bad light on MN just as much as those posting the likes of 'how do you sleep at night' responses.

MN trying to replicate reddit AMA was a bad idea with the anonymity, and those not being able to seperate emotional responses whilst trying for a cheap gotcha has added to why it was such a bad idea.

I think there's some confusion here between the OP who is a decision maker enployed by the DWP and an assessor who is employed by a private company and completes the assessments.

@Blahblooblah

June2007

Review time frames are decided by the assessor. Though the dwp does often fiddle this part. It is usually;

6 months - for something that is likely to recover such as a broken leg or an injury. Very rare this is awarded though as pretty much by the time the paper work is sorted you are back in.

12 months - similar to rationale of 6 months but perhaps the claimant is waiting for surgery so they are given extra time to recover. Or perhaps a mental health or a neurological condition and the claimants about to start on a trial therapy or treatment course. So they are given time given to see if that helps.

18 months - Usually given if under going or about to have specialist treatment or if they have just been recently diagnosed with something and are awaiting referrals for specialist. This is to see if the specialists can improve their condition.

2/3 years - (I don't remember which one) This is the most common one given. Usually given if there is any chance of variability such as mental health, fibromyalgia or MS. It can also be awarded if assessors think theres a chance of significant deterioration.

5 years- this is the maximum assessors can give, I think there is an option for no recommended review but from what I recall every time I tried submitting that I was told that we can't. This is pretty much just given if it's a long term chronic condition with no chance of change and theres no surgeries or medical interventions to try.

I might not have that 100% as not done it for nearly a year now but it is roughly correct.

I think the dwp can award longer review periods in exceptional cases but they are the norm.

Some unfortunate people are dragged back in every three months, some get to appeal and win and the next morning another form arrives to start the whole process again.

In reply to the comment about the assessors not being vile I can 100 percent say most of the ones I have seen absolutely have been.
I have been shouted at, sneered at, had doors deliberately slammed on me and been insulted for being an unmarried mother. It seems humiliation and wearing you down either makes their job easier or they get some kind of pleasure from it.
I have been to many of these assessments now and I have had a pass from two assessors, these two assessors asked a completely different set of questions and seemed kind, although the reports were dodgy as hell they passed me.
From the experiences I’ve had in my opinion our fate is decided before we even get in the room. I can just tell from the demeanour and questions. They concentrate on your difficulties and how things affect you.
When your assessment isn’t going well they’re constantly fishing for things you can do, asking leading questions and trying to put words in your mouth.
Other people have noticed this too so it’s definitely not just me.
Also that bashing they do on the keyboard they sound like they’re punching it. Do they not have modern keyboards?