Written evidence from Lee Johnson (PEA0274)

PIP application and assessment.

Background to this submission;

• This my own individual submission.

• My name is Mr Lee Johnson, and I am currently 67 years old.

• I am disabled because of asbestos exposure, and I have osteoarthritis to my Knees, Hip, Spine, and Foot.

• I have a number of medical conditions including high blood pressure, diabetics, nerve end syndrome, floating rib syndrome.

• I have made three applications for DLA/PIP, all of which have been refused based on what consider to be highly questionable ATOS assessments.

• My final appeal hearing in February 2016 upheld my 2nd and 3rd PIP appeals.

My Recommendations;

• Ban ATOS from the PIP assessment process – they are not fit for purpose.

• Accept medically qualified written statements from the candidates GP, and/or, specialist; That the candidate is disabled or suffers from a medical condition.

• The application, mandatory reconsideration, appeal, and hearings, process needs to be simplified so that the most vulnerable person has no barriers to make an application.

• There should be a body appointed to help and assist candidates to make an application, and if need be an appeal.

1. The assessment process for PIP is an utter disgrace.

2. The assessment by ATOS, and by the firm that replaced ATOS (but is still ATOS) is conducted by medically unqualified staff who use every trick and question as a means to recommend that you do not qualify for PIP. Examples;

a)      I attended an assessment and was having problems walking. I waited for half an hour until my name was called. At this point I was instructed to walk to an interview room which was at least 80 yards away at the very end of a long corridor. This took me nearly ten minutes, and I had to stop several times to get my breath back, and rest my knees which were very painful. The assessment report stated that I was able to walk 75 yards without any difficulty.

b)      I attended three ATOS PIP assessments, and each time my responses were omitted, or incorrect, to the point of being utter lies and fraud by ATOS.

c)       On one assessment I had to use a wheel chair, and my carer was present. She confirmed in a written statement when I appealed, that the responses attributed to me were incorrect.

3. The criteria for assessing candidates for PIP is a joke. The criteria is in many respects meaningless.

4. I am firmly of the opinion that ATOS, and their replacement, will do anything, and say anything, to disqualify the applicant. Furthermore, the DWP support ATOS and their bogus assessments, with the obvious aim and intention to refuse PIP come what may.

5. I have no confidence in ATOS at all, and will use my own recording device at future assessments.

6. I applied for DLA in 2012 and this application was rejected. I appealed, and at the appeal hearing in 2013 the judge stated that I did not qualify at the time of my 2012 DLA application, but my health conditions had deteriorated to the point where I did now did qualify for PIP. The DWP refused to accept the judge’s statement, and I had to apply all over again.

7. My second PIP application in 2014 was also rejected, and I appealed a 2nd time.

8. On the advice of my local disability support group, I immediately made a 3rd PIP application prior to my 65th birthday in 2015. The local disability support group advised that if my 2nd appeal was rejected, then I would be over 65 and unable to apply for PIP afterwards.

9. My 3rd PIP application was also rejected, and I appealed for the 3rd time.

10. The appeal tribunal considered my 2nd appeal, and indicated that they would support it, but they wanted to consider both my 2nd appeal and 3rd appeal together. This was because they were concerned that the 2nd appeal would succeed, but the 3rd appeal might result in my award being rejected or reduced.

11. I had to wait for the joint appeals to be heard at a hearing in Feb 2016.

12. At the joint appeal hearing the DWP failed to provide my entire file to the appeal tribunal, and significantly the DWP omitted the fact that my previous ESA awards had resulted in my being included in the ESA Support Group. The appeal tribunal chairman was particularly vexed about this and reprimanded the DWP representative for these omissions.

13. As a result of my successful joint appeals I was awarded PIP Standard Living allowance, and enhanced PIP Mobility allowance. Both backdated for three years.

14. The PIP application process, with the ATOS assessments, forms, applications, required reconsideration requests, appeals, and multiple hearings, is a total nightmare.

15. I truly pity any disabled person with no support or advice who embarks on a PIP application. They must just give up from the outset.

16. I believe that ATOS and the DWP are taking advantage of vulnerable people with the intention to refuse PIP on the most spurious of grounds.

17. I believe that ATOS, and its replacement, should be banned from being involved. Their medically unqualified assessors are offensive, and they do nothing to assist or help a candidate for PIP. They are not fit for purpose, and they should not be allowed to be involved in benefit assessments at all.

18. Please consider that that it is my personal opinion, based on my own experiences, that as many as 50% of the people who have been denied PIP should have been awarded the benefit.

November 2017