Written evidence from Community union (PEA0318)

PIP and ESA Assessments inquiry

Written evidence submitted by Community

Executive Summary

1.      This submission is a product of consultation with Community’s National League of the Blind and Disabled (NLBD) members and the NLBD Committee on the effectiveness of assessment processes used to determine eligibility for PIP and ESA.

2.      Community conducted a survey for our NLBD members, of which over 60 members responded.

Introduction

3.      Community is the modern union for a changing world. We represent members across all sectors including the manufacturing and justice sector. The National League of the Blind and Disabled is a sector of Community trade union and was first established in 1899. NLBD members are mostly employed in supported employment businesses across the UK.

4.      Many of Community’s NLBD members have experienced one to one assessments with differing experiences and recommendations to improve the assessment process.

Assessors and assessments

5.      From our research, 92% of our members that responded to our survey, do not think assessors possess the sufficient expertise to carry out assessments for people with a wide range of health conditions. In addition to this, 92% of members that responded also do not believe the Department of Work and Pensions quality control for contractors is sufficient and effective.

6.      There is a clear concern on the quality of data recorded and the level of information able to be recorded during the assessment process. In particular with regards to claimants having the ability to record the assessment, and having to provide a duplicate copy at the time of the assessment to the assessors. This can result in inaccurate reports and in cases removal of benefit entitlement.

Mandatory Reconsideration and appeal

7.      Evidence shows that 65% of PIP claims are overturned at appeal stage and therefore demonstrates a flaw in the assessment process, in the ability of the accessor to have the required time to undertake an assessment, to fully understand the issues presented by the person being assessed, the structure of the interview and the interview questions.

8.      Our members expressed concern over the lack of specialist knowledge and experience of assessors, in particular with how conditions can vary amongst claimants.

9.      Members also expressed a need for more emphasis to be placed on the reports of the health professionals, including doctors and consultants notes.

10.   From our research, 83% of our members that responded to the survey did not agree that the Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) process is working well for claimants of ESA and/or PIP.

11.   Additional information and knowledge, more experienced judges in the appeal and the opportunity to explain the claimant’s illness/disability in greater detail, all accounted for the rate of overturned decisions at appeal for PIP and/or ESA.

12.   Some members who responded to the survey also expressed interest for claimants to be entitled to challenge decisions immediately after the assessment and have a clear transparent procedure.

13.   The experience of our members suggest numerous changes to be made earlier in the process to ensure fewer claimants feel they need to appeal. The most significant one being more qualified assessors, in particular with regards to mental health. In addition to this, individual assessors should be matched to the claimants in terms of expertise and experience, and more support provided throughout the application process.

14.   There was a concern for vulnerable claimants whilst awaiting outcomes where people are put in precarious situations with finances, stress and mental health issues made worse by uncertainty.

Claimant experiences

15.   The results from our survey show 62.5% of prospective claimants do not currently understand the purpose of the assessment.

16.   Suggestions to help better understand the process included representation for the claimant, especially in cases of mental health, simplified information in the appointment letter and forms as claimants struggle with the complicated process.

17.   The process of the assessments creates problems for claimants suffering with ill mental health as they can be extremely stressful. Our members consider it essential that assessments need to be handled with sensitivity, the option for adjustments to be made, location, timing, rest breaks, and an expert who is well versed in mental health to provide support during the process.

18.   Those with learning disabilities need to be provided with a simplified form and support during the assessment.

19.   Those with long term illnesses are also at risk of encountering problems during their assessments as it creates unnecessary stress to continually assess them.

20.   Consultant reports (experts in the condition) and medical records provide the long term outcomes of claimants with long term and irreversible conditions; therefore it appears an antiquated approach to continue to place what we deem to be unreasonable conditions and stress on claimants. Assessors are not experts in the field and may not have ever been in contact with the diverse conditions that present for assessment, and an assessment form that has a set of yes and no questions that simply do not allow for relevant information gathering.

21.   An example of this is if you are asked if you can walk 20 meters, which you may be able to do surely the question is how you manage to walk this distance and what are the affects, does it take you 20 minutes, what’s your recovery time. It’s not the can you – its more how, effect, recovery.

22.   If you have a mobility allowance or vehicle that you rely upon and this element is removed the vehicle is removed almost immediately, this will affect the individuals independence, work, financial and physical and mental health wellbeing. In addition to this, if an appeal is made and the decision to remove benefits is reversed then the claimant is already in financial, work and mobility hardship.

23.   There was a clear consensus from the survey that our members believe the assessment processes for PIP and ESA be more closely integrated, mainly to reduce the stress for the claimant following multiple assessments.

Recommendations

24.   The formatted questions throughout the assessment should be reviewed to better record relevant information. A less rigid process needs to be adopted for the gathering information allowing claimant to provide information during the assessment rather than as additional at the conclusion.

25.   During the assessment process, should a claimant wish to have the assessment recorded, that the DWP preferred provider’s responsibility to make this provision. Claimants should be asked prior to starting the formal assessment and should leave with either a physical CD or electronic audio file. The latter being the most cost effective method; this should also be provided at the end of the assessment prior to the claimant leaving.

26.   More training for assessors on mental health and disability related issues.

27.   Consideration and acknowledgement of advice/diagnosis of the claimant's doctor and consultants that may have emerged from previous meetings and treatment plans.

28.   Mobility elements benefits should not be removed until the conclusion of appeals process.

November 2017