Hello I'm new.

Thank you Gordon. To be fair the ATOS report wasn't too bad, it was factual and truthful at least I think the problem was that the assessor didn't really have much knowledge of autism and so couldn't really link our son's documented difficulties and our examples and explanations with the required criteria in a way that was obvious for the DM.
It also doesn't help that, as is really common in autism, our son has areas of ability alongside areas of significant disability and of course the DM used a tiny area of ability as a basis for the whole claim even though the reports reiterated that ds's ability to manipulate numbers is entirely at odds with his functional ability.
I think if I've learned anything from this it's to go to the F2F and approach it believing that the assessor doesn't have the foggiest idea about your condition and hasn't bothered to read any of the reports and so answer all questions with even the most minute detail fully explained because you can't assume that the assessor chosen is one with any relevant knowledge or experience.

Well,not unexpectedly, considering the statistics the Mandatory reconsideration was unsuccessful and so I am beginning the process of appeal.
I'm quite confused tbh because I'm not sure how you are supposed to score points in so far as ATOS and the reports provided fully accept our son has needs. They accept that he requires the support,they acknowledge that he is helped with bathing dressing and isn't able to cook, they acknowledge that he has an appointee( instigated by DWP) because he can't manage his affairs and yet he still doesn't score points.
I don't understand how a report can confirm that he has an appointee because he can't manage his affairs and is unable to budget and prioritise and directly below the DWP state he has no needs. If that was the case why did they send someone out to assess him who decided that he needed an appointee?
It is so bizarre. DWP have now dropped the he can do absolutely everything because he can play computer games for he can do absolutely everything because he plans to go to university. I have no idea where that notion even comes from unless it is from his statement of SEN in his hopes for the future section. He also plans to be the next Gary Linacre and be a football pundit because he hasn't considered that much of the time he is unable to speak but either option is unlikely along with his plans to play for Chelsea, do a solo world trip and live in a castle.
Oh well onwards and upwards I hope.

Thank you Gordon I have printed off the necessary form but hadn't started my grounds for appeal because tbh I don't really know what the grounds are other than the DM's decision doesn't appear to be taking into consideration the ATOS report, the PIP2 or the supporting evidence. Rather it appears that all the reports of evidence appears to have been dismissed and a decision made on firstly the fact he plays computer games (which in the MR I managed to illustrate was a wrong assumption and wasn't comparable to the skills needed for the daily living activities) and now on an aspirational sentence in a statement of SEN six years old.
I fail to see why that one sentence, that ds obviously hasn't managed to fulfill, should be considered more weighty than professional reports and their own assessment report.