PIP video/phone Healthcare Professional assessment

Had this today, some months after applying online - so the process is slow. HP advised should have outcome in *eight weeks * - an awfully long time. Process from first application on phone to then will be some six months, which I'd argue is too long, particularly if the money is really needed.

HP pleasant; paperwork states c one hr consultation; mine took full two - maybe 'cos I was waffling, but given her questions I can't see how claim could be covered in one hr if her questioning is 'standard'. Video didn't work; HP said they were having problems with tech and would I mind via phone instead. No, I replied; I didn't request a video assessment and would have preferred a simpler phone call anyway.

I found HP's questions far more broad than the claim form's questions. This being my second claim (I let my first, successful, claim lapse after being too unwell to submit the review claim in time for expiration of award) I am familiar with the questions and descriptors and I tried to 'assist' HP by directing my responses to the descriptors to keep it relevant. After all, she has to extract from what I say (and wrote) what descriptor to select. She politely 'objected' to this approach, wanting a more wide-ranging conversation (she said she'd seen my first application from five yrs ago - thus I'd have thought she already had an understanding of the generalities of my conditions as that was a thorough, evidenced claim).

I could tell when she eventually, if loosely, started moving through the specific activities - but she wasn't systematic about this by any means (which is not necessarily a criticism). So general was the first half or more or assessment it's no wonder it took double the 'normal' time. She never addressed the specifics of the two mobility activities, and what she did she did before the the daily living activities.

I'm left with *no idea* what descriptors she'll select as she was keen I didn't 'speak to' descriptors (informally - I'd never attempt to dictate - or give the impression I was - what the assessor should 'score'). I'm confident what they *should* be (inc where a choice of two properly, reasonably, applies) given my substantial knowledge of the matter (I've assisted my own former hospice patients to apply, inc their appeals and have usually got the expected outcome, albeit too often through appeal) and case law pertaining, so I can only take it further if an award of both components at standard isn't made.

My impression is that she has an impression of my limitations and abilities and is somewhat guessing what descriptors to select - which I was trying to help her avoid. The important issue of *reliability* of engagement in tasks (unless claimant can perform reliably claimant must be regarded as incapable of that activity/descriptor) was to me largely unaddressed and will be her subjective impression. This isn't really good enough, opening the potential necessity for appeal if she airs on the side of assumptions of ability (which I suspect HPs do).

Imho whether " to create deliberate confusion or simply the product of an uncertain mind", neither is an acceptable way for a supposed 'professional' to deal with an applicant. Especially a claimant for benefits that could have a life changing effect or even a life saving effect if awarded fairly. But it seems that too often it is indeed one or the other or even both!
I fear from the poster's writing style that their high level of intellect and education is perceived as a threat by the person assessing.
Rant over, for now.
Denby

LL26: Thank you. It's some years since I last submitted my PIP claim and longer still since I assisted hospice patients (where I worked) do it; I didn't know I could request HP's report so shall do that. Thanks for the helpful suggestion.

Yes, it was a slightly strange assessment, being wider-ranging than I expected (and time allowed) and I don't know what, if anything, can be read into that. I'm not as sure as I'd like that HPs fully understand the award criteria or just expect CMs at DWP correctly to infer accurately. Problem with that is that CMs will largely accept HP's descriptors - then the v important issue of reliability can be unaddressed.

Thus asking me how long (time, not dist) I can walk for before needing to rest is all very well - except the question of *repeatability* (reliability) was unasked, when HP NEEDS to know that to determine if I can in fact perform X descriptor.

I anticipated this in my written material - so why is it being asked again, and given that it is, why isn't repeatability also probed?

BIS: Thanks. 'Reliability' being a significant factor in scoring, it may be that it's frequently in issue at MR/appeal 'cos it wasn't adequately addressed at assessment. I hope HPs don't 'down-score' claimants to keep awards as low as poss, though I suspect CMs (DWP decision-makers) too often do - conveniently because the reliability factor was unaddressed. As always, how else to explain the perennial 70%+ appeals upholding? DWP stock response is that better evidence at that stage was provided by claimants - but Tribunal refutes this. I know who I believe!