Figures released by the DWP show that there were 238 complaints against assessors in the period September 2024 to March 2025, but not one resulted in disciplinary action being taken.

The figures cover the period from the setting up of the Functional Assessment Service (FAS) to the end of its first reporting year. 

FAS manages assessment contractors from Ingeus, Capita, Maximus, Serco and the DWP’s own clinical teams. The assessors carry out personal independence payment (PIP) assessments and work capability assessments for universal credit (UC).

The number of complaints against assessors were:

  • Ingeus 110
  • Capita 87
  • Maximus 33
  • Serco 4
  • DWP 4

The report gives virtually no details of the nature of the complaints, other than one “Illustrative case example” which states:

“An example of an upheld clinician complaint closed with learning support:

“A complaint was received stating assessor was late and abrupt. The complaint was investigated and upheld. The healthcare professional undertook further training and reflection and their work was monitored.  No further issues have been identified.”

However, the report does say that “100% were closed with reflective learning or policy updates, further support/ training and ongoing review.”

Effectively, this means that assessors need have no fear of complaints against them by claimants, because nobody ever gets disciplined, let alone dismissed, as a result of such a complaint.

The report also reveals that there were 301 information governance incidents in which data was mishandled by contractors. Remarkably, according to the DWP, not a single one of these was serious enough to require reporting to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

There were also 152 safeguarding incidents, but the DWP claims that only four were serious enough to require any action, such as  additional training or “healthcare professional reflection.”  According to the DWP no harm occurred to anyone as a result of any of these incidents.

The Functional Assessment Service is, it seems, a place where nothing really bad ever happens.

You can read the addendum to the DWP Clinical Governance Annual Report 2024 to 2025 here

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    Peter White on In Touch, Radio 4 this morning 05:45, interviewing Stephen Timms about the oversubscribed Access to Work scheme.

    Timms giving the usual unjustifiably confident assurances.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002x46h
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/andy-burnham-backs-welfare-reform-via-devolution

    I was hoping that this wouldn’t be the case but it’s looking less like Burnham will be the ‘saviour’ (or at least show some level of human empathy towards the disabled) and more continue labours war against disabled & sick individuals.

    I’m starting to get annoyed by Burnham announcing new policy he’ll bring in without the public voting on basically a new manifesto (a rule should be introduced that no mp can put their name forward for a party leadership contest until they’ve held their current tenure as an mp for at least 12 months).

    I am starting to wonder if we are best off sticking with Starmer for the sole reason of being the only one democratically voted in as leader of the country and the only one that can wait till summer 2029 for an election (of course he’d need to be replaced before the ge but prehaps it’s better the contest happens 2028 and not now)

    Burnham is coming across like his Ascension to pm is a full gone conclusion (and his politics right now is the northern version of Starmer mixed with left wing ideas that will massively increase taxes and/or borrowing)

    Streeting is just the worst of all worlds (makes Starmer look tolerable in comparison). As much as respect raynor climb to the top from her background I just don’t think she can win a ge (no fault of her own but class’ism would play a part). I mentioned milibands name before but it would be ridiculous if an ex Labour leader who lost a past ge becomes a unelected pm (even though he lost that ge partly for eating a sausage sandwich’wrong’). And cairns is an opportunist.

    Bottom line is that right now Labour don’t have even a lukewarm option for next leader and I honestly think we may be better off with a weakened Starmer (for the next yr or 2) that may find it harder to push through painful changes to welfare & beyond than Durham at peak strength and a huge majority that it’s increasely unlikely to do the same welfare cuts as Starmer but also target the middle classes with further tax (many disabled also gets varying financial support from their families as uc/pip isn’t generous enough - further taxes in certain areas could impact how much some families can support their disabled relatives, both now and beyond passing from this world if you catch my meaning)

    Just my 2 cents (fully expect to be in the minority)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @John The money markets will stop Burnham from borrowing,we already owe too much.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @John Thank you for being the spotlight of sanity in a cruel and insane world.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @K Tories are no better PERIOD
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Neil (real one)
      I try to stay hopeful. 

      What the Labour government wants to do and what it can get Labour MPs to agree to maybe two different things.

      Back when Blair was PM he wanted to reduce IB the same money as JSA and wanted to abolish DLA and use the money to fund social care. Instead under Labour we ended up replacing IB with ESA and with no change to DLA.

      As for Starmer he could not get Labour MPs to agree to the 4pt PIP plan which would have halved the number eligible for PIP daily living, even after offering to make existing claimants exempt. And only managed to pass a cut to UC LCWRA for new claimants. While Blair thinks Starmer would need to rely on Conservative support to get the planned welfare cuts through Parliament. But, doing that would be the end of Starmer as Labour leader.

      And Starmer may not be PM for much longer anyway. Burnham opposed Starmer's welfare cuts. So it would not be surprising if the welfare plans changed if he becomes PM.

      As for the other parties it is 3 years until the next general election and that is a very long time in politics. We know that the Greens are willing to do a general election deal with Labour to try and stop Reform. The Greens only condition is that Starmer is no longer Labour leader. And we know Burnham wants to make a general election deal with other parties to stop Reform. 

      Restore led by Lowe who loathes Farage is splitting Reform's vote. And the Conservatives facing possible replacement by Reform are unlikely to make a general election deal with Reform. And Reform pretending to be a insurgent party is unlikely to want to make a deal with the Conservatives. And as serious contenders for government Reform will hopefully come under more media scrutiny before the next general election. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @John So how afraid should us existing UC/Lcwra claimants be right now because I'm absolutely terrified of what's on the horizon I really am . I also apologise wholeheartedly for my constant reference to being so aswell , but I just can't help it, honestly 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Further proof that dwp has no respect for due process and just follows its own path, making rules as it goes along.

    Health professionals such as paramedics and physiotherapists, mentioned by DNS, have in any case been much criticised in their role as assessors, so for them to now compare them favourably against civil servants seems a bit disingenuous. Assessments have long been lacking, whoever has carried them out, with many complaints about their inaccuracy and lack of compassion or attention to evidence.

    Might as well leave it all to the civil servants. Could be better if one person was responsible for a case from start to finish. It would be more efficient and they'd be more accountable. If there are to be medical professionals involved at any stage they should be fully qualified specialists in the claimant's conditions.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @keepingitreal I believe this is what used to happen.  When my son was first awarded DLA, the letter came with a reference which ended in a name, and each time the award was renewed subsequently, the same name appeared at the end of the reference.  This only ceased when he was awarded DLA indefinitely.  The subsequent transfer to PIP, of course, changed everything.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Re:John 3 days ago I'm the post title immediately below this one on page 2.

    If that's the case about 16-24yr olds being the main target of the Millburn stitch up then what about those aged 50 or over what happens to those people then?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @John All about cuts dressed up as having the disabled's best interests at heart. That phrase - "the most severely disabled" 🙄
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @John The Streeting/fonagy  'review' is the one that looks the scariest to me personally, ive been the way I am for over 30 years, when I switched to UC from ESA almost 5 years ago my GP surgery said it's clear from the records that my situation isn't likely to improve any time soon. So where the hell does that leave me? I am so scared right now, I just want me and what I receive to be left alone. What on earth is wrong with wanting that?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @John Fingers crossed we get off lightly or left be...PLEASE.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Neil (real one) The only target of the Milburn stitch up is 16-24 year olds. The Milburn review is specifically aimed at 16-24 year olds (Not in Education, Employment or Training) NEETs. And at the moment we only have the interim findings report, we will have it's recommendations report in autumn 2026.

      As far as the overall plan for all claimants goes we have had the pathways to work paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper

      So far a cut to new claimants LCWRA has been passed. But, the 4pt PIP plan failed to get through parliament so for PIP changes we now await the Timms PIP review.

      The Timms PIP review we await a interim report in summer 2026 and a recommendations report in autumn 2026. The aim of the TImms review is to refocus PIP on the most severely disabled. To reduce overall future forecast PIP spending to make DWP spending hit a OBR forecast (that I believe accounts for planned but not implemented Conservative cuts) and to make PIP sustainable for the future. This is sold as not having the aim of making additional cuts in spending. Which is misleading.

      For those with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions we also have Streeting's review headed by Fonagy in to overdiagnosis. The interim report was in March 2026, the recommendations report I think is due summer 2026. This is sold as wanting to improve people's lives. But appears to aim to do so by reducing the numbers claiming disability benefits, and increase the numbers in work.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Neil (real one) We could be secondary targets over 50s.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    If assessors are going to be restricted to collecting basic information they might as well be dropped altogether. That would make savings and remove the most stressful part of the process. The claimant gathers the evidence, sometimes with help, so why not leave the decision to the decision maker, especially if there are dwp medical advisers?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Jonno Scottish welfare seems not only more compassionate, but more efficient. Westminster should take note!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @godgivemestrength @godgivemestrength.

      This is the way ADP works in Scotland generally.  You submit your claim(I did mine online) and the decision maker then contacts your G. P. If they need more evidence they get back in touch with you

      They then make their decision on that basis. 

      It removes, as you say, the most stressful part of the process, vis a vis, the face to face. 

      I don't know why Pip don't do this in England and Wales. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    The DWP is trialling a rebalancing of assessors and decision makers roles.

    The current system is :

    Assessors (Health Professionals) assess claimants capabilities and make recommendations as to what descriptors they meet and what points they should score, the final award level and how long the award duration should be for.

    Then DWP decision makers are supposed to look at all the evidence. Assessor report, claimant's form and other information provided, information from the claimant's doctor or specialists, DWP internal guidance on health conditions and what to award. Seek advice if needed from a DWP medical adviser. Then make an award decision. I say supposed to because they appear in reality to often just rubber stamp the assessors recommendation.

    The change being trialled is to restrict assessors to just collecting basic information and not making any recommendations. So the DWP decision maker is forced to actually look at all the evidence and make a decision.

    Unlike Disability News Service I think this does not sound like a bad idea.

    https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-secretly-exposes-150000-pip-claimants-to-new-assessment-system-that-is-recipe-for-disaster/
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @John I think the major problem is that these trials (affecting 150k pip claimants) shouldn’t be carried out till after the timm review findings and recommendations have been announced.

      This gov promised that any reforms be done with involvement from the disability community & input. 

      Regardless of if this trial is positive or not the timing and lack of announcements and disclosure from the gov directly (a whistleblower in the dwp flagged this up) is sneaky & dishonest and will further damage disabled individuals trust in both the dwp and this Labour government and may prompt bigger backlash come this autumn regardless of what timms comes up with
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    We need the assessors to be our own GPs who know everything about us. My husband has lost his Pip to an assessor who made up everything herself and never read my husband's medical report and occupational therapy report. She has lost him 12 months' money, which he desperately needs. We are going to a tribunal
    He wants to sue this lady who is only in her 20s..
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    I think we all know what's coming down the tracks.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    Just the same when reporting an assessor to the Nursing & Midwifery Council  - no action taken despite clear evidence of fraud and dishonesty. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @borkwen Then take them to court yourself. You probably fulfilled the CPR requirements of keeping it out of court by reporting it as you should've. So go for it. Evidence is king.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    They are lying imho 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    Why is anyone surprised? DWP have no clue what distress is caused by their entire pip,  and other, claim systems, using under qualified and under vetted people... Not to mention undertrained!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @David Macfie Continued - Incidentally, no safeguarding ever happened, council Austerity-ridden social "care" team just ignored it. Claimed they left messages on Christmas Day - what are the odds of them working that day, haha they can't even get their story straight in the lying letter! Possibly on purpose to make me win my case when I take them to court whilst being seen to do their job? Subversive I can appreciate, but a faff to decipher all the two-faced BS. Isn't it? Austerity architects knew what they were doing, believe me.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @David Macfie Lied-to by "specialised" "complex case coach" over so-called "managed migration". Asked if they could implement safeguarding. They said they could. I asked them to indeed do so. They said they would. Did it happen? No. Not until FIVE MONTHS later and I never recovered and am being made homeless as a result of the trauma the DWP inflicted (on top of the ESA WCA trauma which the RN who conducted it apologised for putting me through - whilst taking the money of course).
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Bern400 Regardless of who actually wins we must make sure no matter what that REFORM DONT.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Matt Have you got to move home Matt.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Bern400 Reform party policy is to make lots health conditions ineligible for disability benefits. So they get unemployment benefit. And Unemployment benefit will end if someone turns down two job offers or after 4 months. So it is not stamps or vouchers it is destitution. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Bern400 You are correct it will be Stamps or Vouchers like in the USA.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Bern400 Then we must make sure they DONT! No matter what 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    In other news the government has backtracked on it's promise to MPs that Timms PIP review changes to PIP will only be done through primary legislation, with MPs able to debate and vote. Timms has now stated that Timms PIP review changes to PIP maybe laid as a negative, or positive, statutory instrument, or as a bill.

    Parliamentary written question UIN 3041
    https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-05-19/3041/


    The government some time ago already backtracked on it's promise to MPs that Timms PIP review changes would only be for new PIP claimants with existing PIP claimants staying under the current system.

    So it looks like the government is considering in autumn 2026 making changes to existing PIP claimant's eligibility or award amounts. And that those changes maybe done via statutory instruments with no debate in Parliament and a vote only if Parliament objects to the changes. It is very rare for statutory instruments to be stopped by Parliament. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @John So basically it's a stitch up?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Minxycat The government went from in July 2025 promising MPs that the Timms review would only apply to new claimants, with pre-existing claimants remaining under the old system. To by at least as early as November 2025 backtracking on that promise. When for example in written parliamentary question UIN 90031 asked could existing PIP claimants have their support reduced following changes implemented in response to the Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment? Answering it will be for the Timms Review steering group to set the Review’s strategic direction and agree its recommendations. We will not pre-empt the Review’s decisions. With both the earlier promise and latter statement both made to MPs by Timms who is in charge of the Timms Review and will co-chair the steering group.

      We know the Timms review has the aim of refocusing PIP on the most severely disabled to reduce future forecast PIP expenditure to both make PIP sustainable for the future and bring forecast DWP spending down to hit the OBR DWP spending forecast. The OBR forecast in question I believe is the one that had the earlier Conservative cuts that were proposed but not enacted factored in to it. So the Timms review has assumed cuts to future DWP spending vs keeping the current system.

      We know the PIP cuts they want to make are substantial. The Labour government originally wanted to introduce a 4 point PIP rule and then have the Timms Review further reduce eligibility or award levels. And that they wanted to apply both changes to all claimants existing and new.

      We know various influential think tanks have proposed reducing PIP or UC health for anxiety, depression, ADHD and Autism or for all "mild" or "fluctuating" health conditions or for all mental health conditions and neurological conditions except severe mental illnesses and intellectual disability.

      We do not know what exactly the Timms Review will recommend and what concessions they will have to make to get any changes through Parliament. But, Timms now backtracking on the promise that any changes would be done through primary legislation with debates and votes in Parliament does not bode well. As it is very rare for statutory instruments to be stopped by Parliament.

      So overall I think there is evidence to think it is highly likely the Timms Review is considering reducing eligibility or award levels (be that the amount of PIP or if PIP daily living does or does not give eligibility to UC health for some conditions) for existing and new claimants deemed "less severely" disabled. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @chips and gravy As long as I don't get spin dizzy?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @John considering whether PIP eligibility rules should change in the future, but there is currently no evidence that it has decided to reduce existing claimants’ PIP rates or entitlement.

      A few key facts:

      * The government has launched the Timms Review, which is looking at PIP assessment criteria and whether the system is “fair and fit for the future.” The review reports in autumn 2026.
      * The government has repeatedly said that changes to PIP eligibility will be considered after that review reports.
      * Earlier proposals to tighten eligibility (the controversial “4-point rule”) were withdrawn, and the government said it would only consider eligibility changes following the review.
      * Current PIP payment rates have not been reduced; they have continued to be uprated.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Neil (real one) @Neil(real one) not making any plans until I know for sure all this worry rumor and hear say isn’t helping I would imagine If pip gets means tested and linked to work and conditionally then their would be a health and work conversation that would start off say every 12 months just like John said it can just be courses i did the wrag group for 13 years so you can spin them along as well if you know what to say 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    This is no surprise at all, they are so desperate for staff they'd probably give Shipmans CV the  once over. Anyone whose been presented with a report that doesn't even show any resemblance to there own self and illness knows (nothing happens), even when the report is packed full of actual blatant lies, the only people who suffer is the claimants, who if theyre lucky just lose part...... not all of there pip. Assessors actually realise if they take the full entitlement then the claimants will appeal and generally win, as a report full of lies and inconsistency will go to appeal, yet no consequences for the assessors and the private companies have zero consequences either so maybe it's not a mistake they reduce the awards by the back door.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @chips and gravy Hi Chips and Gravy i,m really sorry you experience these issues at your Esa assessment. Unfortunately most benefit claimants have awful stories of treatment they've received whilst these so call assessments happen. some are dreadful and if written they could be nominated for a Oscar, but zero consequence happen, maybe this is part of the deal the private companies have with the Government. Most parties think it ok to blame and shame Disabled and some of the most vulnerable in society .  I don't know which Political party is best for vulnerable disabled folks, however any party that actively sets the general public against us, is not who disabled people should be backing. They may not like us or respect us but (we all have a vote) and when our benefits/livelihoods are on the line we should (fact check every statement)and chose very carefully who we give our votes to, some are only immigration fueled, this won't power your wheelchair or put electricity on the meter. I wish everyone well but I hope everyone thinks long term.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Fi @Fi when I had my last wca for esa which was in 2017 I was told by the assesser that the police had been called and was waiting at the medical centre entrance for me yet when I left their was no one their so they even lied about that 
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.