If There’s Criteria How Does This Happen?

calcotti

WhenIam64 wrote: »

Coming back to the OP's question, in any legal process i.e. a Tribunal, it is always 50/50 going into one.

In the case of a tribunal it’s statistically more like 75/25 in favour of the claimant. It is striking also that there are PIP claimants who get zero points awarded by DWP but can get a maximum (enhanced rate both) award at tribunal. This degree of difference goes beyond what you would expect from the exercise of discretion.

Although many of the comments are focused on the DWP DM their decision making would clearly be better if the health assessment reports were better. Although they should only be one element of the decision making it is not surprising that DMs do rely substantially on these reports. However at best these can only be a snapshot and all to often they include unsubstantiated extrapolations about what can be expected based on what is observed.in particular the reports invariably have no regard, in the case of PIP, to the underlying test of being able to carry out the prescribed activities reliably.

Alice_Holt

WhenIam64 wrote: »

Coming back to the OP's question, in any legal process i.e. a Tribunal, it is always 50/50 going into one.
One bit of advice given to me early on was never let a judge or tribunal make the decision for you.

As someone who helps local CAB clients through the appeal process, I have to disagree with this observation.

a) The tribunal panel are much more thorough than an ATOS / IAS / Capita assessor. They will listen very carefully to the claimant (again unlike many assessors). They then have to justify that decision in legal terms if a statement of reasons is requested, a tribunal's S of R is much more sensible and cogent than a DWP DM trying to uphold a flawed assessment.

b) As clacotti says currently PIP success rates at appeal are 75% (or so) not 50%. Indeed my colleague has had 100% of their client's appeals succeed at tribunal. For many claimants proceeding to an independent tribunal is the only way to get a flawed DWP decision overturned.

WhenIam64

I'm not going to disagree with you on the success rate. What I was trying to point out is Tribunals are 50/50. They are also slow and they are also stressful.

The good news is that these cases are actually dropping in number URL="[url]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830965/Tribunal_and_GRC_statistics_Q1_201920.pdf[/url]"]link[/URL. Perhaps because DM's are paying more attention when having to prepare paperwork for a Tribunal.

SSCS tribunal receipts decreased by 14% this quarter to 44,000 appeals, when compared to April to June 2018. This was driven by Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payments (PIP), which have decreased by 35% and 15% respectively, compared with a year ago.

Margaret_Skinner

Robbie64 wrote: »

What amount of training do new staff get these days? I joined what was then the DHSS in October 1985 and my training in Supplementary Benefit didn't end until the end of January 1986. As I was an Adjudication Officer (basically the then equivalent of a Decision Maker) I then had a further 4 weeks training in decision making. My first job was as a Visiting Officer so there was another lot of training there too. By the time I'd finished my training I knew how to work out a benefit claim without the need to consult the Adjudication Officers Guide/ And it was all done with paper (an A14 form I think it was), pen and calculator.


When I phone the DWP these days about my ESA it is hit and miss who I get. Sometimes the person is very knowledgeable but there have been times when I've spoken to someone who could be the cleaner for all they know. Maybe training in my day was more intense as you were expected to know everything to assess a claim by pen and paper. Maybe the computer does all the thinking these days. And when I eventually moved to become a supervisor on a benefit section - by this point Income Support had replaced SuppBen - I made sure the knowledge of my staff was up to scratch too. I didn't like it if any of my staff gave wrong information to claimants. Accuracy was always most important even though as a London office we were snowed under with work and each section had to answer calls too, there was no call centres back then. It was hectic but I rarely had to refer a case back to any of my staff to correct an error.

I suspect there aren’t many of your kind around nowadays unfortunately! In 5 years of dealing with them the lovely guy I spoke to the other week was the first one who appeared ‘human’ in all that time - in fact I was beginning to wonder if I’d dreamt the phone call - until I saw the back pay in my account!:j