Page 39 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making

with the decision. This would improve transparency and make it clear to
claimants the basis upon which their entitlement was decided. It would also
help claimants decide whether to challenge the decision and what further
90
evidence would be required to do so.

2.34 The DWP has previously rejected this suggestion on the basis that it would be
too challenging and costly. However, we are not convinced by this
91
argument. First, as Paul Gray has pointed out, the costs of not providing it—in
92
terms of claimant trust and transparency—are “very considerable”. Second,
the DWP has just set up an advanced and complex digital benefits system in
Universal Credit. It seems rather one-sided that the Department’s investment
in technology does not also allow it to carry out what appear to be relatively
simple automated tasks that would benefit claimants (this inequality in
automation and digitisation is discussed further at paragraph 2.84 below).

2.35 When claimants do see their assessment report, they frequently find that it
does not reflect what they told the assessor during the assessment. Reports
have been found to contain fundamental factual errors, such as referring to the
93
wrong claimant, the results of physical examination that never took place, or
stating things that happened during the assessment that did not happen.
Conversely things that claimants mentioned during the assessment are often

90 SSAC, Decision making and mandatory reconsideration (see n. 12 above) p.53-54; P. Gray, The
Second Independent Review of the Personal Independence Payment Assessment (see n. 14 above) para
21; Work and Pensions Committee, PIP and ESA assessments: Seventh Report (see n. 11 above) para
55.
91 DWP, Government’s response to the Second Independent Review of the Personal Independence
Payment (Cm 9540, 2017) pp.12–13.
92 P. Gray, ‘Work and Pensions Committee Oral evidence: PIP and ESA assessments, HC 340’ (2017),
Q349
93 Work and Pensions Committee, PIP and ESA assessments: Seventh Report (see n. 11 above) para 40;
B. Geiger, A Better WCA is possible (see n. 58 above) p. 38; H. Kemp-Welch, ‘The Right to Record’
(2020); The MS Society asked people who saw the full report of their assessment whether they think it
gave an accurate reflection of how their MS affects them. 61% answered with a resounding ‘no’ and
25% said it did, to some extent, meaning the report still had some inaccuracies or omissions. Only 12%
said the report definitely gave an accurate reflection of how their MS affects them: R. Erez, PIP fails:
how the PIP process betrays people with MS (MS Society, 2019). 66 per cent of respondents to Z2K’s
‘#PeopleBeforeProcess’ felt that the assessment report did not reflect what they had told the assessor in
the assessment (see n. 57 above).

30