Page 38 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)

anxious. If assessors intend to rely on informal observations, they should
88
tell the claimants and give them an opportunity to explain why these may
89
not necessarily be an accurate reflection of their condition.

2.30 In order to address these evidential issues, we recommend that assessment
reports and decision letters should:

a) Respond to all the evidence provided by the claimant or obtained by
the HCP/decision-maker. This should include explaining why certain
evidence is being given less weight or not being relied upon.
b) Where a claimant’s own account of their impairment is rejected,
there should be a strong evidential basis for doing so which should
be fully explained.
c) Explicitly address conflicts between evidence.

2.31 This will not only provide greater transparency for claimants, but it will also
enhance the quality of decision making by requiring the HCP/decision-maker
to turn their mind to all the evidence and give proper weight to the claimant’s
own account of their own condition and how it impacts their lives.

Inaccuracies in the assessment report

2.32 Currently claimants do not automatically receive a copy of the assessment
report unless they appeal to the FTT (SCCS). A copy can be requested prior to
appeal, but claimants do not often realise this.

2.33 We agree with Paul Gray (the Independent Reviewer of PIP assessments), the
SSAC and the Work and Pensions Select committee that a copy of the
assessment report should automatically be provided to the claimant along
with the decision. This would improve transparency and make it clear to
claimants the basis upon which their entitlement was decided. It would also

88 Work and Pensions Committee, PIP and ESA assessments: claimant experiences (see n. 11 above)
para 16; Z2K, #PeopleBeforeProcess (see n. 57 above) p. 3.
89 This echoes Ben Geiger’s recommendation that claimants should be able to see and comment on the
first part of the assessment report, including any informal observations (B. Geiger, A Better WCA is
Possible (see n. 58 above), p.42).

29