Page 42 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)
P. 42

as opposed to audio-recorded, and we would therefore not support an “opt-
               out” system for video recording.

          Role of DWP decision-makers

          2.41  Following assessment by the HCPs it still remains the responsibility of the
               DWP/DfC’s decision-makers to take the final decision on the entitlement. The
               DWP told us that decision-makers are encouraged to review and consider all
               the available evidence,  proactively contact claimants to gather additional
               evidence and interrogate departmental IT systems to ensure all the claimant’s
               circumstances have been taken into account. In addition, we were told that
               cases  can also  be referred  back to  the  assessment provider  for advice or
               rework where a decision-maker is unsatisfied with the quality of the report.

          2.42  However, benefits advisors we spoke to felt that there was an overreliance on
               the assessment report, regardless of its quality. This may be partly because
               decision-makers regard the HCPs as the ‘experts’ given their qualifications
               and the fact that they have directly observed the claimant. 101  We also note that
               a third of PIP decisions that are overturned on appeal are overturned because
               the Tribunal reached a different conclusion on substantially the same facts.
               This indicates that evidence is not being properly interrogated at the initial
                                    102
               decision-making stage.

          2.43  Given the issues with the quality and accuracy of the assessments outlined in
               this Report, in addition to ensuring that the decision letters address the things
               set out  at paragraph  2.29  above,  decision-makers should  address
               contradictions between the HCP report  and other evidence and  not
               merely  repeat extracts  or summaries of  the assessment report. They
               should express their own view, based on their own reasoning.



          101  This was flagged back in 2017 in the Second Independent Review of PIP – it continues to appear to
          be the case (P. Gray,  The Second Independent Review of the Personal Independence Payment
          Assessment (see n. 14 above) para 19).
          102  In 2019/20 in 32 per cent of successful PIP appeals, the primary reason given was that the Tribunal
          reached a different  conclusion  on substantially the same facts. (DWP, ‘Response to Freedom of
          Information Request FOI2021_38176’ (8 June 2021)).


          33
   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47