PIP descriptors

worried33 said:

The aids were provided via a occupational therapist, I also have regular safety checks on the bath lift from the company, I will get proof of this, thanks for the warning.

So do I. They check the chair about once a year. All of my equipment came via Social Services. However even that being the case the assessor and agreed by the DWP that the aids I have were not based on need but on choice. Their opinion regarding the bath chair for example was that I am able to get into and out of an un-adapted bath as evidenced by the MSE carried out at the assessment centre - legs and arms were fully functional with sufficient strength being observed which is quite true. What was never tested was my back and hips which I cannot prove to be the root cause of my difficulties.

worried33 said:

Well if they decide to be that awkward I will most definitely take silly points like that to tribunal, I mean any awkward assessor could rule that every single person in theory has aids by choice, I mean you can choose to not have a bath right and as such not have the aids, this just seems a silly and petty way to deny people benefits.

So if you consider I can choose to not have a bath, I suppose it could be considered its by choice.

That's not what the assessor said.
There was no dispute that the aids exist, the assessor agreed with that. But, they didn't believe that I cannot get into and out of an unadapted bath. They reported that there was nothing wrong with my legs and arms so no reason why I need that aid. To put it simply the bath aid was provided because it made things easier for me to have it - it was a choice not a physical necessity.

cristobal said:

Why should they?

For quality control. How can they check to see whether the assessor is good/bad, what their interview technique is like, whether they need further training, if they don't have a recording of the interview?

If you are seriously suggesting that assessors are recorded at every assessment I doubt that many would want to work under those conditions. There has to be trust between employer and employee.
 

cristobal said:

@yadnad ..going slightly off-topic here for which I apologise...

It is a serious suggestion, based on my experience in a previous employment where on occasions I had to QC interviews.
When you say "under those conditions" you'll find that most people nowadays aren't bothered about being tape recorded - it's just the modern way and not a question of trust at all. Monitoring happens in a lot of jobs.

Prior to tape recording the only other option was to sit in on the interview...

For a start, the ESA assessments were only available to be recorded for the benefit of the claimant - it was never the case that it was used to QC the interviewer. The argument being put forward here is that the recording of assessments is being suggested to control in some way what the assessor does. Are we actually wanting the assessment to be recorded and then audited only to make sure that the assessor does their job properly? If that is the case where is the autonomous position? The assessor much like the DWP decision maker will not be able to form opinion or assumption on anything.

My last posting within the Civil Service was to the Official Receiver's office as an examiner.

At no time was it ever suggested that whilst interviewing individuals my position was subject to QC. Nothing was ever recorded - and still isn't to this day as I worked under the Perjury Act. My report was my report - I recorded what I believed was said and as such I could never be challenged on a QC basis. In fact it was prima facia evidence and as such was the backbone of any court proceedings as I had the individual sign every sheet of the written statement stating that the contents were the whole truth.

If it was suggested that I had to be watched, listened to then you might as well have employed somebody less senior - my job was to extract the truth in a legal manner and record what I believed was being said.

As in the case of a PIP assessment 90% of what is recorded by the assessor will be assumption based on what has been said, medical knowledge and intuition. If you want to go the whole hog and carry out a full investigation in order to avoid assumptions then the claimant should be made aware that interviews lasting 4+ hours would not be unusual. My longest was 6 hours without a break until I had the truth.

The recording for QC purposes of an assessor would and should never happen - you will be taking away the very real reason why they are employed in the first place.