The most widely reported concerns included:
 Whether all assessors had requisite knowledge of and/or specialist training in ‘hidden’
medical conditions (mental health conditions, or of those with multiple complex needs).
 Assessors sometimes displaying a lack empathy towards applicants and the impacts of
their conditions, which on occasion led to overly intrusive lines of questioning.
 Some assessors being dismissive of advocates and their role in supporting applicants.
 A failure to provide reasonable adjustments where these were warranted i.e. reports of
home visit requests being routinely turned down and applicants being notified of last
minute cancellations of their appointments.
 Reports which contained factual inaccuracies, and/or which bore little semblance to the
applicant’s or their advocate’s own experience of the interview. We were also told that
evidence appeared to be wrongly applied by some assessors.
 Whether the mandatory reconsideration stage serves a valid purpose? We heard a
number of examples where decisions to refuse an award of PIP or ESA (or award a
higher rate of payment) were upheld at this stage, but then went on to overturned at

Find the full report here

Responsive website designed & developed by