Strange errors on PIP Assessment report

Hi all,

I requested my PIP Assessment report following my assessment a few weeks ago. There are, ofcourse, things I want to clarify with them, and I thought I would need to do this if I need to do a mandatory reconsideration. A couple of mistakes, though, are quite strange, such as:

I explained that my PA was with me. They asked who they were, and I explained they were my Access To Work Job Aide, but I have also employed them to help with social communication. They wrote on my report that she is a friend and 'Ex-partner'. They asked me in the assessment whether my award was unsuccessful last time, as they could see from my previous report. I explained that I had previously been awarded zero points, but this was raised to standard elements for both parts. Throughout the report, however, the main justification for descriptor choice was a zero score on my previous PIP report. I don't understand how this could be considered evidence if it was overturned.

There are other areas of inconsistency, but the above issues occur throughout. What I would like to ask is whether I should write to the assessment centre or the DWP to outline these issues with the assessment before my award is processed or wait until after?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Hi Gary, personally I would send in a letter addressed to 'The Decision maker' at the last address the DWP wrote to you from. In the letter explain as you did here about the completely wrong statement made about your paid support worker being your ex- partner. Use the phrase, 'this shows that the assessment is not fit for purpose'.

How crass and insulting to both you and a professional who works for you, to assume that she had been your "partner", perhaps just because she is female and you are male. And obviously someone who helps you with social communication regularly is going to come across as a kind of friend. It is simply not good enough or acceptable: remember, 'not fit for purpose '!
Please get the letter in ASAP in the hope it reaches them before they take any decision based on such a flawed report.