Skip to content
Advertisements

Did You Feel Pressured To Give Good Feedback On A PIP Or ESA Assessor?

February 26, 2018

With many thanks to Benefits And Work.

In recent reports on PIP and ESA assessments, the Commons Work and Pensions committee have been highly critical of private sector providers, but have also noted that ‘The PIP and ESA assessment processes function satisfactorily for the majority of claimants’.

This conclusion is based on figures provided by the DWP:

“In 2015/16, 76% of PIP claimants and 83% of ESA claimants surveyed were satisfied with the service they received from the DWP. All three contracted providers “consistently exceed” their customer satisfaction targets of 90% for PIP and 91% for ESA.”

However, one Benefits and Work member contacted us to say:

“After I left the examining room the assessor handed me a piece of paper and a pen. I had to mark if the process had been easier than expected, or less than satisfactory and so on. She leaned over the front of my buggy so that she could see what I was writing and my signature. She hadn’t yet processed my report so I was a very good girl and gave the nice lady the top score!”

We stress that this is the first time anyone has alleged to us that the collection of feedback by private sector assessors is anything other than entirely above board and we do not have any other supporting evidence.

But clearly, very few claimants would risk giving negative feedback if they knew that the assessor could read it before even completing their report on the claimant.

Such feedback would be of no value whatsoever and the action of an assessor in reading feedback even as it was being written could fairly be described as intimidatory.

Benefits and Work would be very interested to hear from readers about whether you were asked to give feedback and, if so, were you able to be certain that the document was confidential and wouldn’t be seen by your assessor?

Because, if the Work and Pensions Committee have been relying on statistics that are demonstrably untrustworthy, then they should know that.

You can comment below this article or email us at tech@benefitsandwork.co.uk We may quote from your email in a future article but we will not under any circumstances disclose your identity.

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. jeffrey davies permalink
    February 26, 2018 5:57 am

    they having ahttps. ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eN3fxzn0ro

  2. jeffrey davies permalink
    February 26, 2018 5:58 am

    they having laugh

  3. February 26, 2018 6:43 am

    >”Because, if the Work and Pensions Committee have been relying on statistics that are demonstrably untrustworthy, then they should know that.”

    Fraud Act 2006 –
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents
    Fraud by false representation
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

    Misconduct in Public Office –
    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
    (Meaning of Public Function) Human Rights Act 1998 –
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/045/08045.i-i.html

    No change there then. Where are the police?
    How come ‘Benefits And Work’ still don’t know about Fraud or the ‘Police’?

  4. mary permalink
    February 26, 2018 12:45 pm

    Dear Benefits and Work VIP re I think s cover up is happening.

    (& same difference)

    Reference:

    ***** The Reports by the WPSC Reports from the Inquiry with specific reference to the following

    Conclusions and recommendations Page 48

    48 PIP and ESA assessments Conclusions and recommendations The importance of trust 1. ****For most claimants, PIP and ESA assessments go smoothly. ****

    I looked at around 350 to 400 I guess of the published submissions from both organisations and as they were in the main individuals : At a good guess I would think I say maybe 12 maximum that said things went smoothly: with m ore like 95 % plus have issues being treated wrongly poorly and failing to get the benefits in the main I am ref. to PIP her . MY Q here please is ” How on earth/ Or why has the Committee taken the totally opposite view? When the clear evidence is staring them right clearly fully in the face?

    I am not denying that some of the wpsc recommendations are not useful and good ( I suspect Govt DWP will ignore anyway) However I am totally unable to see comprehend how the WPSC came to the conclusion as they have stated re the majority proceeding smoothly and so on

    this is absolutely not my or the finding amongst numbers of disabled persons I await B+W / Same Difference your favourable assistance and please without naming me thank you use the facts I have both seen and from person I have spoken with and so forth thank you

    ________________________________

    • February 27, 2018 1:18 pm

      Yes Mary, a total cover up…

      UKparliamentCriminal-02
      .
      Here is the video they ignored –

      .
      .
      benefitsandwork – Who we are –
      https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/about-ushttps://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/about-us

      “Holiday Whitehead –
      Holiday began her working life as an ancillary worker in an NHS hospital, where she became involved in trade union work for NUPE (now part of UNISON). Following a diploma course at Ruskin College, Oxford sponsored by the TUC and her trade union, ”
      .
      A lot of WCA quacks are members of UNISON :/
      .
      RCNunison1

      .
      At least Same Difference is fab enough to not delete comments like this.. unlike most other places claiming to be on disabled peoples side.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: