Independent Assessment Services

3. Mr H complains that the IAS failed to provide CCTV footage he requested from his PIP assessment on 26 January 2017. He says that as a result, he was unable to prove that information regarding his mobility, in the PIP assessment report, was incorrect. He says this meant he was not awarded the mobility component of PIP so suffered financial loss. Mr H says he was unable to pay his mortgage and had to move home. He also lost his Motability scheme car and had to borrow money to replace it.

4. Mr H seeks an acknowledgement of errors and significant financial compensation

Administrative background

5. PIP is a benefit from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that helps individuals with some of the costs arising from ill health or disability. The DWP started moving claimants over to PIP when it replaced the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in 2013. PIP is made up of separate daily living and mobility components with a standard rate, or enhanced rate for those with greater needs. DLA was also made up of a mobility component and care component, with lower and higher rates depending on the support an individual needed.

6. PIP entitlement is based on how the person’s condition affects them, not on the condition(s) they have meaning that claimants must undergo an assessment. This is carried out by a healthcare professional who works for a separate organisation, such as the IAS, but they compile a report for the DWP. It is then up to the DWP to decide whether the claimant is eligible to receive PIP or not.

Background

7. Mr H was in receipt of the higher rate of DLA for both the mobility and care components. But his claim was due to end on 4 April 2017, so he had to make a claim for PIP, which he did in 2016.

8. Mr H noted in his claim that he walked with crutches and had constant pain in his legs. He said he had mobility difficulties, arthritis in his hips and knees, and could not walk upstairs, among other things.

9. The DWP passed the information onto the IAS. They decided that a face-to-face assessment was required with Mr H, and this was scheduled at an assessment centre for 26 January 2017.

10. During the assessment, the healthcare professional noted that Mr H walked 24 metres, with aids, to the meeting room and then stopped to rest. They sent this report to DWP.

11. On 3 March DWP decided that Mr H was entitled to the standard rate mobility component of PIP. He did not qualify for the daily living component.

12. On 13 March Mr H complained to IAS about the content of the report it sent to DWP. He said he walked 24 metres but had to stop during the walk. He requested CCTV footage from the assessment centre.

13. The IAS reviewed the CCTV footage on 27 March and confirmed that Mr H had stopped during the walk to the meeting room, but due to the angle of the camera it could not say how many times he stopped.

14. On 28 June Mr H contacted DWP and reported that his condition had deteriorated significantly since the end of January. He said his mobility was worse to the point he could barely walk, and he had no grip, among other things.

15. The DWP referred the case back to the IAS and it scheduled an assessment for 10 August. In the meantime, Mr H was chasing the IAS for a response to his complaint dated 13 March.

16. On 15 August, the IAS completed the PIP assessment report and noted how Mr H’s condition had deteriorated significantly.

17. On 22 August, DWP decided that Mr H was entitled to PIP at the enhanced rate for the daily living and mobility components from 5 April 2017. This was the day after his DLA was due to end, and he was backdated arrears.

18. The IAS responded to Mr H’s complaint on 27 August but did not provide the CCTV footage he requested. They noted he stopped during his walk to the meeting room.

19. Mr H contacted the IAS again and asked for the CCTV footage he requested. He asked for the footage again on 11 October.

20. On 16 October, IAS told Mr H the footage was no longer available, but it did provide CCTV footage from the later assessment he participated in. On 13 December, IAS wrote to Mr H and apologised that it did not provide the CCTV footage he requested, even though it was available at the time of his initial request.

21. Mr H complained to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE), who reiterated that the IAS should have given Mr H the footage, but said that ultimately, it was up to the DWP to make a decision as to whether he was eligible for PIP.

24. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see indications of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.

25. Having done this, we agree that the IAS should have given Mr H the CCTV footage he requested. The IAS has acknowledged this in response to Mr H’s complaint and apologised. It also gave him £100 in financial compensation.

26. We have considered how Mr H was affected by what happened. He told us that the CCTV footage proved that part of the PIP assessment report, about him walking 24 metres without stopping, was incorrect. He added that if he was able to demonstrate this it would have shown the decision not to award him the mobility component of PIP was incorrect.

27. We obtained a copy the assessment report and it noted that Mr H, ‘stood up aided and walked a distance of 24 metres, stopped to rest before continuing to the consultation room’. As such, the report reinforces what Mr H told us about the walk to the meeting room. The CCTV footage that IAS reviewed also reinforces the contents of the report, so it seems the healthcare professional documented what happened during the walk.

28. As such, we do not believe that Mr H not having a copy of the CCTV footage affected him in the way he believes, as there was nothing in the report (regarding the walk) that he needed to prove was incorrect. It was already correctly recorded.

29. It is also important to note that the assessment report is made up of several different descriptors, as per DWP’s guidance.

30. Some descriptors apply to the daily living component of PIP, and others apply to the mobility component. The aspect of the report being disputed here falls under a descriptor about mobility, for which a healthcare professional needs to select an option. The option chosen stated that Mr H could stand and then move, using an aid or appliance, for between 20 and 50 metres. That appears correct and accurate as that is what Mr H did. We asked the DWP whether somebody stopping during the walk would make a difference to the descriptor a healthcare professional should select. The DWP reinforced the fact that the descriptor is based on the distance travelled and that this is what affects the score, and award, for PIP. As such, Mr H stopping during the walk makes no difference.

1. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about the Independent Assessment Service (IAS). We have seen that, while things did go wrong, they did not affect Mr H in the way he believes. We were sorry to hear about the circumstances of the complaint and the distress the situation caused Mr H.

2. The IAS should have given Mr H the CCTV footage he requested. However, the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment report appears to be consistent with the footage. This means that even if Mr H did get a copy of the recording, he could not have used it to show inconsistencies in the report, as he wished to.