PIP assessors (Atos) telling ESA claimants they will ‘make recommendation not to reassess within year’

2 colleagues have recently told me that on 2 separate occasions, clients have, at a PIP assessment, been told by the assessor (Atos in our area) that they will make a recommendation that their ESA is not reassessed for another year.

This surprised me and I had not heard of it happening before. Has anyone else come across this?

In my colleagues’ cases, PIP was awarded and there are not necessarily concerns that ESA would be negatively impacted.

My concern is that if this is happening, other claimants could potentially be negatively impacted…? I don’t understand under what mechanism this is/could actually take place and whether this is something being reported back to DWP etc.

This goes against everything i was told by the DWP.

I was told that ESA is a work test and PIP was a test for mobility and care needs.

There will be no more “we made our decision to disallow DLA (pip) using your ESA50 as evidence” as it will be a different part of Atos, or so i was told.
(one wag joked that we now have a “good” atos and a “bad” atos)

I was told different administration/assessment centres/examiners and there would be no crossover whatsoever regarding the separate benefits.

I hope your clients got their benefits mixed up

On form PA4 (HCP advice to DM) at page 20 is a box where HCP recommends when the case should be reviewed.

Presumably this is used by DM to determine the length of the award (if any) and therefore when a renewal claim pack will be issued.

Perhaps Atos PIP HCP’s are just assuming their is a link between any ESA HCP recommendation on ESA85 and the PIP recommendation on PA4?

Completely agree with you benefitsadviser - given the disparity between the applicable ESA/PIP tests, the different computer software used and the apparent division between DBC and JCP within the DWP - I don’t see how or why this would be happening.

Peter Turville - 15 October 2014 01:45 PM

Perhaps Atos PIP HCP’s are just assuming their is a link between any ESA HCP recommendation on ESA85 and the PIP recommendation on PA4?

Hopefully it is not more than a training need like this.

Thanks to both for your input - will chase the issue with DWP/Atos and report back if they suggest otherwise.

watch this space :)

Interesting times. Tribunals can make ESA re-test recommendations but these are rarely transmitted to ATOS et al to enact so are of little relevance. I’ve started to come across some people being told by ATOS their ESA won’t be reassessed for 2/3 years and this information has now started to pop up on JC+ computers such that personal advisers are telling people categorically things like “You’re okay. You’re going to be on ESA until at least 2016”. How unfortunate that said claimants are in fact in the WRAG and on contributory ESA and part of a couple where the partner has an income that will ensure no means-tested ESA will be paid at the end of 12 months.

Now we can add into the mix advice from PIP on same. To some extent I have no problem with this. It’s a potentially useful thing to have the left hand aware of what the right hand believes to be the case. On the other hand (I know, too many hands, but it fits the narrative!)...

The harsh reality is that ESA assessors have been trained to do snapshots so they’re rarely interested in the concept that the snapshot in 1 years time is going to be the same in 3. PIP assessors should take a longer view and, if that is then communicated to, and acted upon, by ESA then I don’t really have an inclination to be too troubled by that.

I have asserted on here many times that the long view has to be that in terms of practicality and cost saving there is an inevitability to the fact PIP activities will be slashed post election and PIP and ESA medicals will eventually be amalgamated. In that context this is neither a surprise nor necessarily unwelcome. Of course the other side of this is that such synchronisation will lead to PIP and ESA being reviewed simultaneously thus doubling stress levels for claimants.