PIP Health Assessment Not Fit For Purpose - Second one now conducted, but MR decision received.

Hi,

Currently supporting someone with their PIP claim - It’s an odd one because I haven’t come across it before - Claimant complained about his health assessment which IAS upheld and offered a new assessment. Was previously award SR DL & Mob.

07 April 2023 - First Health Assessment Conducted.
15 April 2023 - Complaint lodged to IAS - Health assessment was considered not Fit for purpose and offered a new appointment.
26 April 2023 - Initial Decision received. (Refusal)
09 May 2023 - Mandatory Reconsideration Submitted by telephone, further evidence sent by post.
12 June 2023 - Second Health Assessment
16 June 2023 - Mandatory Reconsideration decision - still refusal.

I am just wanting clarification on whether an initial decision should have been made on a health assessment that was later considered not fit for purpose or should the decision have been redacted until new assessment completed? I just wanted to know before I advise the claimant to lodge an appeal.

DWP phone line have told me and claimant different things including that he should have been paid to 16 June 2023 rather than 26 April 2023.

Any one have any experience of this and able to point me in the right direction.
Many thanks in advance.

I’ve had clients have complaints upheld and no new report but extra points recommended. Lots of clients want to lodge complaints but the only ones I encourage are those where extra points are screamingly obvious on the evidence. Each case turns on its own facts though. You’re dealing with two different organisations and joined up thinking is not the phrase which springs to mind.

It ought not to be the case but it often depends on who decided the initial report needed to be reworked. If DWP sent it back then, yes, a pause is likely. If IAS picked it up then the decision making process may already be taking place regardless and any comms. from IAS to DWP may or may not be sufficiently timely. Your timeline suggests an eleven days gap. Theoretically more than enough time to stop an initial decision being made but… possibly not.

Either way, at this point, it’s moot. The decision was made and an MR was done. Personally I’d have held back on the latter until the second report was done but, again, it’s done now so it is what it is. Bear in mind that MR doesn’t exist as such in law. You’re talking about an any reason revision. Nothing to stop an any time revision going in as far as I’m concerned based on, presumably, the fact that the second report is “better” and the DM would likely have been operating in ignorance of it?