Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Atos PIP assessement appointments / venues (again)
My colleague rang ATOS on behalf of the client who had been asked to go to Southampton and the same thing happened as some of you have experienced- client was offered an appointment at the Reading venue for an earlier date than the Southampton appointment. We’re certain it’s a deliberate policy.
DWP recently told a colleague that they keep a certain number of appointments free for urgent (possibly “special rules”) cases.
I wonder if these are the appointments that are being offered at short notice in other cases, when they find that they don’t have as many urgent cases as they expected?
@Fran, I wouldn’t have thought appointment slots are kept for special rules cases as, where the person qualifies under that route, there is no need to assess. If the DS1500 is refused, it might be. If life expectancy is a factor, Atos may expedite appointments. I should think some appointment slots are kept free to give flexibility. Also, people will cancel appointments or appointments will be rearranged for other reasons, possibly at short notice.
@Fran, I wouldn’t have thought appointment slots are kept for special rules cases as, where the person qualifies under that route, there is no need to assess.
If the claimant is also claiming the mobility component they may need to be assessed face to face.
@Peter, yes, quite right. I haven’t come across a case where it happens, though. Affirmation of need has been sufficient in the cases I’ve come across, but it has been some time since I did a special rules application, so things might have changed.
Seeing more and more out of area PIP appointments, mainly over the border in Carlisle a journey that could not be done in 90 minutes.
ATOS have offered a taxi from home to railway and from railway to assessment centre which would bring it within 90 minutes but I would not have thought a taxi was counted as public transport and a waste of money sending people 35 miles away?
[ Edited: 20 Feb 2015 at 02:04 pm by bigbill ]We are seeing some of these, too.
My client lives in W12, was offered appointment in Deptford which she thought was too far (MH problems, recent hospital admission for that reason). Support worker phones ATOS to request West London appointment, explaining SE8 too far for client. Client now receives other appointment in Chelmsford for a Saturday (when support worker cannot attend). ATOS says they cannot change appointment 2nd time and claimant is expected to travel up to 60 miles. Support worker has made telephone complaint to DCS and expecting call back from them.
One of the colleagues had the same thing for someone with a caring responsibilities, they were told that file will be returned to DCS, and they only alternative would be requesting a home visit.
As far as we know the West London venue still exists, but there is supposed to be a backlog.
Is this 90 minutes (or 60 miles?) & 2 appointments thing actually something provided for in legislation, or is this something in the ATOS contract?
We are seeing some of these, too.
My client lives in W12, was offered appointment in Deptford which she thought was too far (MH problems, recent hospital admission for that reason). Support worker phones ATOS to request West London appointment, explaining SE8 too far for client. Client now receives other appointment in Chelmsford for a Saturday (when support worker cannot attend). ATOS says they cannot change appointment 2nd time and claimant is expected to travel up to 60 miles. Support worker has made telephone complaint to DCS and expecting call back from them.
One of the colleagues had the same thing for someone with a caring responsibilities, they were told that file will be returned to DCS, and they only alternative would be requesting a home visit.
As far as we know the West London venue still exists, but there is supposed to be a backlog.
Is this 90 minutes (or 60 miles?) & 2 appointments thing actually something provided for in legislation, or is this something in the ATOS contract?
It was a Ministerial statement made on 13/11/13 reported in Rightsnet (perhaps someone could create the link for me!).