Capita complaint. Can I use this as part of appeal

I complained to capita about my PIP assessment and several points were made in the reply which I think might be useful to my appeal. Should I include these points please?

1. Says the report took so long to be written up because it went through the audit process (rolling audit). Then “there are occasions, although rare, where an assessment report doesn’t not meet our high standards.....My review has revealed that the report was put through a quality check on 8/2/18. The amendments were made 12/2/18.”

Can I argue this proves the report wasn’t fit for purpose??

It seems very unfair that an auditor who has never met me can change the report when they only have half of the information because the assessor didn’t record it all.

2. Several things that show a lack of care e.g. duplicates in the evidence list, evidence missing from the list.

3. Assessor mixed up the activities I have problems with. Can I argue this shows she didn’t read the evidence before assessment, didn’t notice the error when writing up the report so again didn’t read through everything? Again showing not fit for purpose??

4. When replying to the fact that the assessor didn’t include a lot of what I said under functional history which makes the report incomplete the reply says “the report is not designed to be a verbatim account of everything which is discussed”. Are there guidelines which say assessors DO need to record everything that I said?? Otherwise they can just miss out whatever suits them.

I was thinking of putting this in a small section at the start of the submission and then moving onto showing how I think I qualify etc.

Thanks for your help.

Thank you for the reply. In regards to point 4 an example is that the assessor recorded that I can wash myself but didn’t record how often I said I could do this so it is worded in such a way that the DM will assume I am doing this everyday when I am not and I told her that. Surely she should record that otherwise it completely misleading?? She only wrote down what fitted her argument and left the rest out which is very biased.

Thanks