PiP mobility phone call from ATOS assessor

I have twins, each previously receiving higher rate care and mobility DLA.
Same condition- variations in how and when it affects each of them.

As a result I found myself in the position of having 2 PiP claims at the same time.

Almost without exception every DLA award for each of my children over the years has resulted in it going to tribunal as DLA have attempted to lowbal (my terminology) the kids to medium/low rate in care and mobility.

Each tribunal has resulted in the awards being amended to higher rate in care and mobility for each child.

I was prepared for the hair splitting PiP would likely have over mobility. My impressions from PiP prior to seeing the application process first had have been it is a process intended to decrease the number of claimants and reduce the eligibility of claimants to reduce the spend on PiP awards overall.

As the disabilities my children have are not physical directly-but their conditions impact their ability to be mobile in every respect directly- mobility has been the standard ground that the DLA assessors have traditionally took as the obvious way in to reduce the claims for the kids.

Both PiP applications were submitted recently- a week apart from each other with a welath of medical documentation.

The face to face assessment question you are given in the form was answered by stating the physical risk that immediately presents and that on this basis it wuld seem clear to me that unless PiP is requiring infliciting risk of injury and danger as part of their application process, I would be anticipating that some other means of assessment for my children would be in place.

I had no idea what that would be.

Then I received an out of the blue phone call from someone stating they were the case assessor for one of my children and had some questions which would take approximately no more than 10 minutes for me to answer to.

It was arranged (after establishing this was legitimate) to continue the phone call the following day which is what I attempted.

What happened was- to me at least - distressing and (passively at times) aggressive.

It felt very much akin to asking an insurance privider to give you clarity on what one of their questions actually means - where the response is to refuse to explain the question and refuse to provide further clarity on what it is they are looking for in acceptable answer.

The issue was surrounding whether my child "can walk". What was never revealed was what question this is relation to.

The assessor was asking me can my child walk. My response was to explain not without risk. But can he walk.... and thats essentially how it went on just in several different ways of phrasing the same question and my answer.

Inspite pf myself, I got upset. Only after the assessor stated that in the event he wasnt able to have the question he was asking me answered to his satisfaction, it would need to be either a requirement my child attends an assessment at a centre, or a face to face in my home.

Thats when the upset triggered.I wasnt expecting it and Im not prone to outursts of distress either. But it was being faced with what appears to be the truth behind PiP that my child (possibly ther twin also as their applications are for the same condition and impact) are "required" to undergo some kind of performance with a stranger who by definition of being there (my home or assessment centre) immediately pose a risk to self harm which can last for days.

I believe the assessor was guaging my response to this. The fact that I got upset- who knows what he derived from it- but I explained as best as I was able to then and there that my child being put in a position of performance by strangers to demonstratethe truth about him and then have him deal with the dangers from it is deeply offensive and upsetting as a notion and my child is not in a position to attend a centre.

Because he is not . And the ability to demonstrate *that* is somethign I do have if need be to challenge this point.

The assessor acknowledged in some form this was not about my childs ability to access the outside. So I am now confused as to what it is he is trying to extrapolate from me. he clearly wants me to say my son can walk. Thats completely evident. And nothing else.

Having double checked the Benefits and Work Version 32 PiP guide for questions on mobility I cannot figure out what question he is basing his question upon.

Based on the B and W PiP guide it can only be about 1 of 2 questions. going out and moving around.

the assessor has already mentioned he seems to have sorted in his own mind what the scoring is for going out.At least thats how it sounds.

So this ability to walk thing appears to be about moving around. Heres the thing though- I have answered that question- both on the application form and repeatedly over the phone when the assessor asked me the question.

And according to the B and W info supplied about moving around its actually supposed to be about moving around outside- not inside.

And this assessor was quite clear in what I think was an intentional attempt to pressurise me, when he said my child would be assessed *inside* a centre or *inside* my home.

I am just wondering if anyone has any idea what its all about? It has the hallmarks of someone looking to get a response a very specific response from me - a statement over the phone that my child can walk- end of.

which isnt accurate at all. And it appears to be relating to moving about- but moving about is classed as being about moving about outside according to the guide- not about moving about anywhere at all.

I'd appreciate any input here. Im of a mind to put the call on speaker and record it - so I have my own record to refer back to as it just feels shadey to me.

Thanks in advance for any input with this.

After looking around at other PiP guides Ive noticed that the B and W PiP guide is the only one which states Moving Around is about how you move around *outdoors*.

Perhaps the assessor is approaching moving around from the perspective of not outdoors but anywhere including indoors.

Is it possible the other guides are incorrect in not specifying Moving Around is about your moving around outdoors?

The question asked by the assessor is can he walk.

My response is- not without supervision.

The response then is- but can he walk. My reply is not without supervision.

Yes I acknowledge the risks involved (im paraphrasing the assessors words) but can he walk...

The questions in the PiP form include stipulating what you require to be able to walk right?

Walking aid- supervision, explain what would happen if/when you don't get the help you need etc.

So can he walk- he requires supervision to walk answers that question- at least as far as I can see.

There is no question in the PiP form that asks that and that alone. The questions include your ability to explain what if any aids/supervision is required, how far you can walk with supervision/walking aid and what happens if you dont have that supervision/aid.

There is no PiP question that simply asks you- can you walk - yes or no.