Enhanced Award - Wrong Descriptors

I had a telephone assessment replaced with a paper based assessment in 2021 and provided a lot of evidence. This was accepted by the ATOS HP and a report sent to the DWP.

I was awarded with a lower award for both the living and mobility components, which after requesting a MR was upgraded to enhanced living and lower mobility.

Despite stating on my PIP2 that low mood was an issue for a minority of the time and obsessive compulsive disorder symptoms being an issue the majority of the time, the descriptors chosen made the assumption that low mood was the main issue.

I asked for an MR to stating “full account of conditions were not considered” which resulted in an increase to the mixing with people task and an enhanced award for this component.

It takes over an hour to shower due to OCD which often results in being late to work, which should have resulted in 4g being selected based on the reliability criteria rather than “prompting” for various other activities.

This meant the tribunal submission couldn't appeal this part of the award based on “wrong descriptors” as the award would not have improved - so only the mobility element was challenged and revised upward by the DWP without an appeal going ahead in the end.

I am not comfortable with the award still ignoring the issues around OCD symptoms, at a review a year ago I asserted “no change” to the original PIP2 comments I had made alongside evidence like GP letters referencing OCD symptoms and an ASD assessment report referring to the impact of this condition on work etc…

Having received an SMS stating your review has began I don’t want it to be perceived to have failed to inform the DWP about a change in functioning when the next round of GP letters, OH reports and CBT therapist evidence is received. It’s quite unchanged from the original claim.

I can remember the ASD report referenced working in the last review, it should have been read by the assessor, the DWP decision maker and a second DM when we had to ask for another MR after they lowered the award but unsure if these people bothered to read it.

I simply want the award to be accurate (OCD perfectionism in action right there) and don’t want to be accused of having not informed them of something somewhere when the review is completed in a few weeks time.

Thanks,

AC