I'm interested in hearing others' experiences of factual reports requested by DWP from GPs, consultants, CPNs, etc. Specifically the design of them and what questions are asked. I have noticed a wide variation over the last few months. My particular concern is that the questions are restricted in such a way that relevant information is not being elicited, and which does not reflect the qualifying conditions. Example - in a current appeal, the report asks "Is there a current substantial risk of self harm?" - no reference to danger to others although this client committed a very serious offence. Also "Can he cope unaided with traffic?" - only a very small part of lower mobility surely?

My client group is exclusively people with mental health problems.

I completely agree with you here. Factual reports are simply not designed to extract information relevant to all the qualifying criteria. 3 main points spring to mind on the standard factual reports:
1. There is not a question that asks about meal preparation.
2. 'Insight and awareness of danger' relates to one aspect of supervision. Would not cover falls for example.
3. 'Ability to get around (including pain, gait, balance, breatlessness and visual loss)' again is woefully inadeqaute with regards to the lower rate of the mob. component.

It is also frustrating when decision makers do not exercise common sense when assessing information given elsewhere on the factual report and comparing this to what has been said on the claim form. Many a time I have seen clients refused lower rate care (for cooking test) when the GP has indicated on the factual report that they have poor grip.

I think there is a problem in that they are no longer standard factual reports! I remember attending another of those depressing DWP forums several years ago - more than 4! - where they announced that the factual reports could now be "individualised" - the idea was that there would be some standard questions plus a selection from a list allowing the DM to ask specific questions that addressed gaps in evidence, or where they felt something needed qualifying/more info was needed!

Of course they never seem to ask quite the right question...(Monday morning blues...)