Concerns are growing about the way Personal Independence Payment assessments are being handled, especially for people with conditions like ADHD and anxiety. More claimants are finding that their real daily struggles are being brushed aside, while small technical phrases in medical reports are used to justify refusals. For many, it feels like the system is looking for reasons to say no, rather than trying to understand how people actually live.
In one recent case, a claimant applied for PIP after explaining that ADHD and anxiety were affecting basic parts of everyday life. These were not minor issues. They described difficulties with feeding themselves, remembering to eat, managing routines, staying organised, and coping with daily responsibilities. To support the claim, a full ADHD assessment report from a psychiatrist was submitted. That report clearly mentioned problems with memory, attention, and functioning.
At the assessment, the claimant explained these difficulties again. They talked about how symptoms appear day after day, not just occasionally. Despite this, the decision that came back awarded zero points across every section. No recognition of need, no acknowledgement of impact.
After requesting a Mandatory Reconsideration and preparing for appeal, the claimant eventually read through the paperwork sent by the Department for Work and Pensions. That was when the reason for the refusal became clear. In the assessment notes, the assessor repeated the same reasoning again and again. Although the claimant had explained difficulties, the assessor dismissed them by pointing to one line in the psychiatric report stating that the claimant’s “cognitive ability is grossly intact”.
That phrase became the foundation for the entire decision. It was used in every section to say there was no evidence of disability. This happened even though the very same report described daily problems that are directly relevant to PIP.
This approach has caused widespread frustration. The phrase “grossly intact” does not mean someone has no difficulties. In simple terms, it usually means the person is aware of who they are, where they are, and can answer basic questions. It rules out severe brain damage or confusion. It does not mean the person has no memory problems, no executive dysfunction, no anxiety, and no difficulty managing daily life.
Mental health professionals have pointed out that most people with ADHD and anxiety would be expected to have grossly intact cognition. It is a routine observation, not a judgement on daily functioning. Someone can think clearly and still forget to eat, miss appointments, struggle with hygiene, or become overwhelmed by ordinary tasks.
Many claimants feel that assessors are cherry-picking these phrases because they are easy to use as a reason for refusal. Instead of looking at the whole report, or how different pieces of evidence fit together, one sentence is lifted out of context and used to override everything else.
This issue is not limited to ADHD. People with long-term physical conditions, mental health conditions, and fluctuating illnesses report similar experiences. Older reports are used to dismiss current problems. A single comment about work or mobility is used to ignore years of decline. New evidence is sometimes treated as less important than one outdated line.
There is also a growing sense that the bar for PIP has been raised quietly over time. Claimants are now expected to prove that their difficulties are severe, constant, and present most of the time. Struggling sometimes is not enough. Even struggling often can be dismissed if someone appears capable during an assessment.
For mental health conditions, this is especially hard. Many people are already exhausted by their symptoms. Asking them to gather detailed written evidence, therapy records, workplace reports, and proof of extra costs can feel overwhelming. Some people are not even in therapy because their condition makes it hard to ask for help, or because services are overstretched.
The financial side adds another layer of difficulty. ADHD-related costs often do not look like traditional disability expenses. They include wasted food, missed transport, higher travel costs, private medication, and lost income from reduced productivity. These costs are real, but they are hard to show in a way the system accepts.
Another concern is that being articulate works against claimants. Writing a clear application, speaking well in an assessment, or even posting thoughtfully online can be taken as proof that someone is coping. The reality is that many people with ADHD and anxiety mask their struggles. They push through for short periods, often at great personal cost, and then crash afterwards.
Many people also worry about whether tribunals will be different. Official figures show that a large number of PIP decisions are overturned at tribunal, particularly when claimants attend in person. Tribunals are independent of the DWP and usually involve a judge and a medical professional who will read the evidence more carefully.
Even so, the appeal process is slow and draining. Waiting months or longer while struggling financially and emotionally can make conditions worse. Some people give up simply because they do not have the energy to keep fighting.
For those who do continue, advisers often recommend focusing on worst-day symptoms, explaining whether tasks can be done safely and repeatedly, and keeping written diaries. Support from Citizens Advice or welfare rights organisations can also make a big difference.
What this situation exposes is a deeper problem. The system struggles to understand invisible conditions. ADHD and anxiety do not always look dramatic. They affect people in quiet, persistent ways that are easy to overlook but hard to live with.
At the heart of many refusals is a simple and painful contradiction. People are told their struggles exist, but not in a way that “counts”. One sentence suggesting competence can outweigh pages of lived experience.
As more people speak up, pressure is growing for better training, clearer guidance, and a fairer approach to disability assessments. Until then, many claimants will continue to feel that being able to think clearly is being used as proof that they do not deserve support, even when daily life tells a very different story.
Leave a comment