Tamara Logan

Official 

Ms Alison Mutch OBE 
H.M. Senior Coroner for Greater Manchester South 
H.M. Coroner’s Office 
1 Mount Tabor Street 
Stockport 
SK1 3AG 

Caxton House  
Tothill Street  
London   
SW1H 9NA 

31 March 2026 

Dear Ms Mutch,  

RESPONSE TO REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS  

We write on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) in response to your 
Prevention of Future Deaths Report dated 22 January 2026, made under Regulation 28 of 
the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013.  

We would like to take this opportunity to express our condolences, both personally and on 
behalf of DWP, to the family of Ms Tamara Logan (“Ms Logan”).  

You raised the following concerns in your report: 

1.  It was accepted that the assessment of her entitlement to benefits had been 

incorrectly determined despite it having been checked before the final decision 
was made. The impact of that on her was very significant. The evidence before 
the inquest was that the person carrying out the initial assessment carried out 
the assessment [in]correctly and that the checking process had not picked up on 
the errors. The purpose of the check was to avoid these errors being made and it 
was unclear why it had not picked up the incorrect approach. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Official 

2.  It  was  clear  from  the  evidence  that  her  vulnerabilities  were  recognised  by  the 
Department of Work and Pensions and their paperwork was flagged to that effect. 
Despite  that  a  standard  letter  was  sent  with  no  attempt  to  reduce  the  risk  that 
receipt of the letter would cause. 

We  take  these  concerns  very  seriously  and  have  investigated  them  thoroughly  with  the 
teams involved across DWP. The findings from our investigation are detailed below and can 
be summarised as follows: 

1.  It remains the case that the department accepts that its initial decision to reduce Ms 
Logan’s  benefits  may  have  been  unjustified  on  the  evidence  it  had  available.  We 
explain  more  under  the  heading  “Our  decision”  about  our  investigation  into  this 
particular  decision  and  have  provided  information  about  what  we  are  doing  to 
minimise such decisions in future. 

response  and  appreciate 

2.  We share your concern that  the impact of the department’s decision  on Ms Logan 
may have influenced her to take the course of action she took, rather than asking us 
to  look  at  the  decision  again.  We  understand  that  her  vulnerabilities  significantly 
influenced  her 
in  similar 
circumstances may react in comparable ways. While we are committed to making fair 
and  accurate  decisions,  there  will  be  occasions  where  the  outcome  leads  to  the 
removal  of  awards  from  vulnerable  people.  We  describe  below  what  actions  the 
department is taking to support vulnerable people like Ms Logan at critical moments 
like the one she faced, and to help them understand the steps they can take; either 
to challenge a decision or find the support that can help them accept it. 

that  other 

individuals 

Our decision 
You said in your report: 

The evidence before the inquest was that the person carrying out the initial assessment 
carried out the assessment [in]correctly and that the checking process had not picked up 
on the errors. The purpose of the check was to avoid these errors being made and it was 
unclear why it had not picked up the incorrect approach. 

The assessment process 

To provide clarity about the health assessment and decision-making process by which DWP 
determines someone’s eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”) we will briefly 
describe it here. The process as it applied to Ms Logan was as follows: 

1.  People apply for PIP by phone, post or online in certain postcode areas. Once basic 
entitlement  conditions  are  established,  DWP  asks  them  to  complete  a  ‘How  your 
disability affects you’ questionnaire, referred to as the ‘claimant questionnaire’. 

2.  At this stage we encourage people to provide any supporting evidence they already 
have that they feel we should consider alongside their claim information. This could 
include  evidence  from  a  health  or  other  professional  involved  in  their  care  or 
treatment. 

3.  They return the claimant questionnaire to DWP. In cases where  we need a Health 
Professional  (“HP”)  to  assess  their  health,  we  refer  the  case  to  an  Assessment 
Provider (“AP”) along with any supporting evidence provided. 

4.  The AP undertakes an initial review to identify whether they need further evidence. 
They can often assess cases from the paper evidence, while a telephone, video or 
face-to-face consultation may be required. 

2 

 
 
 
 Official 

5.  The AP conducts the assessment, gathering any further evidence necessary before 

providing an assessment report to DWP. 

6.  Once  all  evidence  gathering  has  taken  place  the  DWP  case  manager  (“CM”)  will 
review the claim and all evidence provided. They then make a decision regarding the 
award of benefit and the length of time it is awarded for. 

7.  A few months before the award ends, in most PIP claims, DWP will instigate an 

Award Review. It will issue an Award Review form (“AR1”) for the person claiming to 
complete. They are encouraged to use the form to explain any changes that may 
have occurred to their conditions, any new conditions, if applicable, and whether 
their needs have changed in relation to their daily living and mobility activities.  
8.  A CM will scrutinise the completed form and, where possible, make a decision 

without the need for another assessment. Where there is conflicting evidence or the 
CM needs the support from a HP they will arrange a new assessment.  

9.  The AP carries out steps 4 and 5 again for the review and, once the report has been 

received, the CM completes step 6, which we will explain in more detail now. 

We understand that by “the checking process” you are referring to the part of the process 
described in step 6. We will explain this process in more detail now.  

When  considering  awarding  PIP,  CMs  are  encouraged  to  apply  a  holistic  approach  to 
decision‑making by considering all available evidence together, rather than relying solely on 
the assessment report. A CM may request additional evidence from HPs or support services, 
contact the person directly, or return the report to the AP for amendments. Once all relevant 
evidence  has  been  gathered  and  reviewed,  the  CM  should  be  in  a  position  to  make  a 
balanced, evidence‑based decision on the appropriate level of award. 

The  CM  must  look  at  all  evidence,  not  just  the  report.  This  means  reviewing  medical 
evidence,  functional  information,  statements  made  by  the  person  claiming,  and  the  HP’s 
recommendations as one full picture. If clarification or more evidence is needed, the CM can 
request  the AP  sources  further  evidence,  contact  the  person  claiming  to  ask  for  further 
evidence, or return the report to the AP for amendments.  

Only once they are satisfied that all the available evidence has been considered should the 
CM process the claim determining the level of award.  

Our review of the decision  

During the course of preparing DWP’s statement for the inquest into Ms Logan’s death, the 
department carried out an internal informal review of the decision to reduce her PIP award. 
Our  initial  investigation  suggested  that  the  decision  may  have  been  unjustified  on  the 
evidence that was available. We have now carried out a full review of the assessment with 
input from the AP.  

This review has concluded that the decision relating to the daily living component of PIP was 
not robust based on the evidence available at the time. It has identified learning opportunities 
and recommendations for improvement.  

We  accept  that  opportunities  were  missed  to  take  a  more  holistic  view  of  Ms  Logan’s 
circumstances. This may have resulted in a decision which did not fully reflect the complexity 
of those circumstances. 

Action we are taking  

We  have  attached  a  timetable  at Annex A  which  summarises  actions  the  department  is 
taking following this case that aim to reduce the risk of similar cases arising in the future. 

3 

 
 
 Official 

Our communication 
You said in your report: 

It was clear from the evidence that [Ms Logan’s] vulnerabilities were recognised by the 
Department  of  Work  and  Pensions  and  their  paperwork  was  flagged  to  that  effect. 
Despite that a standard letter was sent with no attempt to reduce the risk that receipt of 
the letter would cause. 

DWP aims to make sure that all its decisions are accurate, consistent and in line with law 
and evidence. The nature of benefit decisions inevitably means that many decisions will be 
deemed negative from a claimant’s perspective. In other words, we recognise that we will 
often  need  to  tell  people  that  their  benefit  is  reducing,  and  that  this  may  be  particularly 
distressing for the most vulnerable people. Claimants can disagree with our decisions, and 
the mandatory reconsideration and appeal processes are available if they do. 

Relevant processes 
DWP has two processes that its colleagues should follow in situations where benefit 
payments are stopped. These are an “enhanced to nil” process, which provides additional 
steps for CMs to take when people receiving a higher level of PIP have that benefit 
stopped, and a “stopping payments” process that mandates extra steps are taken before a 
vulnerable person’s benefit is stopped. 

Neither of these processes applied in Ms Logan’s case as her benefit was not stopped. We 
recognise that there is instead a gap in circumstances where someone’s benefit is reduced 
but not stopped. We are exploring what we can do to address this gap. 

You referred in your concern to the fact that a “standard letter” was sent to Ms Logan. The 
letter  was  one  sent  whenever  a  DWP  decision  changes  the  amount  of  benefit  someone 
receives. Such letters are system generated and so go out automatically, in one of a number 
of alternative formats that can be requested by someone who needs specific adjustments to 
help them manage their claim. They are the formal notification of the decision to the person 
receiving the benefit, which is required regardless of any other communication of it that may 
be made. They also formally notify someone of their mandatory reconsideration and appeal 
rights. Any other communication  methods that  DWP  uses, or might  consider using  in  the 
future, would be as well as, rather than instead of, letters like the one sent to Ms Logan. 

Given the thousands of benefit decisions made daily, sending such a letter  in someone’s 
preferred format is the most practical and effective way to ensure that a decision, along with 
its  related  appeal  rights,  is  communicated.  We  recognise,  however,  that  for  the  most 
vulnerable people sending a standard letter may not be enough. We explain more about our 
efforts in this regard below. 

Supporting vulnerable people 

DWP  has  clear  guidance  relating  to  additional  support  (“AS”),  for  people  who  need  help 
managing  their  claim,  and  advanced  customer  support  (“ACS”)  for  the  most  vulnerable 
people. Under that guidance, decision-makers should consider AS and ACS at every point 
in  the  customer  journey.  This  is  repeated  throughout  PIP  guidance,  and  operational 
managers  have  referred  to  it  on  an  ongoing  basis  in  compliance  notes,  change 
communications and Customer Experience Additional Support Team newsletters. 

The department’s PIP teams have a Vulnerable Customer Champion network which should 
always be consulted for advice or action in all cases with active ACS concerns. Even where 
ACS concerns are marked as closed – as they were in Ms Logan’s case – DWP’s guidance 

4 

 
 
 Official 

states  that  they  should  be  considered  at  all  stages  of  the  customer  journey. There  is  no 
evidence  to  show  that  the  process  was  followed  in  Ms  Logan’s  case,  and  we  are  taking 
action to reduce the likelihood of ACS markers being overlooked in the future. 

Action we are taking  
Again, we have provided information regarding action the department is taking in Annex A. 

We  hope  that  this  information  helps  to  assure  you  that  the  department  recognises  your 
concerns, takes them seriously, and is taking action to address them. Please do not hesitate 
to contact us should you have any further questions or require any further information. 

Yours sincerely, 

Director of Accessibility, Disability & Disputes  Chief Medical Advisor 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ANNEX A – Activity Timetable 

Statement 

Activity 

Progress 

Completion 

Official 

The quality of the assessment provider 
report was not to the standard we 
would expect and the descriptor 
advice not fully justified. 

Identify learning opportunities with the 
Assessment Provider and implement 
an action plan for improvement, with a 
commitment to share learning across 
all Assessment Providers to support 
system‑wide learning. 

Varying dates for 
completion of actions.  
Actions i to v to be 
completed by end of 
June 2026 
Action vi to share 
learning with other health 
assessment providers to 
be completed by end of 
August 2026 

The Assessment Provider has 
identified a set of recommendations 
for improvement with a corresponding 
action plan for implementation.  
Actions include: 
i) Deliver updated clinical guidance 
and targeted learning for Health 
Professionals on probing depth and 
accurate descriptor rationale. 
ii) Provide reflective learning to 
auditors on grading thresholds, 
focusing on identifying omissions that 
require amendments or learning. 
iii) Conduct a review of Initial Review 
processes and conformity. 
iv) Issue a communication to Health 
Professionals in respect of channel 
review selection and justifications. 

v) Undertake a systems-based follow-
up to explore if there are other 
relevant contributory / system factors. 
vi) Learning outcomes and reflections 
as detailed above to be circulated to 
relevant parties including DWP and 
other Assessment Providers.  

6 

 
 
 The decision to reduce Ms Logan’s 
benefits may have been unjustified on 
the evidence DWP had available 

Instructions on Advanced Customer 
Support and Additional Support 
concerns must be clear and robust. 

Official 

Circulate a memorandum across 
Disability Services to focus on the 
importance of gathering all of the 
evidence available before making a 
decision. 

Review the Advanced Customer 
Support and Additional Support 
instructions to ensure they are fit for 
purpose and there are no gaps or 
parts that could be open to 
misinterpretation. 

Instructions relating to supporting 
vulnerable people are held across 
various parts of the department’s 
intranet. 

Make it easier for Case Managers to 
understand why changes have been 
made to someone’s Additional Support 
marker. 

Introduce the Customer Support 
Information hub, a consolidated 
reference point for all relevant 
guidance and support materials for 
vulnerable people. 

Introduce a mandatory notes field on 
the PIP computer system when the 
Additional Support marker is amended 
to explain why the change has been 
made. The case manager will be 
unable to close the action until a note 
is added. 

Complete; resource stored centrally 
for accessibility. 

February 2026 

February 2026 

Review complete. 
The instructions were reviewed and 
determined to be robust. The 
department then looked to see what 
further improvements could be made 
leading to: 
i) the Customer Support Information 
hub, 
ii) a mandatory notes field when an AS 
marker is amended, 
iii) a ‘pop up’ message to consider AS 
whenever the PIP2 timer is extended. 
See below 

Complete. 

March 2026 

Formal change request submitted to 
Digital. 

Awaiting 
implementation date 

7 

 
 
 Reinforce the importance of 
considering Additional Support. 

Reinforce the importance of 
considering inactive Advanced 
Customer Support markers. 

Official 

Instructions will be updated to coincide 
with the update. 

Introduce a ‘pop up’ message on the 
PIP computer system to consider 
Additional Support whenever the PIP2 
timer is extended.  
Instructions will be updated to coincide 
with the update. 

Review the inactive Advanced 
Customer Support marker process 
and communicate to PIP colleagues 
that, even when an Advanced 
Customer Support concern is marked 
as inactive, the vulnerability identified 
at the time must still be considered. 

Formal change request submitted to 
Digital. 

Awaiting 
implementation date 

At ‘Proof of Concept’ stage. 

Consider introducing a process to 
provide Advanced Customer Support 
where a PIP award is reduced but not 
stopped. 

Reinforce the importance of 
considering Additional Support and 
Advanced Customer Support. 

Improve capability of case managers 
to assess evidence to make 
independent reduction or disallowance 
decisions where appropriate.  

Review the enhanced to nil process to 
consider including award reductions. 

At data gather stage to understand the 
volume of cases that may be affected. 

Run Voice of the Customer: Active 
Learning (“VOCAL”) events utilising 
case studies to discuss the 
consequences of not addressing 
identified vulnerabilities. 

Adverse decision-making test and 
learn exercise. 

Ongoing. 

At ‘Proof of Concept’ stage; a 
mandatory call to the person claiming 
the benefit at an earlier stage of the 
decision-making process already 
implemented. 

Process review and any 
updates to instructions 
scheduled for completion 
in Q3 2026 

Process review and 
implementation of any 
improvements scheduled 
for completion in Q2 2026 

VOCAL events occur 
every 2 months (not all 
will focus on Additional 
Support and Advanced 
Customer Support) 

Proof of Concept stage 
scheduled for completion 
in Q2 2026 

8 

 
 
 Utilise existing processes to feed back 
learning from this case to case 
managers. 

Official 

Run a VOCAL event using an 
anonymised version of this case to 
remind case managers that all 
available evidence should be 
considered and that, where 
inconsistencies are identified, they 
have the discretion to gather further 
information to clarify and resolve these 
gaps. 

Scheduling dependent on completion 
of the adverse decision-making test 
and learn exercise and subsequent 
analysis of the results. 

Scheduled for Q3 2026 

9