Abysmal number of Carers Allowance cases reviewed by DWP
The DWP has released new figures detailing the progress made so far on the reassessment exercise for Carer’s Allowance overpayments.
These figures show that in the first 5 months of the exercise the DWP has examined only 2,400 (1.04%) of the 230,900 they need to reassess over the next three years, raising concerns about the pace of progress of the reassessment exercise.
At the current rate of progress, it would take approximately 40 years to complete the exercise. To meet its three-year timetable, DWP would now need to increase the monthly rate of reassessments more than fifteenfold.
Helen Walker, Chief Executive of Carers UK, said:
“These numbers are deeply disappointing. After years of waiting for justice, only a small number of carers have had their cases reviewed five months into this exercise. The vast majority still face a lengthy and uncertain wait for resolution, all whilst enduring the ongoing financial hardship caused by these delays.
We understand the importance of having an accurate and robust reassessment process in place to ensure that carers receive the outcome they deserve. We recognise that this government has invested in funding and resources to try to put this right where previous governments haven’t, but there must be a clear and realistic plan to accelerate progress. With 230,900 identified cases still awaiting review, these figures raise serious questions about whether DWP is on track to deliver within the funding period.
Failures within the Department for Work and Pensions identified by the Liz Sayce review have left tens of thousands of carers facing significant financial hardship and considerable emotional distress. We need to see more regular data from DWP, we cannot wait for another six months for a further update. There must be clear parliamentary scrutiny of the Carer’s Allowance reassessment exercise going forwards, including through the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
Alongside this, we must not lose sight of the other 39 recommendations made by Liz Sayce. Clear and regular updates on progress towards implementing these recommendations are essential to ensure meaningful, lasting change and to build a fairer system that better supports and protects carers in the future.”
DWP has suggested that debts will be potentially reduced, cancelled or refunded for around 26,000 unpaid carers. These figures show that DWP has paid out only £60,000 to unpaid carers so far, reducing debt by around £20,000 and paying out repayments of around £40,000. This number is 41% lower than expected.
The Sayce review into Carer’s Allowance earnings-related overpayments: reassessment exercise management information to September 2026 is on gov.uk.
DWP confirms how benefit eligibility will be checked using Eligibility Verification Measure
Banks and other financial institutions must share limited information with the DWP when they receive an Eligibility Verification Notice (EVN). This week, detailed guidance on how this will work was published.
Please note, this applies to UC, Pension Credit and new-style ESA.
Here’s the summary:
- The DWP sends an EVN to financial institutions containing specific "eligibility indicators" based on benefit rules.
- The bank scans account data (including joint and linked accounts, belonging to claimants or non-claimants) to see if an account meets an indicator.
- If a match occurs, the bank shares only limited information with the DWP (it does not grant live access to online banking or full statements of how money is spent).
When an indicator is met, banks may share:
- Names of all account holders
- Details of accounts (including linked and joint accounts)
- Account numbers and sort codes
- Balances / how much money is in the relevant accounts
- Dates of transactions that took place in another country.
If the data suggests an incorrect payment, the DWP will review the benefit claim and reach out to the claimant with further questions. A failure to respond can lead to suspension and termination of a claim.
The code of practice sets out how DWP can use its powers under the Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 to check that benefits are paid correctly.
DWP checks benefit eligibility using the Eligibility Verification Measure is on gov.uk.
Future state pension triple lock plans confirmed
Pat McFadden, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, made a statement in the Commons regarding the future uprating of the state pension.
He emphasised the Labour Government's commitment to security and dignity in later life, highlighting measures such as the statutory link with earnings and the creation of pension credit to reduce pensioner poverty. The minister reiterated the Labour Party's manifesto pledge to maintain the triple lock until the end of the current Parliament, which will see the full new state pension rise by £575 this year and reach over £2,000 a year more by the end of the Parliament compared to when the Labour Government took office in 2024. The uprating mechanism will be adjusted from April 2030 to ensure the state pension rises by the highest of inflation, 2.5%, or what is required to maintain its record high level against average earnings. This adjustment aims to put the state pension on a sustainable basis while still protecting pensioners from inflation and ensuring a material rise each year. The savings from the changes will reduce spending by an estimated £15 billion a year by the end of the next decade, rising to around £50 billion a year by 2050, contributing to a new national care service. McFadden emphasised that the plan is about providing a rising, sustainable state pension alongside free personal care, bettering the lives of pensioners, families, and the NHS.
Helen Whately, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, criticised the Government's decision, arguing that the plan was rushed and poorly communicated. She highlighted that working-age benefits are costing £140 billion a year, rising fast, and questioned why the Government is not addressing this issue instead of targeting pensioners. Whately pointed out that the savings from scrapping the triple lock are minimal compared to the costs of implementing a national care service and warned of a £15 billion black hole in the public finances. She also raised concerns about the impact on women pensioners and the potential for the Government to backtrack on its social care plans. Whately argued that the Conservatives introduced the triple lock to provide dignity in retirement and urged the Government to address the welfare bill instead of targeting pensioners.
The Pensions Triple Lock debate is on Hansard.
NAO to scrutinise the DWP Jobcentre estate and other facilities
The National Audit Office (NAO) has confirmed this week the launch of a study looking at whether DWP has an ‘effective and efficient approach’ to meeting the need for face-to-face engagement with its customers through jobcentres and other facilities, such as mobile jobcentres and partner locations.
As the DWP faces important decisions about the future of its jobcentre estate as it seeks to make the estate more efficient and sustainable. For example, the estate is completely leasehold, and many leases are due to expire in 2028. DWP has around 640 jobcentres, located across Great Britain.
The NAO will examine whether:
- DWP has a good understanding of its need for face-to-face engagement with customers
- DWP is making efficient and effective use of its jobcentre capacity and other facilities for face-to-face engagement
- DWP’s provision for face-to-face engagement is resilient to respond to changes in need
The NAO work in progress announcement is on nao.org.uk.
Alternative benefits must be considered as loss mitigation if UC will stop due to Employment Tribunal award
Although this relates to an employment tribunal, the outcome is relevant to benefits and entitlement following receipt of a tribunal award.
In SBH Windermere Limited & Anor v Nunns, the claimant successfully brought several complaints of harassment against their employer. At the remedy stage, the Employment Tribunal (ET) awarded the claimant compensation of over £35,000, which included an element for future losses calculated by reference to the claimant's wages less the Universal Credit (UC) he would receive.
Shortly after the remedy judgment, the claimant contacted the tribunal explaining that, once the compensation was paid into his bank account, his savings would exceed the £16,000 threshold for UC eligibility. He would therefore lose his monthly UC payments of £1,100. The tribunal reconsidered its judgment and increased the total compensation to just over £43,000 to account for this loss.
The employer appealed, arguing that if the tribunal was going to revisit its award on the basis of the claimant's UC position, it should also have considered whether the claimant was entitled to claim other benefits. They had expressly raised this argument during reconsideration, but the tribunal had not addressed it.
In response to the above the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that the stoppage of UC when a claimant has over £16,000 in savings should be considered when calculating mitigation of losses for the purposes of an ET award. However, it has also confirmed that the availability of other benefits which don’t have a savings limit needs to be considered, such as Jobseekers Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance which do not have savings limits. If the claimant could claim these then the amount they would get would be considered as mitigation for their losses claim.
SBH Windermere Limited & Anor v Nunns is on gov.uk.
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme Bill introduced
The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme Bill was introduced via a private Member’s Bill this week.
This Bill seeks to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding compensation received under the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating entitlement to Pension Credit and to other means-tested benefits for which such payments are not disregarded in full.
Minister of Pensions, Torsten Bell while acknowledging the sacrifice made by veterans said that the different means-tested benefits have different rules for the treatment of compensation, noting that Pension credit rules already recognise veterans’ specific circumstances and that the legislation dictates how the DWP must treat compensation.
Bell said:
“the Government are not in a position to change the regulations.”
When questioned about whether the benefit rules would fall foul of the armed forces covenant, Bell advised the question:
“has been tested on a number of occasions and the answer is no, but the legal question is not sufficient. The question is this: what is the right thing to do and are we supporting our veterans? The legal answer to his question is yes, but that does not take away from the need to test that more broadly in the way that we are doing tonight and have done on other occasions. “
Nb. The First Reading is the very first stage of a bill's journey through the House of Commons. It is purely a formal step where the title of the bill is read out and it is ordered to be printed. Passing the First Reading does not mean the bill has been approved or debated; it simply means it has been officially introduced and will move forward toward its Second Reading (the first main debate on the principle of the bill).
The presentation of the Bill is on parliament.uk and the later debate is on Hansard.
Independent Disability Advisory Panel terms of reference published
Terms of reference published this week confirmed that the purpose of the Independent Disability Advisory Panel is to facilitate a strategic forum that advises the DWP on health and disability policy and strategy.
The Panel brings together expertise from Deaf and disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to inform DWP policy design and delivery. They’ll will meet monthly and have 4 objectives:
- Facilitate a strategic forum to share guidance, feedback and recommendations on early policy development and ongoing delivery.
- Improve policy outcomes for the health and disability community.
- Champion lived experience as evidence within policymaking.
- Use lived and professional experience to inform future research, departmental communications and engagement strategies, including how we connect out into more marginalised communities.
Panel members will work together to develop advice that reflects the collective judgment of the group, rather than individual positions. The advice to the DWP is feedback such as opinions, suggestions and questions which are informed by evidence and are grounded in lived experience. Advice is conditional, non-binding and it can evolve over time - final decisions will remain with Ministers.
The Panel will operate for a period of 12 months, with ongoing monitoring and evaluation during this time. At the end of the year its model and approach will be formally reviewed.
The Terms of reference are on gov.uk.
Hard truths: Rethinking personal independence payment
The Resolution Foundation has published a report examining how PIP in England and Wales should be reformed to better meet its aim: to contribute to additional costs of disability to enable disabled people to live fuller and more active lives.
Few would dispute that the PIP system requires reform: the quality of decision-making is poor; the legitimacy of the system is often questioned; and the cost of PIP is rising in an unsustainable way. But many reforms to disability benefits that politicians have proposed in recent years have been crude, unrealistic or both. As the Timms Review continues its deliberations, this report is our contribution to the debate.
The Foundation finds that although disability benefit reform involves confronting a number of hard truths, there is much that could be changed for the better. Their findings and recommendations draw on a new survey of 2,500 working-age PIP recipients, an evidence base that allows us to more fully understand how disabled people’s conditions, needs, costs and capabilities intersect.
Key findings
- One-in-six (16 per cent) working-age PIP recipients do not report extra costs linked to their disability.
- Many PIP recipients have complex conditions. Few experience only one condition: for example, although three-in-ten (31 per cent) PIP recipients report experiencing depression, just 2 per cent report depression as their only condition.
- Conditions are a weak proxy at best of disabled people’s costs. 89 per cent of PIP recipients with ADHD and 87 per cent of those with anxiety report extra costs, very similar to the 93 per cent with back pain and 94 per cent with arthritis.
- When it comes to conditions, the differences between PIP recipients aged 16-24 and other age groups are not as striking as perhaps is assumed. Young people are less likely to report depression than 25-54-year-olds for example, and less likely to report anxiety than 25-44-year-olds.
- PIP recipients often remain on the benefit for a long time. In part, this reflects a review system that has not kept pace with soaring numbers of claims: before the pandemic, virtually no planned reviews were cleared after an award’s end date; in 2025-26, there were 216,000 late reviews.
Recommendations
- A function test should remain at the heart of the PIP system, but assessments should also include a discussion of what extra costs claimants experience and what would help them participate more in the wider world.
- There should be three elements that a decision maker can award a claimant: an ongoing cash element to contribute to additional costs; a capped one-off payment for capital items such as aids and adaptations; and a participation element, usually delivered through local services, designed to build claimants’ capacity to engage with society.
- There should be more frequent but lower-stakes engagement with DWP including light-touch check-ins between formal reviews. Each element of an award could be reviewed separately, and the cadence of reviews should be tailored to people’s conditions.
- Young people will disproportionately benefit from the introduction of a ‘participation element’, but the need for cash awards for young PIP claimants remains.
Hard truths: Rethinking personal independence payment is on resolutionfoundation.org.uk.
Case law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold
Decision making (revision) - Abdelaziz Dawod v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
Mr Dawod’s original universal credit award in 2022 omitted any provision for his housing costs. When he tried to have that corrected, the DWP refused to do so retrospectively, which left him several months in rent arrears.
When Mr Dawod appealed, the DWP said the original decision could not be changed, because there had been no ‘mandatory reconsideration’ of that decision. In other words, there had been no process of considering whether to revise the original decision.
Instead, the DWP said it had considered only whether to ‘supersede’ the decision. Mr Dawod’s attempt to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was repeatedly dismissed, as noted in the Upper Tribunal’s judgment:
The FTT had three goes at getting this appeal right, and got it wrong three times.
With the assistance of Child Poverty Action Group, Garden Court North Chambers and Osbornes Solicitors represented Mr Dawod in his appeal to the Upper Tribunal, which exceptionally sat as a three-judge panel due to the difficulty and importance of the point of law at issue.
The DWP continued to maintain that a tribunal could not change the original decision, because the DWP had not itself yet considered whether to do so. In stating this, the DWP took the position that it had been failing to discharge a legally obligatory function for more than three-and-a-half years.
The Upper Tribunal allowed Mr Dawod’s appeal and awarded him the housing costs he and his wife Ms Alla should have been paid in 2022. It found that what the DWP describes as consideration only whether to ‘supersede’ the decision did amount to mandatory reconsideration. The Upper Tribunal emphasised that the mandatory reconsideration process requires only consideration whether to revise, and does not require an actual decision either to revise or not to revise.
Dawod is a very significant decision because there appear to be ‘many’ cases where the DWP says an appeal cannot be pursued because it has not conducted a mandatory reconsideration. The Upper Tribunal found that whether there has been mandatory reconsideration is a question of fact for the tribunal, and what matters is the substance of what has occurred. The DWP’s characterisation of the decision-making process is unlikely to be important, and critically, the absence of a revision decision does not prevent there having been ‘consideration’ of whether to revise.
Further, given the statutory obligation to consider revision before supersession, where an application for revision results in a decision to supersede there has to be consideration of revision. Finally, it does not matter whether or not there were grounds for extending time to enable a late revision.
In future, it should be much simpler to have appeals of this kind admitted and allowed. The cases most likely to be affected will be those where an error in an award (such as not including housing costs) is only picked up later and the DWP refuses to correct it retrospectively.
PIP (Tribunal function) - Remy Dhami v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
In giving permission to appeal on the issue of whether the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) judge’s questioning of the claimant had been unfair, the District Tribunal Judge referred adversely to the FtT ‘descending into the arena’.
In dismissing the appeal, the Upper Tribunal held that this was an inapt, indeed wrong, consideration in the inquisitorial jurisdiction which the FtT has long exercised.
LCWRA (mobilising) - Shaun Gleeson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
This decision is about the need for the Tribunal to apply the tests set out in the descriptors faithfully. The Tribunal found that the claimant experienced “some pain” when walking but commented that claimants were “not expected to mobilise pain free”.
The descriptors in relation to activity 1 refer to mobilising distances “without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion”. That was the test that the Tribunal had to apply.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set the decision aside and remitted the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.
LCWRA - Kirsty Bell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
This is another decision about the need for the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) to address the extent to which a claimant may satisfy the descriptors and particularly the substantial risk test.
It also emphasises the need for the FtT to be clear about the evidence on which it bases its decision about the specific work-related activities the claimant may reasonably have been expected to undertake at the date of the decision under appeal and the most and least demanding work-related activities claimant might in fact have been required to undertake.
It also criticises the FtT for almost trying to warn off a claimant from seeking a statement of reasons.
PIP (transitional provisions) - HYM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
The Upper Tribunal considered the meaning and effect of regulation 27A of the Personal Independence Payment (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013 (‘the TP Regulations’) when applied to a PIP claimant who has reached pensionable age, whose PIP award is being superseded (change of circumstances) and who is not entitled to the mobility component in their original award.
The Upper Tribunal decided regulation 27A(2) of the TP Regulations only applies where a claimant’s original award (their existing PIP award) contains a mobility component and is being superseded. As the Appellant’s original award did not include the mobility component, regulation 27A(2) did not apply to him. The FtT therefore made an error of law in concluding that the claimant was not eligible for the mobility component due to having reached pensionable age.
Child responsibility - KMV v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor
Although this is a child maintenance decision it is interesting all the same because it could be read as… how Tribunals should deal with "disputed child responsibility" cases in the child element of UC.
The issue before the FtT in this case was whether the claimant’s 17-year-old daughter, D, had her home with her mother (the Second Respondent), and was usually provided day to day care by her - these being the relevant criteria of the definition of a “person with care” for child support purposes -. The claimant (father) attended the Tribunal hearing, but the Second Respondent (mother) did not, and the FtT proceeded in her absence.
The FtT rejected the claimant’s evidence about where D was living, on grounds that it was contradictory, and accepted the Second Respondent’s evidence (that D was living with her).
The Upper Tribunal decided that the FtT erred in law by not addressing the evidential implications of the Second Respondent’s evidence being untested (because she did not attend the hearing and so could not be questioned on it), as this potentially affected both its weighing of the competing evidence, and its determination of whether it continued to be in the interests of justice to proceed in the Second Respondent’s absence. There was no adequate explanation of how the FtT took this material circumstance into consideration.
The Upper Tribunal set the decision aside and remitted the case for rehearing.
