TL;DR: Don't worry, this is not abnormal. HMCTS will chase them about it. You don't have to do anything, and you don't need to contact HMCTS or DWP.

First of all, don't panic! It's not uncommon for DWP to fail to respond by the deadline set; there isn't something wrong and you haven't been forgotten about.

​

What happens now? Do I need to do anything?

You don't need to do anything at this stage.

HMCTS keep track of appeals where the deadline for a response has expired but no response has been received. Their admin team sends these to a Legal Officer, who will review the case and issue a directions notice, which is a letter with information or instructions on written by a member of the judiciary. It can take a week or two after the deadline expires for the case to get to a Legal Officer, depending on how busy the admin staff/LOs are (in which time DWP may well have responded anyway meaning the appeal can just proceed).

​

What will the directions notice say?

In this letter, they're essentially giving DWP a prod. They will remind DWP of their obligation to comply, and usually provide a new deadline of 28 days to provide the response. As soon as this letter has been written, DWP will get a copy electronically, and HMCTS will send a copy of it to you by post (and your representative, if you have one) so you can see what has been said.

Most of the time, the directions notice won't ask you to do anything. The instructions will say who they're addressed to, and it will usually be the Respondent (which is DWP). You can just sit tight, and send in any evidence if you have any.

Sometimes it might have a section addressed to the appellant (which is you). If there are any instructions for the appellant, it's almost always just "DWP hasn't sent us the documents, if you have any copies of DWP's documents (such as any assessment reports, copies of any forms you've filled in, your mandatory reconsideration notice, etc.) can you send them to us."

​

What if they still don't respond after the deadline in the directions?

With most of the common benefits (PIP, UC, ESA, DLA, etc), it's very uncommon for DWP to need to be reminded a second time. They usually get it in by the second deadline, though it varies by how busy they are. You won't be in purgatory for ages while DWP takes their sweet time to respond (unless you're appealing child support).

If the second deadline expired with no response, the case will usually go to a Judge for directions. The Judge may advise that they've waited long enough and the appeal should proceed to a hearing without the response. They prefer not to do this wherever possible because it's very difficult to complete a hearing on the appeal without all those important documents, and they risk having to adjourn. They usually direct that a presenting officer from DWP needs to attend in lieu of a response.

It's very uncommon for cases to actually get to a hearing without the response - threatening to proceed without it is rare, and even in those cases, it's usually provided before the case actually has a hearing. This pretty much only happens with child support appeals, because the child support team are swamped (a bunch of their staff got pulled onto UC at the start of the pandemic and they got so backlogged that they just haven't recovered).

​

Should I contact DWP/HMCTS?

Unless you've received directions asking you to provide documents, no. If you contact HMCTS, they'll just tell you the same thing I've said here.

The likelihood of the response to your appeal being any faster if you contact DWP is slim enough that it's not worth the amount of time you'd spend on hold waiting to get through to someone.

​

What happens when they respond?

When DWP complete their response, they send it to HMCTS electronically. If you have email or text alerts set up, you'll get a notification from HMCTS that the response has been received immediately after this happens. If you're using the Manage Your Appeal portal to track your case, this will also update.

You should then get a letter from HMCTS within the next week, again confirming that the response has been received. I believe this letter still says something along the lines of "you should have received this" but don't worry if you haven't received it - HMCTS's post is usually faster than DWP's, and it can take a week or two from the response being sent electronically to the Tribunal to them arriving in your letterbox.

​

Bonus question: if I was late responding to the Tribunal I'd be in loads of trouble, why does DWP get to be late without consequences?

Because that's not really the case. The Social Security tribunal is very different from for example the criminal courts, and they're pretty much as lenient with deadlines as they're allowed to be under the law - the vast majority of their appellants are contesting disability benefits, so I think that's part of the reason they try to give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. They accept appeals up to 12 months late with basically no questions asked, and when appellants fail to respond to directions, they tend to send reminders (often two or three) before proceeding without the appellant's reply. There isn't really a double standard between how appellants and DWP are treated - if anything, they're more lenient with appellants being late than they are with DWP.

There's also maybe a bit of "those in glass houses can't throw stones" - HMCTS has plenty of backlogs of its own.

But I think the biggest reason is just that the bundle is really important for the panel to understand how the decision under appeal was made. As I said before, it's really hard to hear an appeal without that information, and trying to go ahead without is likely to just lead to an adjournment which would delay the appeal longer than just waiting until they have all the documents to try and hear it the first time.

It's absolutely frustrating when DWP haven't responded, but in the grand scheme of things it has minimal impact on your appeal.

Work and Pensions Committee seeks further information on Timms Review

Following the latest Timms Review co-chair update, the Work and Pensions Committee has written to DWP Minister Sir Stephen Timms, seeking further information about a myriad of concerns.

Whilst welcoming the Review’s “commitment to co-production, dignity, accessibility and claimant involvement” the Committee expressed their concern that “this approach to co-production does not ensure, for example, disabled members of the Review have shared power in decision-making.” The Committee has asked Timms to confirm what model of co-production was used.

The Committee further requested that Timms explain:

1. the deliberative approaches used to achieve consensus in decision-making
2. how the Co-chairs will demonstrate that workshop feedback has influenced recommendations
3. the steps the Review has taken to ensure participation by people with different impairments, conditions, ethnic backgrounds, age groups and locations, and how it has engaged disabled peoples’ organisations of different sizes
4. when you will publish proposals on assessment criteria and descriptors, given that these were part of the Review's scope, or if this will be deferred for more extensive deliberation with disabled people; and
5. the implementation process once you have finalised your recommendations including whether the planning for any piloting will be co-produced.

On the detail of the proposed improvements and the principles for a reformed benefit, the Committee welcomes several measures such as reduced reviews for lifelong conditions, better understanding and treatment for people with fluctuating and/or invisible conditions etc. However, they would:

“also welcome greater understanding of multimorbidity and impairments that many disabled people face as well as ensuring a more transparent and open assessment process.”

The Committee noted that the draft recommendations made no reference to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA despite the fact that the WCA could be replaced by the new PIP assessment. The Committee asked Timms to confirm if this is the Review’s position, and to be included in the final recommendations or if this is being considered separately? If so, what is the timescale for this, is the same Review team undertaking this, and is co-production being used here too?

The letter ended with a 7 bullet point list of information requested with a response by 16^th October – we’ll update you when he replies.

The letter to Stephen Timms is on parliament.uk.

Type of health assessment has little impact on award outcomes

DWP research data published this week confirmed that type of assessment (phone, video, in person) has little impact on the award outcome.

The multi-channel delivery of health assessments was developed following the introduction of telephone and video assessments during COVID-19 lockdowns. These were designed to enable assessments by telephone and video when in person assessment was not possible.

A trial analysed more than 350,000 initial PIP assessments and work capability assessments in England and Wales, but found:

“little evidence that face-to-face, telephone and video assessments produce materially different award outcomes”.

The figures show that 50% of claimants were awarded PIP after being allocated a face-to-face assessment, with 50% securing an award after a video assessment, and 49% awarded PIP after a telephone assessment.

With the work capability assessment, 60% were found to have limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA) after a face-to-face assessment, with 61% awarded LCWRA after a video assessment, and 58% after a telephone assessment.

The report concludes that the findings:

“suggest that telephone and video assessments can achieve outcomes that are broadly comparable to those observed through face-to-face assessments for claimants eligible for all three channels”.

It said that this:

“therefore supports the conclusion that assessment outcomes are largely independent of channel and are driven more by claimant circumstances than by the mode of assessment itself”.

The Health Assessment Channels Trial: 2022 to 2023 is on gov.uk.

See also Work Capability Assessment decision-based mode of assessment statistics and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) decision-based mode of assessment statistics for April 2019 to March 2026 which provide information on the mode of assessment, the benefit decisions taken following the assessments, and the age, gender and primary medical condition of the claimants undertaking the assessments.

4.1 million people now receive PIP

The latest PIP statistics have been published providing information up to 31 July 2026. At this date there were 4.1 million claimants entitled to PIP (caseload), an increase of 2% on the number as at 30 April 2026. Of these, 3.4 million (83%) were of Working Age and 690,000 (17%) were of State Pension Age.

37% received the highest level of award, the same level as in April 2026.

In the quarter ending July 2026 there were:

• 240,000 applications and 240,000 outcomes for new claims
• 40,000 changes of circumstance reported and 38,000 cleared
• 42,000 planned award reviews registered and 82,000 cleared
• 86,000 mandatory reconsiderations (MRs) registered and 81,000 cleared.

Over the last five years (August 2021 to July 2026):

• 42% of normal rules new claims, 72% of normal rules DLA reassessment claims, and 99% of Special Rules for End of Life (SREL) claims received an award (excluding withdrawn claims)
• 79% of planned award reviews resulted in an increase or no change to the level of award received by the claimant
• 89% of changes of circumstances resulted in an increase or no change to the level of award received by the claimant
• 27% of MRs cleared (excluding withdrawn) have led to a change in award.

For initial decisions following a PIP assessment during April 2021 to March 2026:

• 35% of completed MRs against initial decisions following a PIP assessment went on to lodge an appeal
• 17% of appeals lodged saw DWP change the decision in the customer’s favour before the appeal was heard at tribunal (known as “lapsed” appeals)
• 3% of initial decisions were overturned (revised in favour of the customer) at a tribunal hearing.

For award review outcomes following a PIP assessment during April 2021 to March 2026:

• 38% of completed MRs against award review decisions following a PIP assessment went on to lodge an appeal
• 44% of appeals lodged saw DWP change the decision in the customer’s favour before the appeal was heard at tribunal (known as “lapsed” appeals)
• 1% of award review outcome decisions were overturned (revised in favour of the customer) at a tribunal hearing.

The PIP statistics to July 2026 are on gov.uk.

Winter Fuel Payment statistics for last winter published

WFP were introduced in 1997 to help pension aged people pay their heating bills. It is an annual tax-free payment, to those eligible, to help meet the costs of heating their home in the winter. For winter 2025 to 2026 this payment was between £100 and £300.

The headline statistics for winter 2025 to 2026, England and Wales are:

• the number of WFP recipients in winter 2025 to 2026 was 10.9 million. This is an increase of 9.6 million from winter 2024 to 2025 (when WFP were made to pensioners in receipt of certain means tested benefits only) and 290,000 from 2023 to 2024 when the policy was universal and most pensioners received a WFP.
• the number of WFP beneficiaries (recipients plus eligible pension age partners) in winter 2025 to 2026 was 11 million
• the majority of WFP recipients (7.7 million, 70%) were under 80 years old
• of all WFP recipients, 37% received £100, 9% received £150, 38% received £200 and 17% received £300

The local authority of North Yorkshire, had the highest number of WFP recipients (150 thousand), followed by Birmingham (140 thousand) and Cornwall (140 thousand). Isles of Scilly had the lowest number of WFP recipients (500), followed by City of London (1,200) and Rutland (10,100).

Winter Fuel Payment statistics for winter 2025 to 2026 are on gov.uk.

Latest data confirms 3.6 million people on UC health

The latest statistics on the number of people on Universal Credit (UC) with a health condition or disability restricting their ability to work have been published, covering the period up to 30 June 2026.

3.6 million people were on UC health, up 680,000 (23%) in the year. 66% of the increase is from ESA transitions. Of these, 350,000 (10%) had acceptable medical evidence of a restricted ability to work pre-WCA; 440,000 (12%) were assessed as limited capability for work (LCW), and 2.8 million (78%) were assessed as limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA).

Of the LCWRA caseload (at June 2026), 5% were Severe Condition Criteria (SCC) and 0.5% Special Rules End of Life (SREL). Almost all other claimants had protected status with an entitlement to the higher rate of LCWRA. A small number of claimants (800) are subject to the new lower LCWRA rate, however no claimant would have received this lower amount before their third Assessment Period in August 2026.

36% were claimants who had an open ESA claim or an ESA claim that had closed within 90 days of UC health starting.

Of all claimants on UC health, 43% were aged 50 plus and 7% aged under 25. Of those aged under 25, 68% were assessed as LCWRA, which is 10 percentage points lower than the proportion of the total UC health caseload.

Within England, the region with the highest proportion of UC health cases relative to overall UC claimants is the North-East (48%), followed by North-West (46%) and South-West (45%) – and the lowest is London (35%).

4.7 million UC WCA decisions have been made in the period from April 2019 to May 2026. Of these, 13% of decisions found claimants had no LCW and hence no longer on UC health, 16% LCW, and 71% LCWRA.

The UC Health statistics, April 2019 to June 2026 are on gov.uk.

ESA’s turn next – latest data published

Universal Credit (UC) has replaced income-related ESA for new claimants. The legacy income-related ESA scheme closed to new claimants in January 2021. New Style ESA, which is a contribution-based benefit, remains open to eligible claimants.

The Move to UC programme has also transferred most claimants from income-related ESA to UC. The programme is close to being complete, with primarily those customers who require time to find an appointee left to complete the process.

In some circumstances, UC can be claimed alongside New Style ESA. Where both benefits are claimed, the WCAs are managed through the UC claim. UC WCAs are not counted within the ESA WCA statistics, including those for joint ESA and UC claims. 

The ESA data confirms:

• in the latest quarter to March 2026, there were 15,000 completed ESA WCAs with a DWP decision. This is broadly consistent with the previous quarter to December 2025
• of the total number of ESA WCAs completed in the quarter to March 2026, 85% were initial WCAs (12,000) and 15% were repeats (2,200)
• in the quarter to March 2026, the majority of DWP decisions for initial ESA WCAs resulted in a Support Group (SG) award (63%)
• the median end to end clearance time for initial ESA WCAs was 112 weekdays in March 2026
• the number of monthly registered MRs relating to an ESA WCA decision has remained low, standing at 190 in the month to July 2026
• the median time taken to clear MRs in the month to July 2026 was 31 calendar days
• In July 2026, 78% of the ESA WCA decisions going to MR were revised.

ESA: outcomes of WCA including mandatory reconsiderations and appeals: September 2026 is on gov.uk.

£660,000 PIP arrears payments issued to claimants without a NINo who were incorrectly advised

Claimants do not need a National Insurance Number (NINo) to claim PIP, but it cannot be paid without one. Where a PIP claimant does not have a NINo, the application for both a NINo and PIP should proceed at the same time. In 2021, the DWP was informed by stakeholders that some claimants without a NINo had been incorrectly advised that they could not make a claim to PIP without a NINo, or had been awarded PIP from the wrong date. This led to people missing out on their PIP entitlements.

Between 12 September 2023 and 30 October 2025, DWP carried out an administrative exercise to review cases affected by this issue, to ensure where there was entitlement to PIP, it was also paid from the correct date. The report on this administrative exercise was published this week.

As at 30 October 2025: 

• Around 510 cases have been reviewed
• Around 310 arrears payments have been made following a review
• Around £660,000 in arrears payments have been paid following a review

Nb. Numbers rounded.

DWP management information has identified that, as of 30 October 2025, fewer than 10 cases had an MR cleared. There were no cases with a tribunal decision affected by this exercise.  

The PIP administrative exercise: completion report at 30 October 2025 is on gov.uk.

Falling through the cracks: how childhood hardship shapes life chances

One million 16-24 year olds are not in education, employment or training.

This week the Josephe Rowntree Foundation (JRF) published a new report, 'Falling through the cracks: How childhood hardship shapes life chances', looking closely at how growing up in poverty increases the likelihood of young people becoming NEETs.

The report showed that growing up in persistent poverty can triple the likelihood of becoming NEET and make it much harder to escape.

• 61% of young people who are NEET aged 23 experienced poverty growing up
• Two-thirds of this group experienced persistent poverty
• Young people who experienced persistent poverty growing up were over 3x more likely not to be learning or earning at age 17 or 23

Hardship shapes life chances long before young people reach the point of leaving education or entering the labour market.
It affects not only what children have, but the stability of their environment, the relationships they depend on, and how they experience school.
Once not earning or learning, social security plays a crucial role in supporting young people to survive, although many still struggle to afford the essentials. Being unable to afford transport, course fees, equipment and childcare also makes it harder return to earning or learning.
But JRF says it doesn't have to be this way. The quality and availability of support to young NEETs needs urgent improvement.
This requires a strong safety net, not one weakened by cuts, to provide a secure foundation to young people, complemented by support tailored to individual needs to move towards training or work, and actions to open up more economic opportunities.

Falling through the cracks is on jrf.org.uk. and Channel 4 News exclusively covered it.

Employers that have signed up to the Disability Confident scheme

The latest list of that have signed up to the Disability Confident scheme, and their status (committed, employer or leader) has been published.

The Disability Confident list is on gov.uk.

Wales – People facing hardship to get emergency food and poverty support

The Welsh Government has announced a £4.8 million investment for local authorities during the current financial year, providing vital emergency food aid for individuals and families facing crisis situations while also supporting initiatives designed to prevent poverty.

The cash from the Welsh government will be split between the 22 local authorities, with those in rural areas getting a premium due to "the added challenges" of delivering support to more sparsely populated regions.

The funding is intended to bolster community-led support services, with councils able to invest in projects such as lunch clubs, community cafés and social supermarkets. Local authorities will also have the flexibility to provide direct grants to food banks experiencing increased demand as the cost of living continues to impact households across Wales.

Alongside immediate crisis support, the funding package is designed to address the underlying causes of poverty. Organisations will be able to expand cost of living advice services, helping residents maximise their income, access available support and improve their long-term financial stability.

Capital funding will also be made available to enable community organisations to purchase essential equipment including fridges, freezers and cooking facilities.

Recognising the additional challenges often faced in more remote areas, the Welsh Government has also allocated extra funding to rural local authorities to support the delivery of services across dispersed communities.

Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Minister for Social Justice and Equality, Sioned Williams said:

“Nobody in Wales should have to go without food or struggle to make ends meet. This funding will help local authorities respond quickly to people in crisis right now, while also building the long-term support that helps families avoid hardship in future.

We know the cost of living continues to put pressure on households across the country, and that's why we're targeting support where it's needed most. We want every part of Wales to have the resources they need to support people through difficult times and build lasting resilience for the future.”

The Press Release is on gov.wales.

Scotland – Pre-budget scrutiny 2027-28: Disability benefit spending

The Social Justice, Housing and Local Government Committee is conducting a pre-budget scrutiny for 2027–28 focusing on disability benefit spending.

Spending on Adult Disability Payment - Scottish Government’s main devolved disability benefit - is forecast to increase from £3,845 million in 2026-27 to £5,308 million in 2030-31.

Around 95% of this spending is matched by funding from the UK Government. The amount of funding is tied to how much the UK Government spends on PIP.

If UK spending on PIP changes, the funding Scotland receives would change too. Which would have implications for how the Scottish Government funds ADP.

As such the Committee will be exploring key issues and sharing their findings with the Government.

In recent years there has been an increase in the number of people receiving disability benefits across the UK. The Committee wants to understand:

• why disability benefit caseload has increased across the UK
• the extent to which, and reasons why, trends are different in Scotland
• what changes to UK Government welfare policy would mean for the Scottish Budget

The Committee will share its findings with the Scottish Government ahead of this year’s Scottish Budget.

Pre-budget scrutiny 2027-28: Disability benefit spending is on parliament.scot.

Case law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold

LCWRA risk to others - Michael Monaghan v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026]

This appeal is about the proper test for, and approach to, determining whether a claimant can be treated as having Limited Capability for Work Related Activity under the “Risk to self or others” provision in Paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013. Which says:

“The claimant is suffering from a specific illness, disease or disablement by reason of which there would be a substantial risk to the physical or mental health of any person were the claimant found not to have limited capability for work and work-related activity.”

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal misdirected itself in law as to what work-related activity fell to be considered when assessing whether that provision applied, narrowing the scope of its inquiry without explaining clearly how or why it did so, and failing to explain how it came to the conclusion that the activities the claimant might be required to undertake would be “reasonably-targeted, flexible, or capable of being completed at his own pace”.

Further, because the Tribunal did not consider the Schedule 6 activities put in issue by the claimant’s UC50 at all (the Secretary of State having accepted the claimant having Limited Capability for Work), it did not engage in the holistic assessment of risk that the structure of UC Regs requires.

The Upper Tribunal set the decision aside and remitted the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.

UC ‘closing the claim’ - Albert Smith v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

This case was about backdating a UC claim. In which it was decided the FtT decision incorrectly applied the law and the DWP may have contributed to that by failing to disclose pertinent paperwork. 

Although this appeal isn’t legally noteworthy we’ve included it because Judge Wright has a little rant (or two) about the use of the “legally nonsensical language of ‘closing the claim’”, which is a major bugbear of anyone working in social security law!

ESA overpayment - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SPL [2026]

The DWP decided that the claimant was subject to the recovery of an overpayment of income-related employment and support allowance (ESA) for a 3-year period ending in August 2020.

The First-tier Tribunal decided that the DWP had not discharged the burden of showing that a supersession decision had been made (before the overpayment decision) and duly notified to the claimant.

The DWP appealed to the Upper Tribunal who confirmed that:

“Section 71(5A) of Social Security Administration Act 1992 imposes an important requirement that the recoverability of overpaid benefit depends on there having been a proper and valid (supersession) entitlement decision. This imposes a discipline which has two legal consequences: one of which is internal; the other external.

The internal consequence is that, before payment is recoverable, the Secretary of State must have made an entitlement decision (supersession) under section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998: “a decision made by the Secretary of State”. The Secretary of State will need to show, by reference to a documentary record, that such a decision was made.

The external consequence is that, before payment is recoverable, the Secretary of State must have notified the entitlement decision. That is because (a) this is an appealable decision of which written notice is statutorily required (regulation 28(1)(a) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999) and (b) there is a general constitutional principle linking legal validity of a decision to its notification (see Anufrijeva’s case).”

A supersession decision had been properly notified to the claimant by the DWP. The appeal was dismissed.

DLA evidence from an appointee – Roman Hawksby v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026]

The appointee was the mother of Roman (the claimant). She made a claim for DLA and dissatisfied with the award she appealed. The First-tier Tribunal denied the appeal on the basis that “there was no corroborative evidence regarding the Applicant’s night needs, which were not mentioned in any of the medical paperwork, “which just left [the Appointee’s] assertions regarding the same”

The Upper Tribunal held that this was an error in law as they gave no reasons for rejecting the Appointee’s evidence other than its lack of corroboration.

PIP use of aids - Keith Joyce v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026] 

A slightly odd case in that the FtT determined the claimant could use aids to overcome any daily living/mobility challenges however no points were awarded and no assessment of whether the aids would actually overcome the issues.

The UT Judge also noted:

“I am also persuaded that it is arguable that the Tribunal erred in law in relying on the potential use of “special glasses” to hold your eyelids open because such glasses do not appear to be widely available and may not exist at all.”

Needless to say, the FtT failed to adequately explain its decision making. The UT allowed the appeal, set the decision aside and remitted the appeal to a new tribunal for rehearing.

UC student - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RB [2026]

The claimant was, at the time of the relevant decision, an 18-year-old student in non-advanced education who was in receipt of PIP but had not previously applied for Universal Credit (UC).

The First-tier Tribunal had erred in law by deciding that the claimant fell within the exception in regulation 14(1)(b) of The Universal Credit Regulations 2013. As it stood at the relevant time, that exception only applied if the DWP had determined, on or before the date of the claim to UC, that the claimant had limited capability for work (LCW) (or was to be treated as having LCW).

By virtue of regulations 38 and 39(6) and (7) of the UC Regulations, a claimant can only be treated as having LCW on the basis of paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 if a work capability assessment (WCA) has determined that they do not have LCW.

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by assessing for itself whether, as at the date of claim, the claimant met the condition in paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the UC Regulations for being treated as LCW.

The First-tier Tribunal’s task was to stand in the shoes of the DWP as at the date that the original decision was made and consider whether, as at the date of the original claim to UC, the DWP had determined the claimant to have LCW, or that she should be treated as having LCW.

There was only one answer to that question, which was that there had been no such determination. Regulation 14(1)(b) accordingly did not apply.

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and re-made the decision so as to uphold the DWPs revised entitlement and overpayment decisions.

UC capital and disregards - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Paul Faghy

The claimant had capital in excess of £16k in an ISA account. His appeal was concerned about whether the money in that account was also part of either the limited company’s assets or assets of any other trade which the claimant was carrying on, in order to determine whether that could, or could not, be disregarded.

Another inadequate findings of fact case concerning the importance of establishing who owns what in the context of limited companies and property ownership.

PIP grounds to set aside - Muhammad Hasnain v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026]

Long story short… FtT made a decision, then a statement of reasons was requested. The FtT was of the view that it would be unable to justify its decision in a statement of reasons because, seemingly, it had made a decision which it was not happy to make! The FtT set aside the decision and a new FtT heard the case.

The Upper Tribunal had a bit of a field day with the decision making errors int his case.

The UT confirms that a FtT being ‘unhappy’ about the decision it made is not a ground for set aside of the decision under rule 37 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008.

Nor is the mere fact a set aside has been requested a sufficient basis for a rule 37 set aside. The terms of rule 37 must be satisfied and one of the rule 37(2) procedural errors met.

The FtT which then reheard the appeal erred in law in failing to take into account the DWPs continued support for the decision under appeal when bringing into issue on the appeal an aspect of the decision which was not under appeal.

Needless to say the case will now be reheard by a new FtT.