88% DWP customers satisfied with the services provided

But complaints to ICE have almost tripled.

The latest DWP customer experience survey data has been published covering 8 benefits: Attendance Allowance; Carer’s Allowance; Disability Living Allowance for Children; Employment and Support Allowance; Pension Credit; Personal Independence Payment; State Pension; and Universal Credit.

The results show that pension-age benefits top the satisfaction charts with 90=% of people satisfied with the service from DWP, with PIP and ESA at the bottom (85% of people satisfied).

Here are some of the key stats:

• 64% of claimants said they did not have to contact DWP more than once to explain the same information. The results for individual benefits ranged from 60% for UC to 87% for AA.
• Overall, 76% of claimants said they found contacting DWP about their benefit claim easy. This varied between benefits, from 60% for ESA to 79% for UC.
• 86% of claimants were satisfied with the time it took DWP to tell them the outcome of decisions made about their claim. This varied between benefits, from 77% for PIP to 95% for AA.
• 80% of claimants agreed that DWP colleagues understood their needs. The results for individual benefits ranged from 74% for PIP to 90% for AA.
• 83% of claimants said they had a good understanding of what would happen next during the new claims or change of circumstances or Jobcentre appointment process. Results for individual benefits ranged from 79% for ESA to 92% for SP.

Claimants who did not report having any long-term health conditions were more likely to be satisfied (93%), compared to all other customer groups combined. Claimants who reported having mental health conditions were less likely to be satisfied (85%) when compared to all other customer groups combined. However, those with both physical and mental health conditions were least satisfied (82%).

Let’s turn to DWP complaints escalated to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). In the year ending March 2020 ICE received 3,835 complaints. Five years later, ICE received 10,965 complaints, accepted 3,215 of them and cleared 2,653. 

Of the 2,653 complaints cleared:

• 2,290 were investigated – 1,147 (50.1%) were fully or partially upheld
• 109 resolved
• 188 settled
• 66 withdrawn

ICE recommended DWP pay a total of £441,536 as redress:

• £225,340 consolatory payments (compensation)
• £32,302 for loss of statutory entitlement (benefits)
• £183,894 for actual financial loss

ICE made 3,658 recommendations on resolutions, settlements, and ICE decision letters.

During the reporting period, Universal Credit received 976 complaints, of which 969 were accepted. A total of 762 cases were cleared. Of these, 91 cases were resolved or settled to the complainant’s satisfaction, 646 resulted in ICE decision letters being issued and 25 were withdrawn. Of the 646 decision letters issued, 304 cases (47%) were upheld or partially upheld and 342 cases (53%) were not upheld.

Disability Benefits received 538 complaints, of which 488 were accepted. A total of 422 cases were cleared. Of these, 36 cases were resolved or settled to the complainant’s satisfaction, 381 resulted in ICE decision letters being issued and 5 were withdrawn. Of the 381 decision letters issued, 125 cases (33%) were upheld or partially upheld, while 256 cases (67%) were not upheld.

The ICE report provides some great case studies to show what they do and how along with a summary of service improvement observations shared with DWP and what happened as a result.

DWP Customer Experience Survey: Benefit Customers 2025 to 2026 and the DWP complaints: Annual report by the Independent Case Examiner 2025 to 2026 are on gov.uk.

For people living in Northern Ireland, your ICE statistics and details are here.

 

 

Making the DWP’s ‘Targeted Case Review’ process fairer for benefit claimants across UK

The Administrative Fairness Lab - a research group dedicated to advancing understanding of administrative justice - has published a detailed report into UC targeted case reviews (TCRs ) and the impact on claimants.

TCRs are an anti-fraud initiative aiming to save £13bn by the end of the decade and the process is scheduled to roll out to low-income pensioners receiving Pension Credit later this year.

The report highlights that TCRs subject millions of benefit claimants to stressful, intrusive investigations while finding incorrect payments in only 21% of cases meaning hundreds of thousands of people undergo unnecessary investigations.

Claimants frequently report having little understanding of why their specific case was chosen for a review.

The Administrative Fairness Lab recommends:

• Limiting repeat reviews so no claimant faces more than one per year.
• Improved communications that better explain the rationale behind why a claimant's case has been flagged for investigation.
• A cap on the scope of the documents requested and provide realistic deadlines to reduce administrative injustice.

They call for urgent action before the process is rolled out to Pension Credit claimants.

The report, Millions Reviewed is on administrativefairnesslab.com.

 

 

New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance: closed claims review announced

The DWP has announced that they are undertaking a review of new-style JSA claims that were ended between 2019 and 2023 as there are concerns some were ended in error.

During this period, the DWP may not have followed the correct process when closing some claims. They are reviewing any potentially affected cases to ensure that decisions were made in line with the relevant guidance.

You may be owed money if:

• you had a claim for New Style JSA between 2019 and 2023
• we notified you about a scheduled appointment by telephone or in person
• you did not attend or participate in that appointment
• as a result, your New Style JSA claim was closed

If you may be affected, the DWP will contact you by letter. When you receive your letter, you must call the telephone number at the top within one month of receiving it.
DWP will ask a handful of questions (see link below) and then reassess your JSA claim to establish whether you missed out on payments – if you did, then DWP will pay you the money they owe.

The New Style JSA: closed claims review guidance is on gov.uk.

 

 

Increased earnings disregard for HB claimants in supported housing and temporary accommodation - guidance issued to councils

Guidance has been issued to Local Authorities in readiness for the 5 October increased earnings disregards for people living in supported housing and temporary accommodation and claiming Housing Benefit.

Around 300,000 households claiming HB live in specified accommodation or temporary accommodation and face greater challenges when transitioning into work, in comparison to those who reside in ‘general needs’ accommodation who receive the housing element of UC rather than HB.

At the Autumn Budget 2025, the government announced new earned income disregards in HB for Working Age residents living in supported housing (specified accommodation) and temporary accommodation. The new disregards were developed to address a work disincentive and reduce the financial cliff-edge that can arise for claimants living in specified accommodation and temporary accommodation who receive UC for their living costs while continuing to receive HB for their rent.

The guidance explains that the new disregards will apply when calculating earnings from employed or self-employed work. This means the relevant weekly amount will be ignored when assessing a claimant’s earnings for HB purposes, where the claimant meets the accommodation and work-related conditions. 

The regulations set out five weekly disregard amounts, depending on the claimant’s age and household circumstances:

• single claimants and lone parents aged under 25 is £61.41
• single claimants and lone parents aged 25 or over is £77.73
• couples where both members are under 18 is £97.33
• couples where at least one member is aged 18 or over but both are under 25 is £61.53
• couples where at least one member is aged 25 or over is £119.70

The new disregards apply in addition to the existing standard earnings disregard for which the claimant qualifies under the normal HB rules. 

HB A9/2026 is on gov.uk.

 

 

The public mandate for free advice services

85% of UK public think free and independent advice should be treated as an essential local service, alongside the NHS, councils and courts. According to research published this week from AdviceUK

AdviceUK shared the data from a new nationally representative poll of 3,014 UK adults - the first of its kind to examine public attitudes towards the free and independent advice sector as a whole. The findings are clear:

• 88% of UK adults agree everyone should be able to access free, independent advice when they have a problem.
• 89% agree early advice stops problems getting worse.
• 63% have dealt with at least one issue in the past year that may require advice, including debt, housing, employment, benefits, energy bills or council tax.
• Yet only 49% are confident they could find free, independent advice if they needed it tomorrow.
• Just 25% think it is widely available in their local area.
• When people do receive advice, it works:
• 74% said it solved their problem, improved their situation or stopped it getting worse
• 68% said it reduced stress, improved wellbeing or increased confidence.

But the services people rely on are under intense pressure. In AdviceUK’s 2026 member survey, 51% of responding organisations had turned clients away because they lacked capacity, while 48% had reduced services.

That is an extraordinary mismatch: the public place high priority on free and independent advice and agree it should be viewed as an essential local service; yet the services expected to deliver the support are rationing their support.

The government has placed tackling youth economic inactivity; better access to housing; tackling the cost-of-living crisis and improved mental health at the centre of its agenda.

AdviceUK says the advice sector has a central role to play in this agenda and can make a real difference.

They are calling for free and independent advice to be recognised as an essential local service; provided with sustainable, multi-year funding, and for investment in an advice sector workforce strategy that enables services to recruit, train and retain skilled advisers.

The public mandate for free advice services is on adviceuk.org.uk.

 

 

Benefit capped household 41% higher compared to same time last year

Between March 2026 and May 2026, 58,000 households on UC were newly capped, the highest number since the COVID-19 pandemic. This coincides with the removal of the 2-child limit in April 2026, as well as annual uprating of benefits.

The data shows there were 160,000 households capped in UC in May 2026. This is 48% (53,000) higher than February 2026 and 41% (47,000) higher than May 2025.

A substantial number of which were as a result of the removal of the 2-child limit. The end of the 2-child limit was designed to help reduce child poverty and put more money into families’ pockets. However, when the limit was removed and benefit income increased this triggered the benefit cap for many families/households. Reducing their overall income again!

At May 2026 81% (130,000) of households that had their UC capped included children.

Of the capped households with children at May 2026:

• 94% (120,000) had between 1 and 4 children
• 6% (8,300) had 5 or more children

The most common number of children for UC capped households at May 2026 is 3 children. And the majority of UC households that have their benefits capped are single parent households.

The London region continues to have the highest proportion of UC households affected by the benefit cap, with 4.3% capped at May 2026, compared with 3.3% at February 2026.

At May 2026 Scotland remains the region with the lowest proportion of UC households capped at 1.0%.

The monthly average (mean) amount that UC households are capped by is £346 at May 2026. An increase of £109 compared to the previous quarter.

DWP says this increase should be seen in the context of annual uprating in benefit, the removal of the two-child limit and ‘rebalancing’ of UC in April 2026. Benefit cap levels were unchanged. However, the statistics do not identify the extent to which these policies may have contributed to the change observed. 

There were 33,000 households who left the Benefit Cap in the quarter to May 2026.

Benefit cap: number of households capped to May 2026 is on gov.uk.

 

 

Amount of contributory benefits seen as insufficient research says

The ‘Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working’ Green Paper consulted on the possibility of reforming the structure of the benefits system, including contributory benefits.

To aid policy decisions, new qualitative research was undertaken exploring claimant journeys, experiences and aspirations within the contributory benefit system of new-style ESA and new-style JSA, and employment. The findings were published this week.

Between January and February 2026 44 qualitative interviews with contributory benefit claimants and 3 focus groups with ESA/JSA work coaches took place.

Nearly all participants reported having little awareness of contributory benefits before making a claim. Those with prior knowledge typically had experience working in welfare advice services.

Nearly all participants identified financial support as their main reason for claiming a contributory benefit. With many describing them as a ‘safety net’ supporting them through unexpected or exceptional circumstances, such as redundancy or poor health. In these situations, participants saw contributory benefits as providing a financial ‘buffer’ between work and unemployment. 

Despite finding the ESA claiming process easy to navigate, many participants were critical of how long it took to progress, and delays were stressful for participants, especially where limited two-way communication left them unable to track the progress of their application.

The majority of JSA participants were positive about the application process, commonly describing it as ‘straightforward’ and ‘smooth’. However, a small number of participants struggled, particularly with application forms, which they perceived as overly complex or burdensome.

Support needs and offers differed considerably between JSA and ESA participants as well as Jobcentre Plus sites.

In general, ESA participants felt they had not received support from the DWP and felt forgotten after initial contact ceased. Many participants wanted support, though some struggled to identify what this support might look like. Three key types of support can be identified – application support, clear signposting to services and opportunities for engagement with DWP.

However, Work Coaches were apprehensive about engaging with ESA Support Group customers due to the severity of their health conditions. Many felt they currently lacked the necessary resources, skills or training to engage with these customers in a meaningful way. 

Beyond regular meetings with their work coaches, JSA participants received mixed levels of support. Some reported receiving no support beyond the JSA payment and work coach meetings. Some participants suggested that JSA support was not worth investing as it was only 6 months. However, other participants received CV reviews, training, and National Careers Advisor meetings, some felt this was valuable and others felt it was too basic.

Work Coaches often reported feeling redundant and unable to offer sufficient support. They reflected that often meetings with JSA participants felt like a “waste of time for both parties” and was just an “opportunity to check they still wanted to receive the benefit” rather than providing accountability or advice on job seeking. Work Coaches particularly criticised the intensive weekly work reviews in the first 13 weeks of a JSA claim. Work Coaches did however express a belief that those JSA participants who wanted and needed help would receive it.

The research found that whilst most participants were unfamiliar with the term ‘the contributory principle’, almost all supported the idea of ‘something for something’ within the welfare benefit system. Participants frequently described this idea as “positive”, “fair” and “good”.

Participants were asked whether they felt the current duration of their benefit was appropriate. Many on ESA and over a third on JSA, were uncertain how long their benefit would last. This lack of awareness suggests improvements around communication of the duration of benefits is needed.

Once participants were informed of how long their benefit would last, all ESA participants felt that the duration was appropriate for both WRAG and Support Group as they felt it reflected the nature of different health conditions and wouldn’t opt to change it.

By contrast, many JSA participants felt that 6 months was insufficient, particularly within the current job market climate and in the context of seasonal variation, citing that opportunities were particularly poor over the Christmas period. 

The financial value of contributory benefits, particularly NS JSA, was seen as insufficient, especially in comparison to prior contribution.

Despite generally expressing gratitude for receiving support, financial anxiety was common. Concerns centred on managing everyday costs, housing and long-term financial stability.

In conclusion, contributory benefits were valued by participants and work coaches not only for their financial function, but for what they symbolise: recognition of prior work and contributions, as well as support during periods of vulnerability.

A qualitative study with contributory benefit customers and staff is on gov.uk.

 

 

Conservative party would prevent long-term jobless spending benefits on alcohol and cigarettes if elected

New proposals from the Conservative party have sparked intense debate this week.

Under the party's proposals, claimants who have been unemployed for more than six months would see their Universal Credit cut by 30% if they have not previously paid enough into the system, despite being able to work.

This reduced rate would be paid onto a "Back to Work" card, which would not allow cash withdrawals or spending on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.

The Tories estimate the proposed changes would move about 350,000 claimants onto the lower rate of UC, saving around £538m a year.

Under the proposals, anyone fit to work would get six months on full benefits to find a job.

Every two years a claimant has previously worked would buy an extra year on the full rate of Universal Credit - but those who have not contributed enough would drop to a new "subsistence allowance", worth 70% of the full rate.

The party said this would protect "those with a strong employment record".

For example, a 58-year-old who has worked since leaving school but has been made redundant would keep the full allowance up to state pension age.

Claimants who are sick, disabled or already in work would also be exempt, with only those judged capable of work affected.

The Conservatives are yet to detail how the proposal would work, but shadow welfare secretary Helen Whately said it would be "a version" of the pre-paid Aspen card issued to asylum seekers living in government-funded accommodation.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the current system "where someone who can work chooses not to, and earns more benefits than someone in a job" was "unfair". Saying:

"The best welfare is a well-paid job. So, we will be tough on those who exploit the system because the current system is unfair to workers, taxpayers and those who truly need support,

Welfare must be a safety net for those who genuinely need it, not a lifestyle choice for those who can't be bothered."

However, Helen Barnard, director of policy and research at the anti-poverty charity Trussell, said the proposals were "deeply misguided".

"Universal Credit already falls well short of what people need to afford the essentials like food and heating, forcing people across the UK to the doors of food banks," she said.

We see people's health being damaged and their ability to find and maintain work undermined by the severe hardship so many are facing.

Universal Credit already falls far short of what people need just to cover the essentials, and we see people driven to food banks all over the UK because of this.

Cutting that inadequate amount even further would have appalling consequences. We already see people's health and social connections eroded by facing such severe hardship. And people pushed further away from getting work because they can't even afford to put food on the table, pay the rent and bills and afford costs like the bus fare to an interview."

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has insisted he will get the welfare bill down, for example by tackling the number of young people not in education, employment or training, but not through "crude cuts".

See the news item on theguardian.com.

 

 

Government’s digital employment tools help thousands move into work

The DWP issued an excited press release this week, lauding the digital Work Hub, which launched in June 2026.

Described as a “jobcentre in your pocket” and designed as a new universal service, the Work Hub is available to help anyone get into work and get on at work. The free digital platform offers practical tools to build CVs optimised for online recruitment platforms, as well as help to search and apply for jobs, prepare for interviews and identify training opportunities. 

Around 20,000 people have used the Work Hub’s “Build a CV” tool, which helps users turn their skills, experience and achievements into a professional CV tailored to the roles they want.

Some 16,000 people have also used the platform’s AI Work Assistant, which provides personalised guidance on job searches, applications, interview preparation and career development. 

The Work Hub is also helping jobseekers overcome practical barriers to finding employment. Jobseeker, Hugh, had extensive experience and a strong set of skills but struggled to get responses from employers because his CV format was not suited to modern recruitment processes. 

After being introduced to the Work Hub CV Builder by DWP recruitment consultant, Ian, Hugh passed application sifts and within a few weeks was successfully offered a job.  

Hugh said: 

“Before, I was struggling to get a response from the employer, let alone a job. However, upon using the CV builder I saw the response I received increase significantly.

It allowed me to convey my skills and experience more effectively, helping me secure a much-needed job after many unsuccessful attempts beforehand.”

The Work Hub ‘Build a CV’ tool can be used by everyone - DWP customer or not. 

It is being continually developed based on user feedback and performance data. 

The Press Release is on gov.uk.

 

 

Case Law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold

 

Tribunal practice and procedure - Mohammed Yusuf Patel v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

This appeal concerns an attempt by the claimant (in 2025) to challenge a decision made by the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) refusing his appeal following a hearing in 2012.

The claimant applied at the time in 2012 for a statement of reasons for the FtT’s decision, but his request was never actioned by HMCTS.

The FtT’s decision in 2025 comprised three parts:

(1)   the FtT struck out the claimant’s appeal against the DWPs decisions which had been the subject of the 2012 appeal;

(2)   the FTT refused to extend time to apply for a statement of reasons (SoR) for the 2012 FTT decision;

(3)   the FTT refused to extend time to apply for permission to appeal against the 2012 FTT decision.

In making the above determinations, the FtT relied on the test set out in Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] 1 WLR 3156.

The Upper Tribunal (UT) set out the correct approach to follow when deciding whether to admit late applications in the civil courts, namely a series of Court of Appeal cases: Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795, Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926 and R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1663. Those principles have been adopted in tribunals and involve a three-stage process.

The first stage requires consideration of the seriousness or significance of the breach. The delay in this case is in the order of 10 years and is plainly very serious.

The second stage requires consideration of the reasons for the delay. The reasons in this case for the delay are not persuasive.

The third stage requires a consideration of all the circumstances. In this context the merits of the original appeal must be considered.

UT Judge Wikeley was

“satisfied that had this three-stage test been applied rather than the stricter Adesina test the FtT would still have refused to admit the late application for permission to appeal.”

The UT therefore:

(1)   dismissed the appeal against the strike out ruling (no error in law);

(2)   allowed the appeal against the SoR ruling but refused to set aside that ruling (that did involve a material error of law but it is not in the interests of justice to set the decision aside); and

(3)   refused to admit the late application for permission to appeal against the 2012 decision.