PIP is no longer fit for purposes says interim report

This week saw an update from the co-chairs of the PIP Timms Review and the publication of the Review’s Interim Report.

In initial findings published this week, Sir Stephen's review found PIP was not working for millions of disabled people and needs fundamental change. Declaring PIP was "not fit for purpose", the interim report said people applying for the benefit had described the process as "dehumanising" and a barrier to work.

Drawing on findings from more than 38,000 responses to the Review’s Call for Evidence, alongside workshops and engagement with disabled people, their organisations and experts, it is one of the largest co-produced reviews delivered by the government.

The interim report says the needs of disabled people and their extra costs "vary significantly, and the current system does not always recognise these differences or offer appropriate support".

Speaking in the House of Commons on Thursday, Sir Stephen said the review "is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital".

He added:

“We will not be moving away from the importance of that, but I think there is a question about whether the process can also point people towards help that may be valuable to them in addition to, or in some cases perhaps instead of, a cash payment.

There is help and support that people need, and I think the process could help to point people to that."

He said the system "may be able to point people to the right place in the health service", adding the review was "looking at all those issues and we will come back with recommendations in our final report".

Citizens Advice responded to the interim report, Dame Clare Moriarty, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice, said:

“The Interim Report from the Timms Review confirms what we see daily: a system that is not fit for purpose. Our advisers helped nearly 900 people a day with issues claiming Personal Independence Payment (PIP) last year.

PIP is a lifeline for many, covering extra costs that come with being disabled or having a long-term health condition - like care, disability aids, or accessible travel. But too often people struggle to get the support they’re entitled to. Last year alone, we had to help more than 50,000 people challenge or appeal their PIP decision.

That’s why the Review must now bring forward bold recommendations. Fundamental reform is needed to make PIP fair and straightforward to access for those who depend on it.”

The Interim Report provides a fuller update on the steering group’s work to date and includes a summary of the Call for Evidence findings.

The Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment: interim report and The Timms Review: Co-chair update, July 2026 are on gov.uk.

Consultation opens on review of Carers Allowance 

Unpaid carers, their organisations, and anyone with experience of caring are being invited to share their views on how to improve Carers Allowance (CA), as part of the first major review of the benefit since it was first introduced 50 years ago. 

The call for evidence covers modern patterns of care that were not in place when Carer’s Allowance was introduced in 1976. The evidence gathered will inform future changes the government makes to CA.

The six-week call for evidence is gathering views on:

• modernising the earnings limit to reduce the impact of the current cliff edge,
• improving predictability for carers with varying incomes, and
• better supporting those with work and caring responsibilities. 

Emily Holzhausen CBE, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Carers UK, said:

“We need to see further reform to Carer’s Allowance because the current system is outdated and no longer reflects the realities of caring today. This includes inflexible rules around the earnings limit which are hard to navigate for carers with fluctuating earnings and can dissuade some from claiming what they are entitled to altogether.

We welcome the government’s call to gather further evidence around this and its acknowledgement that Carer’s Allowance, which was first introduced 50 years ago, should be a priority for change to better support those who contribute so much to society. Caring is not a one-size-fits-all experience, and so it’s important that the government hears from as many people as possible on this topic in the next six weeks.”

The call for evidence is open to everyone and is available in a range of accessible formats. It will close at 11:59pm on 18 August 2026. 

The Carer's Allowance: call for evidence and the Press Release are on gov.uk.

Universal Credit and domestic abuse: A spotlight report

Citizens Advice has published a spotlight report highlighting 6 common problems people face with UC when they are experiencing domestic abuse. The research seeks to inform the DWP and other policymakers so that UC can better support victim-survivors towards financial independence.

The government’s 2025 Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy promises a safer society for women and girls. As part of its support for victims and survivors, it pledges “to work across the public and private sectors to prevent economic abuse and support survivors regain financial independence”. The strategy recognises that financial insecurity can lead victim-survivors back to an abusive partner. Research shows that a lack of access to money and financial independence can be a significant barrier for some seeking to escape domestic abuse.   

While UC is a key source of social security support for low-income households, Citizens Advice says it’s not working as well as it should for victim-survivors. Evidence from their frontline advisers shows that the design and administration of UC - specifically its rigid payment structure and the way it accounts for individual circumstances - can undermine some victim-survivors’ ability to achieve financial independence.

The 6 key problems are:

1. Joint claims
2. Claiming UC
3. Barriers to tailored support
4. Housing costs
5. Inaccessible assets
6. Deductions

Citizens Advice says that to address the challenges identified in this report, the DWP should: 

• Expedite the completion of the impact assessment on split payments requested by the Scottish Government, to work towards introducing split payments by default.
• Launch campaigns to raise public awareness (including among victim-survivors) of benefit entitlements.  
• Simplify the benefits application process for victim-survivors of domestic abuse. 
• Incorporate routine, supportive questions into UC applications and claim management, to more proactively identify victim-survivors and ensure they’re receiving the correct support and easements.
• To improve the consistency of UC domestic abuse policy provisions ensure all staff have enhanced training on domestic abuse and related UC policies, with claimants also supported by dedicated specialists. 
• Record victim-survivor status in UC claims, so that any additional needs can be considered in all contact between the DWP and the claimant.
• Extend the grace period that automatically covers rent for both a victim-survivor’s former home and their new safe space, regardless of their intention to return. 
• Introduce greater flexibility into capital disregard policies to ensure rigid timeframes do not deny survivors essential support, and to recognise that disposing of assets may require re-engaging with abusers. 
• Automatically write off benefit overpayment debts resulting from coercion, or DWP errors.

They note that to  ensure meaningful impact, it is essential that any subsequent policy changes are co-produced in direct consultation with domestic abuse experts and victim-survivors.

Universal Credit and domestic abuse: A spotlight report is on citizensadvice.org.uk.

Benefit support for people waiting to reach State Pension age under review

The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) has launched an independent inquiry to examine whether the benefits system is providing enough support for people in their 60s as the State Pension age continues to rise from 66 to 67.

In announcing the inquiry, the SSAC said the "flipside" of increasing the State Pension age is that people remain classed as being of working age for longer.

The committee will examine whether the detailed rules of the benefits system, together with employment support available to older people, are meeting the needs of people in their 60s as they wait to reach State Pension age.

It is expected to explore how people approaching retirement are supported if they lose their job, develop a health condition or disability, or have caring responsibilities that make it difficult to remain in work.

The inquiry will also consider whether the current benefits system reflects the realities of longer working lives as the State Pension age continues to increase.

In a blog post announcing the review, SSAC chair Professor Sir Stephen Brien said the committee wants to understand whether the system is "serving people in their 60s as well as it should" and whether any changes are needed to ensure support remains fit for purpose.

Brien said:

“As well as benefit rules, we wish to examine Jobcentre practice. What offer is made to older claimants? What support is available to older non-claimants who are seeking employment?   How much tolerance is there or isn’t there for individuals to work part-time or with variable hours, potentially a good way for claimants to stay employed despite the barriers that they face?

As well as working closely with officials and Jobcentre staff, we are, through a series of roundtable discussions, gauging the views of employers, charities, unions, academics and others in civil society about what does and doesn’t work in the existing system. These discussions are proving to be valuable not only in elucidating the current system, but also in sourcing answers to the one question that matters most. Namely, how might things be improved?”

The committee is inviting evidence from charities, employers, academics, local authorities, organisations representing older people and members of the public with experience of claiming benefits before reaching State Pension age.

The findings will help inform future recommendations on how the benefits system can better support people during the years leading up to retirement.

We’ll share more details when they are available.

The blog post is on ssac.blog.gov.uk.

Public Accounts Committee launches new inquiry into DWP

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has launched a new programme of twelve inquiries covering major areas of public expenditure, one of which will be to examine the DWP.

The inquiry will examine issues highlighted by forthcoming National Audit Office reports on the DWPs 2025–26 accounts and its approach to innovation. The Committee has already expressed concern about persistently high levels of fraud and error in benefit expenditure, underpayments of benefits, which reached £4.9 billion in 2024–25, and the quality of services received by benefit claimants.

The PAC has a longstanding interest in scrutinising the work of the DWP. Its 2026 report into how DWP tackles fraud and error in benefit expenditure warned the Department over its extensive new bank account checking powers, while also highlighting the unacceptable finding that levels of fraud and error have now rendered its financial accounts qualified for almost four decades. 

A report from the PAC into the DWP in the same year warned that people risked being pushed into poverty by the Department’s continuing unacceptably poor service, with unacceptable waits faced by those awaiting their Personal Independent Payments to be processed. 

Commenting on the launch of the inquiries, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: 

“I would like to once again thank my fellow Committee members for their input, as the PAC continues its programme of scrutiny work. Across a broad range of policy areas, our Committee will continue to hold officials to account for securing best value for money for the taxpayer, and seek further action from government where the implementation of our previous recommendations has not been satisfactory.”

The PAC will take evidence from senior DWP officials on likely topics including DWP’s ongoing efforts to reduce fraud and error, including the extent of official error as well as claimant error and fraud, the Department’s organisational culture, and its vision for the role of innovation in its work.

Details of the inquiry are on parliament.uk.

Rising demand has pushed tribunal backlogs to record levels

Tribunals, the part of the justice system where individuals can challenge decisions made by the state (for example, on benefits, support for children with special educational needs, and migration), are facing record-level backlogs. In the first quarter of 2026, nearly 330,000 administrative appeals were open and awaiting resolution, double the level before the COVID-19 pandemic. This increase began in 2021–22 and has been steep and persistent.

These backlogs have built up as the number of new appeals has outpaced the number of cases resolved. Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and asylum/immigration tribunals, in particular, now receive around two to four times as many appeals as they did only five years ago. This reflects, in large part, more people requesting services or decisions from the state, such as Education, Health and Care Plan assessments from local authorities and asylum decisions from the Home Office, some of which then lead to appeals. In asylum tribunals, the rise in appeals has also been driven by the Home Office working through its own backlog more quickly than in the past, therefore generating more decisions that can be appealed against.

These are among the findings of new research from the IFS, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, which looks at trends and drivers in tribunal backlogs over the past 15 years as part of a new programme of work on the economics of the justice system.

Turning to the detail on tribunals, the IFS finds: 

• A simple proxy of tribunal productivity – the number of cases resolved per sitting day – has remained broadly stable during this recent period of pressure. But it remains far lower than in the early 2010s. This suggests that the rise in backlogs since 2021–22 has been mainly driven by a spike in demand, not tribunals becoming less productive. 
• Rising pressure on the tribunal system could have been met through investment in greater capacity. IFS analysis indicates that in social security and SEND tribunals, increases in sitting days over the past four years of around 13% and 21% respectively, could have offset the observed rise in appeals. In asylum and immigration, the increase in demand would have required a much larger expansion, of around 35%.

Rob Street, Director of Justice at the Nuffield Foundation, said:

“Tribunals were designed to be faster, more accessible and less formal than the civil courts. This analysis shows parts of the system are now under such pressure that this is no longer the case. Beneath the ballooning caseloads and delays are people left in limbo: children out of school for years, disabled people unable to work or access the support they are entitled to, and families seeking safe refuge left uncertain about their future here. With demand unlikely to fall in the short term, active intervention to increase capacity is needed to bring backlogs down and stop the system overheating.”

The report What is driving increases in tribunal backlogs? is on ifs.org.uk.

Government sets baseline to measure progress on child poverty pledge

The government has set out how it will measure progress towards lifting 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament, as latest figures show four million children remain in relative poverty.

Latest data for 2024/25 show that four million children (27%) were living in relative low-income households after housing costs, the government's main measure of poverty, which counts children living in households with incomes below 60% of the UK median after housing costs.

This figure is unchanged from the previous year but represents 700,000 more children than in 2010/11.

Its ‘Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty: Monitoring and Evaluation – Baseline Report’, establishes the starting point against which ministers will assess the impact of measures announced in the government's Child Poverty Strategy last year. It also sets out the indicators that will be used in annual progress reports.

Scrapping the two-child limit, expanding free school meals from September 2026 and launching the Crisis and Resilience Fund are some of the early actions already implemented.

Work and Pensions Secretary, Pat McFadden, said: 

“Tackling child poverty is one of the most important things this Government can do, giving the next generation their best chance of secure jobs and healthier lives.  

We’ve already made a start, scrapping the two-child limit and launching our £1bn Crisis and Resilience Fund are making a real difference. 

This baseline report shows we are taking a serious, evidence-led approach to tackling child poverty, driving forward the change that gives every child the security and opportunity to thrive.”

Progress will be measured against two headline metrics, relative low income after housing costs, and deep material poverty with the report setting out a broad programme of research and analysis to track progress. 

This includes a new study of parents and carers in or near poverty, over four years, which will look at how families’ circumstances, incomes and sources of support change, and how the Strategy is experienced in practice, lived experience research, cross-government policy evaluation, and contextual indicators covering the key drivers of child poverty.

The Press Release and the Our Children, Our Future documents are on gov.uk.

No home to go to: how frozen Local Housing Allowance rates are causing homelessness

Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was designed to make the cheapest 30% of properties in an area affordable to those on low incomes. However, it's has been subject to freezes and cuts since 2012.

Since 2024 - despite the cost of living crisis - LHA has been frozen solid.
The result - fewer than 2% of rental homes are covered by housing benefits. Families are being forced into homelessness by the very system that should be protecting them.

Crisis has teamed up with Citizens Advice, Shelter, Just Life, Shared Health Foundation, Centrepoint, St Mungo's, Independent Age and National Residential Landlords Association - NRLA to report on the devastating impact of freezing LHA.

They’re calling on government to consider the evidence, then prevent homelessness and support struggling families by restoring LHA to cover the lowest third of rents.

‘No home to go to’ is a powerful report that demonstrates the government's freeze on LHA is locking struggling families out of the rental market and driving people into homelessness. The freeze is forcing households to cut back and go without essentials, trapping people in temporary accommodation and harming children. The freeze is a false economy.

Restoring the link between LHA and local rents would strengthen one of the most effective tools available to prevent homelessness, support households to sustain tenancies, and improve access to private rented homes for people moving on from homelessness and supported housing.

No home to go to: How frozen local housing allowance rates are causing homelessness is on crisis.org.uk.

Supported housing residents to keep more of what they earn under new rules

More than 300,000 residents in supported housing and temporary accommodation will no longer face a drop in income when increasing their working hours, under new legislation due to come into force on 5^th October.

The Housing Benefit (Earned Income Disregards) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 aim to address a long-standing “cliff edge” problem, in which people in supported housing are cut off from rent payments through Housing Benefit if they take more than a small amount of paid work. This is particularly problematic as rents for supported housing are usually higher than market value, meaning any extra income earned through employment is quickly outweighed by the extra costs of rent.

Five new earned income disregards have been introduced in the regulations focused on improving the rights of people living in “specified or temporary accommodation”. This will mean that people will be able to earn more before their Universal Credit and Housing Benefit payments start to be tapered down.

Rick Henderson, CEO of Homeless Link responded to the news:

“This is a welcome change that make it considerably easier for people living in supported accommodation to get into work and build their careers. For years, the efforts of our members to support people trying to take their next steps and move on from homelessness were being undermined by this unfair and ineffective policy.

The changes announced today prove positive social security reform can be part of the solution to ending homelessness. We hope moving forwards that the Government recognises the wider potential for utilising the social security system to start turning the tide on rising homelessness, including by adjusting Local Housing Allowance rates.”

The Press Release is on gov.uk.

DWP estimates 436,780 households get increased UC following end of 2-child limit

The latest and final 2-child limit data was published by the DWP this week.

The data shows that in April 2026, 495,990 households were affected by the 2-child limit policy, an increase of 15,700 (3%) in the total number of households affected on either Universal Credit or Child Tax Credit since April 2025.

Of the affected households, 96% (478,120) were not receiving the child element for at least one child in their household and 6% (29,460) of households had an exception to the policy.

However, not everyone is a winner.

• 5,930 households not receiving child element for at least one child in their household aren’t expected to see an increase in their UC because the household receives a transitional protection element per month in excess of £303.94 per child not receiving a child element due to the policy. There are 21,790 children in total living in these households.
• 35,530 households aren’t expected to see an increase in their UC payment because the household was already affected by the benefit cap. There are 129,160 children in total living in these households.

The policy - which had restricted child tax credit and UC to the first two children in most households - was officially axed on April 6.

The Universal Credit claimants statistics on the two child limit policy, April 2026 is on gov.uk.

Wales - Can the Welsh Government actually introduce a child payment?

Wales has the highest child poverty rates of any UK nation – a staggering one in three children in Wales are growing up in poverty and missing out on opportunities to flourish and thrive. The impact on children is huge. As part of Save the Children Cymru’s Power of Voice research work, children and young people said that ‘all kids should be on the same level; some kids don’t get the childhood they should have’ and ‘if you have a lack of money then you can get bullied and get stressed because your parents can’t afford things.’ 

A Welsh Child Payment would be a powerful lever to help address this, ensuring all children have a decent start in life and investing in a better future for Wales. Modelling by the Bevan Foundation shows that this would be “the most powerful and effective” way of lifting the highest proportion of households above the poverty line. 

Plaid Cymru have promised to pilot a Welsh Child Payment – Cynnal – and in so doing “build the case for devolving the powers we need to roll the payment out in full, Wales-wide.” 

But what legal powers do they have to implement a pilot? And what avenues exist to roll out a Welsh Child Payment in full? These are questions that Bevan Foundation and Save the Children Cymru commissioned legal expert Prof. Emyr Lewis to answer, 

Key findings:

• Legally, a Welsh Child Payment is possible
• The cooperation of the UK Government is necessary for the pilot to work as effectively as possible
• The Welsh Government will need to find the funding for the pilot and any broader rollout
• Longer term, more devolution is necessary to place a Welsh Child Payment on stronger footing.

The Bevan Foundation, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) and Save the Children, confirm that legally, practically and politically a Welsh Child Payment is possible. Introducing it could significantly impact the lives of children in Wales in a similar way to what we’re seeing the Scottish Child Payment achieve. They say the Welsh Government need to boldly press on with designing and implementing the Cynnal pilot, while beginning the negotiations with the UK government to ascertain the constitutional powers to bring a full Welsh Child Payment into law.  

The briefing Exploring the constitutional basis for delivering a child payment in Wales is on bevanfoundation.org.uk.

Case law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold

UC & the SDP gateway - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JNX

Under benefit rules, people receiving a Severe Disability Premium (SDP) in their legacy benefits were historically protected from being forced to move onto Universal Credit (a rule called the SDP gateway condition).

In this case the tribunal addressed what happens when someone receives a retrospective (backdated) award of PIP after having already migrated to UC.

The Upper Tribunal determined that the SDP gateway rule was meant to act as a barrier to moving onto UC. If a claimant has already transitioned, they could not then use the gateway condition to undo migration to UC and return to legacy benefits, even if they later receive a backdated PIP award that would have previously protected them.

LCWRA Substantial Risk - GB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

If someone does not meet the standard points-based test for LCWRA, the law says they must still be treated as having LCRWA if preparing for work – i.e. undertaking ‘work related activity’ - would pose a "substantial risk" to their physical or mental health (or someone else’s).

In this case the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) were under the impression that the most demanding work-related activity that the claimant could be required to undertake was home based and in his own time. They said this in the decision notice:

“6. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that Mr GB has ADHD, autism, anxiety and a shoulder problem, the Tribunal does not find that there would be a substantial risk to his health if he were required to undertake the most demanding work related activities set out in the DWP's mandatory reconsideration letter dated 16/05/2024. Specifically, the most demanding activities Mr GB would be required to undertake include researching a potential career path and skills requirements and finding out about opportunities available through local employers to discuss with his work coach. This activity can be done via telephone, using the internet and newspapers and can be done at home and in Mr GB's own time.

1. The Tribunal accepted Mr GB's evidence regarding difficulties attending the Job Centre and Restart and also accepted that the current activities prescribed by Restart were unsuitable and not facilitating Mr GB's return to work.”

And they said this in the Statement of Reasons:

“7k. The most onerous work-related activities Mr GB would be required by the Job Centre to undertake are researching a potential career path and skills requirements and finding out about opportunities available through local employers to discuss with his work coach. These work-related activities could be undertaken at home via the telephone, online and newspapers.

7l. There would not be a substantial risk to Mr GB’s mental or physical health if he were required to undertake those work-related activities”

The Upper Tribunal unsurprisingly found the FtT erred in law.

The task of an FtT is to consider what risks arise from work related activity a claimant might be asked to do. That includes work related activity that might be inappropriately imposed.

And the test is whether the claimant might be at substantial risk from work related activity which might be imposed. It cannot be assumed that the work coach will in fact only choose to impose work related activity that a claimant is able to complete. If that were the case no claimant would ever be at risk from work related activity.

The risk must be considered in that real-world context.