UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2026

[Felis Catus]

I've been meaning to post about the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies - "Options for reforming personal independence payment" - funded by the Nuffield Foundation, but I've been too unwell to do it justice. So I haven't read it but I've read the press release titled "People with very different severities of disability currently get the same amount of PIP". Some quotes (their bold):

For example, someone who cannot wash themselves and needs assistance dressing their upper body would currently get the same level of support for daily living – £5,960 a year – as someone who cannot wash themselves, cannot dress themselves at all, cannot talk and cannot read.

The government could more closely link PIP awards to the level of assessed disability, thereby targeting support towards those with the most severe conditions.

Findings from the options we consider include:

• Means-testing PIP, by making it part of universal credit, would deliver an initial saving of up to £8.2 billion (33% of PIP spending) before any changes in the behaviour of applicants in response. This would more closely target resources towards those with the lowest living standards – 62% of PIP claimants on below-average incomes report not being able to afford essentials, compared with 34% of PIP claimants on above-average income. However, there are also gaps in living standards between disabled and non-disabled people higher up the income distribution. Means-testing PIP would make it less effective at closing these gaps.
• 45% of PIP claimants have a mental, learning or neurodevelopmental issue as their ‘main’ condition. A commonly discussed option is to reduce or remove eligibility for this group. One argument is that it is harder to verify the effects of mental rather than physical health conditions – although this is not true for all conditions. Savings would be lower than often expected because most claimants with mental health conditions also have a physical health diagnosis.
• The government may want to restrict access to PIP for younger claimants if, for example, it thinks they might be better helped by more employment support and training opportunities. Stopping all under-30s claiming PIP would save £5.5 billion a year, but many of those affected have severe disabilities. There are 689,000 PIP claimants under 30 (20% of working-age caseload), approximately half of whom qualify for the highest possible award, compared with only 34% of claimants over 30. Allowing young people with the highest possible awards, and so the most severe conditions, to keep PIP would reduce the saving to at most £2.2 billion a year.

Eduin Latimer, Senior Research Economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:

‘Before making reforms to PIP, the government needs to decide what PIP is for. If it is to help disabled people in the greatest need, there is a case for targeting support on those with the most severe disabilities or on the lowest incomes. If it is to reduce inequalities between disabled and non-disabled people more broadly, there is a case for spreading support more widely. Given that the Timms Review has ruled out spending more than currently forecast, any reforms inevitably mean there will be losers as well as winners.’

It's hard to see any winners among the claimants. I very much doubt that those most severely affected will get more than they're already getting. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, I'm sure they'll be used in speeches and interviews as a bright example of disability being recognised, acknowledged and the costs of it adequately compensated.

 

[Kitty]

I'm sure they'll be used in speeches and interviews as a bright example of disability being recognised, acknowledged and the costs of it adequately compensated.

Yup, and the said speeches were probably already written by the time the review started.

 

[MrMagoo]

I've been meaning to post about the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies - "Options for reforming personal independence payment" - funded by the Nuffield Foundation, but I've been too unwell to do it justice. So I haven't read it but I've read the press release titled "People with very different severities of disability currently get the same amount of PIP". Some quotes (their bold):






It's hard to see any winners among the claimants. I very much doubt that those most severely affected will get more than they're already getting. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, I'm sure they'll be used in speeches and interviews as a bright example of disability being recognised, acknowledged and the costs of it adequately compensated.

The assumption that PIP is just Universal Credit is just baked in already, Isnt it?

Totally ignoring the fact that someone who needs a carer to wash/dress them may be receiving Social Services support.

And, there are two levels of PIP across two categories. That reflects Teh level of disability. Someone with a limb difference might only get £30 a week mobility.

 

[Felis Catus]

The assumption that PIP is just Universal Credit is just baked in already, Isnt it?

Totally ignoring the fact that someone who needs a carer to wash/dress them may be receiving Social Services support.

And, there are two levels of PIP across two categories. That reflects Teh level of disability. Someone with a limb difference might only get £30 a week mobility.

I find it hard to believe that the authors didn't know about it given the brief descriptions under their names from the linked pages.

Eduin Latimer
Senior Research Economist

Eduin is a Senior Research Economist in the Income, Work and Welfare sector. His research focuses on benefits policy and the low-paid labour market.

Matthew Oulton
Research Economist

Matthew is a Research Economist in the Income, Work, and Welfare sector. His research focuses on the UK tax and benefit system.

Tom Waters
Associate Director

Tom is an Associate Director at the IFS and Head of the Income, Work and Welfare sector.

 

[MrMagoo]

I find it hard to believe that the authors didn't know about it given the brief descriptions under their names from the linked pages.

Totally, the spin is so clear.

 

[John Mac]

Benefits & Work newsletter

PIP Costs Plan, Reviews Plummet 71%, New Child DLA Guide

PIP AWARDS COULD BE BASED ON COSTS UNDER TIMMS REVIEW PLANS

The Timms review has revealed that future PIP awards could take account of costs for equipment, transport, clothing and bedding – with some awards potentially also including services and other non-cash support.

The proposals are remarkably similar to those included in the infamous Conservative Green Paper published in 2024.

The Timms review September update says that “cost categories used to discuss the person’s circumstances, and therefore determine their award, could include equipment and aids; mobility and transport; clothing and bedding.”

In addition, it explains that “some awards will also include services, and offer other non-cash support” without making it clear whether these services will replace part of a cash payment and, if so, whether such “offers” can be refused.

129,000 BENEFIT APPEALS NOW WAITING AS TRIBUNAL BACKLOG SOARS 63%

The backlog of social security appeals has risen by 63% in just a year, with 129,000 cases now waiting to be heard.

Appeals lodged involving DLA have risen by 187%, PIP by 52% and UC by 48%.

Overall, 60% of appeals were successful for the claimant, the same proportion as last year.

But this varied considerably by benefit type.

PIP REVIEWS PLUNGE 71% AS NEW CLAIM SUCCESS RATE FALLS TO 34%

The number of PIP planned award reviews begun by the DWP has fallen by an extraordinary 71% compared with last year.

At the same time, the proportion of new PIP claims resulting in an award has fallen from 41% to just 34%.

The latest DWP figures also show that the number of new claims for PIP has risen by 17% compared to last year. There has also been a 25% increase in change of circumstances registrations and a 7% increase in DLA reassessments.

 

[Chandelier]

Not sure if this document is already circulating on the forum.

From Bluesky:

Lucibee @lucibee.bsky.social

There are many sections in this DWP doc that simply blew. my. mind.


If you don't understand how poorly current NICE guidance (NG206) serves pwME, read DWP's mash-up of it (via BACME).

It is truly revealing.

I'm so sorry.

Michiel@murtoz.bsky.social
BACME cannot be trusted, they are a 'charity' formed by the BPS lot - our abusers. This statement is just more words.

They are still complicit:
- their awful 'care & support plan' was a joke;
- the elaros app is pushing pacing up;
- they're advising the DWP that our illness is in our heads:

DWP internal documents show Labour assurances on Universal Credit cuts are worthless​

DWP assessor training obtained by the Canary just blew a hole in Labour's assurances on fluctuating conditions under Universal Credit
www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/07/20/dwp-training-documents/

In one section, they've simply twisted NICE guidance into a rehash of CBT/GET, under the heading "Rehabilitative therapy".

CBT is laid out as in NG206.

But then comes "BACME therapy", which is basically GET under another name.

(see pages 15-16: drive.google.com/file/d/1J0BC... )

WCA_NET_026_V1_Overview of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (2).pdf​

drive.google.com/file/d/1J0BCTIFBkRK2IqThVKvU92gnWz-y1Ygc/view


Unfortunately, the concessions made to BACME and BPS proponents in NG206 have left the door wide open for this sort of thing.

 

[MrMagoo]

I’m a bit lost as all the links are quite old - did they just acquire the documents? Why is it blowing up today?

DWP lists CBT as rehabilitative therapy so that’s wrong.

Although, if anything, there’s a lot of ok basic info in there about how ME affects people, which is roundly ignored and disregarded )by my assessors and tribunals, anyway).

It’s not as if the obvious issues in the guidance are the biggest concern, it’s the fact the guidance is wholesale disregarded and tribunals can just happily ignore the known limitations the diagnosis represents.

 

[Sean]

Yes, Virginia, the world is insane.

 

[JellyBabyKid]

Introducing The Times welfare inquiry

Combining basic reporting with new data tools helps cast new light on what’s gone wrong with Britain’s benefits system

frasernelson.substack.com

Fraser Nelson is carrying out a welfare investigation on behalf of The Times

More info above, and here:

The benefits system is failing. We hope to help fix it

Introducing The Times Welfare Inquiry, which will investigate how our ‘cheque and forget’ culture costs us all dearly and the solutions within our reach

www.thetimes.com

and you can contact him at: welfare@thetimes.co.uk

 

[Eleanor]

Fraser Nelson is a hard-rightwing propagandist who has consistently depicted benefits recipients as scroungers over many years. I wouldn't encourage any pwME to spend their energy trying to engage with him - this is not going to be any kind of good faith exercise.

 

[JellyBabyKid]

Fraser Nelson is a hard-rightwing propagandist who has consistently depicted benefits recipients as scroungers over many years. I wouldn't encourage any pwME to spend their energy trying to engage with him - this is not going to be any kind of good faith exercise.

I agree that he is absolutely convinced that benefits claimants are scroungers. I saw some of his recent documentary. I think that is exactly why it is important to engage and not let it be a complete whitewash.

 

[Maat]

Interesting timing. Iain Duncan Smith is backing a new report from the Centre for Social Justice being published tomorrow.

Revealed: the 3,000 areas with over half of working-age adults on benefits - The Centre for Social Justice

The full scale of Britain’s worklessness crisis is to be revealed this week by a major inquiry into the benefit system.

www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk

 

[JellyBabyKid]

Introducing The Times welfare inquiry

Combining basic reporting with new data tools helps cast new light on what’s gone wrong with Britain’s benefits system

frasernelson.substack.com

Fraser Nelson is carrying out a welfare investigation on behalf of The Times

More info above, and here:

The benefits system is failing. We hope to help fix it

Introducing The Times Welfare Inquiry, which will investigate how our ‘cheque and forget’ culture costs us all dearly and the solutions within our reach

www.thetimes.com

and you can contact him at: welfare@thetimes.co.uk

I have written a response, based on my experiences of ME/CFS, chronic pain, mental health and neurodivergence and copied in my MP.

 

[Lou B Lou]

Introducing The Times welfare inquiry

Combining basic reporting with new data tools helps cast new light on what’s gone wrong with Britain’s benefits system

frasernelson.substack.com

Fraser Nelson is carrying out a welfare investigation on behalf of The Times

More info above, and here:

The benefits system is failing. We hope to help fix it

Introducing The Times Welfare Inquiry, which will investigate how our ‘cheque and forget’ culture costs us all dearly and the solutions within our reach

www.thetimes.com

and you can contact him at: welfare@thetimes.co.uk

Fraser Nelson's agenda has long been demonstrated to be demonising benefit claimants, especially sick/disabled people, to force draconian cuts to sickness/disability benefits and UC unemployment benefit.. The government has now turned to targeting young disabled people as well as adults for drastic cuts to/removal of disability benefits.

This is Fraser Nelson's latest in the Times today:

'Revealed: Nearly two million on sickness benefits left unchecked

Claimants are receiving payments up to 16 years after they were due to be reassessed, The Times Welfare Inquiry finds'

Revealed: Nearly two million on sickness benefits left unchecked

Claimants are receiving payments up to 16 years after they were due to be reassessed, The Times Welfare Inquiry finds

www.thetimes.com

.
Accessible Archive copy of the article. Don't read if feeling sensitive to this stuff.

https://archive.ph/BEjnv#selection-1643.0-1783.196

'Ministers are paying out sickness benefits to almost two million people without knowing whether they still qualify, a Times investigation can reveal.
More than two thirds of claimants who should be reassessed have yet to be seen. The average wait is more than two years and one person has been waiting as long as 16 years, according to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) records.

It means billions of pounds a year in sickness benefits are being paid to claimants whose eligibility has not been checked, although it is not known how many would no longer qualify for payments.
The Times today launches a Welfare Inquiry to investigate a crisis in the benefits system and its impact on public finances, communities and the economy. It will also look at reform options and the economic upside of repairing the system.'

Nelson Fraser produces a nonsense anecdote to illustrate his misreading of DWP figures and practices. Anyone can stop their sickness benefit claim at any time. But according to Fraser Nelson -

Gavin, a taxi driver from Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, said he informed the DWP four years ago that he had recovered from his open heart surgery and was ready to return to work. “I was told point-blank that they couldn’t stop my sickness benefit until I was reassessed,” he told The Times. “I waited for this reassessment but it never happened.”
He was told to go back to work and keep claiming.

Gavin said the top-up he was getting from the sickness benefit meant he was “probably working half the hours for the same amount of pay”. He wanted to speak out to highlight “how broken the system is”.

Fraser Nelson found One person who had not been reassessed for sickness benefits for 16 years. Nelson does not name their illness/disability of course. Because of course some illnesses/disabilities are lifelong and degenerative.

'one person has been waiting as long as 16 years, according to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) records.'

.

 

[BrightCandle]

MEA has a summary of the Timms review on PIP.

PIP reform: latest update from the Timms Review and new research on PIP decision delays - The ME Association

Read the latest updates on the Timms Review of Pip, as the government publishes their emerging recommendations.

meassociation.org.uk

The emerging recommendations sound OK although I think ME patients will run into problems with "consider a wider range of evidence from health and social care professionals and people who know the claimant.". That principle is going to be a big issue with the level of prejudice from medicine and peoples own families, its not necessarily a help to the claimant if all those around them get to sink their PIP application and pile on further harm. Its not just going to impact ME patients either, any of the "contested" diseases will be harmed by this principle, believing those around a patient more than the patient is a big part of the problem today and this would embed it as PIP policy.

 

[Eleanor]

Policy Exchange ("think tank") has published recommendations for restricting eligibility for child Disability Living Allowance and cutting awards to pre-pandemic levels. It's the same framing we're seeing across the political centre and right: that there has been a huge increase in claims which can't be genuine. By its own numbers this would affect hundreds of thousands of families. One of the authors (Prager) is a senior adviser to the Timms review. https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/child-disability-living-allowance/

 

[Sean]

Bastards. They botched the handling of the pandemic, and now are going to make the victims pay all over again for it.

 

[MrMagoo]

MEA has a summary of the Timms review on PIP.

PIP reform: latest update from the Timms Review and new research on PIP decision delays - The ME Association

Read the latest updates on the Timms Review of Pip, as the government publishes their emerging recommendations.

meassociation.org.uk

The emerging recommendations sound OK although I think ME patients will run into problems with "consider a wider range of evidence from health and social care professionals and people who know the claimant.". That principle is going to be a big issue with the level of prejudice from medicine and peoples own families, its not necessarily a help to the claimant if all those around them get to sink their PIP application and pile on further harm. Its not just going to impact ME patients either, any of the "contested" diseases will be harmed by this principle, believing those around a patient more than the patient is a big part of the problem today and this would embed it as PIP policy.

Of course it all sounds ok.
When it was set up it sounded ok as well. It’s the gaping chasm between the words and the actions that’s the issue.
Nobody ever wrote “set up assessments where the objective is to write a load of stuff that didn’t happen and/or would be highly improbable, causing an extra layer of work for the disabled person having to correct falsehoods”. It’s always had a qualified medical/clinician recording a straightforward assessment (up some steps with no lift) which somehow ends up in non-verbal paraplegic people being rejected for any assistance after apparently being seen tap-dancing around the room singing show tunes.
A lady I know was cured of dwarfism, imagine her surprise, she didn’t know until the assessment report told her.

 

[JellyBabyKid]

Of course it all sounds ok.
When it was set up it sounded ok as well. It’s the gaping chasm between the words and the actions that’s the issue.
Nobody ever wrote “set up assessments where the objective is to write a load of stuff that didn’t happen and/or would be highly improbable, causing an extra layer of work for the disabled person having to correct falsehoods”. It’s always had a qualified medical/clinician recording a straightforward assessment (up some steps with no lift) which somehow ends up in non-verbal paraplegic people being rejected for any assistance after apparently being seen tap-dancing around the room singing show tunes.
A lady I know was cured of dwarfism, imagine her surprise, she didn’t know until the assessment report told her.

Yes, I always want to say in my assessments/ responses that the 5% of my lung capacity that was removed during an operation hasn't magically grown back in the last 17 years, or since the last time you asked me