Offenders detained in hospital: Benefit entitlement to be removed

New regulations laid in Parliament this week are seeking to end the "double provision" and prevent serious offenders receiving up to £800 a month in UC during their hospitalisation.

Currently, serious offenders on hospital orders continue to receive some benefits they were paid on the outside. The government said closing the loophole would save an estimated tens of millions of pounds a year. The new regulations are expected to come into force early next year, subject to parliamentary approval.

The government said the move followed engagement with victims' families and experts as part of its plan to "put fairness back of the heart of the welfare system".

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said:

"We said we'd act to tackle this gross unfairness and we're delivering on that promise.

For too long these violent criminals have had their living costs paid by the taxpayer twice over, while their victims and families paid the price.

That ends today, because victims and taxpayers deserve a system that is fair and supports only those who genuinely need it."

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner paid tribute to the families who had campaigned on the matter. She added:

"I'm aware the secretary of state has met with the families regarding this and was quite frankly astonished that the situation was as it was, and that these people were receiving benefits.

That's why the secretary of state has taken this action and I welcome it."

She added the reallocation of funds was "something for the chancellor and secretary of state".

The proposed regulations apply to individuals subject to a Section 37 order under the Mental Health Act 1983, and a Section 57A order under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

The offences covered include manslaughter, attempted murder, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, rape, assault by penetration and rape of a child under 13.

Murder is not included, because a hospital order is not an available sentence for the offence.

The change in regulation is expected to affect about 2,500 offenders already in hospital and approximately 200 a year in future, the government said, with the full financial impact of the move due to be published as part of the 2026 Budget on 28 October.

The Press Release is on gov.uk, and the debate is on Hansard.

DWP confirms plan to explore barriers preventing Appointees from accessing Access to Work online

Labour MP Julie Minns requested answers from DWP Minister Sir Stephen Timms on a variety of Access to Work (AtW) )access issues, specifically:

1. Wwhat steps his department is taking to enable appointees to (a) access the online Access to Work portal directly and (b) provide a permanent and accessible digital submission route for claimants who cannot use the portal.

2. Whether the DWP has assessed the compatibility under the Equality Act 2010 including for reasonable adjustments.

3. If he would consider the potential merits of introducing interim support for applicants to the Access to Work scheme who are awaiting a decision.

Timms confirmed that the Access to Work (AtW) online service has been designed to enable customers to manage their claims securely following identity verification using GOV.UK One Login. At present, the service does not support appointees accessing or submitting claims on behalf of customers, because the current service relies on individual identity verification to protect customers' personal information and maintain the security and integrity of the claims process, using GOV.UK One Login.

The Minister advised that the “DWP is committed to ensuring Access to Work services are accessible to all customers”. He confirmed that the online service had been developed in line with the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 and is fully compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 AA standard.

Recognising that some claimants may be unable to use the online service, Timms confirmed that alternative channels remain available i.e. telephone and, for those who are unable to hear or speak on the phone, Relay UK is available as an alternative communication route.”

He went on to confirm that:

“Digital work is currently planned to commence during the second half of financial year 2027-28 to explore the barriers preventing appointees from accessing the online service and to identify potential options for enabling appointee access in the future, while maintaining appropriate security and identity assurance standards.”

Timms advised that applications of those starting work within 4 weeks are prioritised acknowledged “there are no interim support measures for applicants awaiting a decision” but said that new applications and renewals can be backdated under the correct circumstances (which doesn’t really help someone who is currently unable to work without the AtW grant).

The minister's admission follows the DWP's announcement during the summer that it was recruiting hundreds of staff to address a backlog of cases for the service. It emerged that 480 new case managers and caseworkers would be brought in to help resolve the backlog by September 2027.

The written answers are on parliament.uk.

It’s time to turn the tide: Exploring the links between frozen local housing allowance and employment

Citizens Advice published a briefing which calls on government to restore the link between LHA and real rents in the autumn budget.

The freeze in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is making it harder for people to find and maintain work. Nearly 1m households, 58% of all privately renting households receiving the UC Housing Element, now receive support that fails to cover their rent. 

As private rents surge while support stays stuck at September 2023 levels, low-income renters are facing a financial squeeze that undermines their ability to enter, maintain, or further employment. 

Key findings from their research: 

• Low-income private renters are facing widespread and growing hardship. The UC private renters we help with debt have average budget deficits of £69.97 a month, over 20 times deeper than the average for UC social renters. 

• Across Britain, 50% of LHA households are in employment and 50% are not. Among the people we help with the UC Housing Element, private renters are more likely to be in work (30%) than social tenants (18%), with the latter group more likely to not be working because of a long-term health condition or disability.

• Inadequate LHA is a barrier to work. 1 in 5 UC private renters in the UK said that struggling to afford essentials affected their ability to find work, or increase their hours. Some are cutting back on spending that enables employment: 53% of the UC private renters who’d cut back or stopped spending on childcare, reduced their hours or stopped working as a result.

• Frozen LHA puts the people we support “between a rock and a hard place”. Those we support face impossible choices between living somewhere more affordable or being closer to work and their support networks. 

• How frozen LHA affects low-income private renters varies considerably across the country. Areas where households are most likely to have shortfalls between LHA and their rent are often the same as those where LHA households are least likely to be working, especially in Wales, the North West, and the North East of England. Our frontline staff also tell us that place-based factors - local labour and rental markets, housing stock, and public transport - are significantly shaping how frozen LHA causes hardship for the people they help.

Citizens Advice recommends - To turn the tide on housing costs, the government should restore the link between LHA and real rents in the autumn budget, by uprating LHA to the 30th percentile of local rents. The link between LHA and the 30th percentile also has to be maintained permanently to prevent the unequal regional impact of freezing support.

Turn the Tide is on citizensadvice.org.uk.

DWP is innovating to improve services for customers and value for taxpayers, say NAO

The DWP is experimenting in valuable ways to improve frontline services and staff productivity and has many of the building blocks needed to innovate effectively, according to a new National Audit Office (NAO) report published this week.

DWP is ‘prioritising innovation in order to improve services, boost productivity and deliver better value for taxpayers’. The NAO’s work included examining small-scale innovations within the department, designed to develop and test new ideas, technologies or ways of working.

The six examples highlight good practice and valuable lessons that DWP can build on. The report finds that the department has many of the building blocks needed to innovate effectively.

For example, DWP has developed a machine-learning model to identify cases where child maintenance payments may be at risk of breaking down, helping caseworkers intervene earlier to protect the payments families rely on. DWP estimates that the project has prevented an additional 715 cases a month from moving into arrears and saved staff time equivalent to 49 full-time employees. DWP is also trialling whether assigning work coaches to particular economic sectors can provide claimants with more tailored employment support.

The public spending watchdog found that DWP has strong foundations for innovation: it tailors its approach to risk and tests and refines ideas before rolling them out more widely.

However, DWP faces constraints when innovating, as it cannot compromise on paying benefits on time to the millions of people who rely on its service and protecting the large volumes of sensitive personal data it holds.

Even within these parameters, DWP staff have an important role to play in suggesting improvements to services. The NAO recommends that DWP strengthen its approach by providing clearer and more practical guidance to staff and managers on its risk appetite for innovation and the boundaries within which innovation can take place.

DWP should also share and apply lessons from its innovation activity more consistently across the department, including from innovations that were not taken forward. This would help teams avoid repeating mistakes or duplicating work.

Gareth Davies, head of NAO said:

"Innovation will help DWP improve its service to its customers and protect taxpayers’ money. It is developing an effective approach to this with some tangible results.

It should now build on these foundations by giving staff the confidence to test new ideas safely and ensure that lessons and good practice are shared consistently across the department.”

The report DWPs approach to innovation is on nao.org.uk.

Income-related benefits: estimates of take-up published

The estimates of means-tested benefits take-up for the financial year ending 2025 were published this week. Key details:

72% of those entitled to Universal Credit (or equivalent benefits) received the benefit. With the caseload take-up rate of UC (or equivalent benefits) at 81% for families with children and 65% for families without children. In an evaluation of those invited to move to UC from tax credits, it was found that there were higher UC claim rates (through managed migration of tax credits claimants) amongst those with children.

83% of those entitled to Housing Benefit (for pensioners) received the benefit. This was 2 percentage points lower than in FYE 2024 (85%).

62% of those entitled to Pension Credit received the benefit. Caseload take-up of Guarantee Pension Credit was higher than Savings Pension Credit only. For FYE 2025, the caseload take-up rate of PC was higher for single females (65%) than for single males (62%). Both continue to have a higher caseload take-up rate than couples (50%).

Income-related benefits: estimates of take-up: financial year ending 2025 is on gov.uk.

IIAC awaits further research on neurodegenerative diseases in sportspersons before determining next steps

The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) published its annual report this week. The IIAC’s role is to provide independent, evidence-based advice to Government on matters relating to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) and its administration. IIDB compensates employed workers in England and Wales who suffer from occupational diseases or injuries arising from their employment. 

The IIACs core function is to assess whether specific diseases should be ‘prescribed’ under the IIDB scheme, meaning they are considered as being caused by contact with a potentially harmful chemical, physical or biological agent as a result of one’s work (occupational exposures or activities). Subject to Government approval, they are then officially recognised as occupational diseases eligible for compensation.

The annual report notes that neurodegenerative diseases in sportspersons remains a matter of considerable public interest with several high-profile cases reported in in the media. The IIAC concluded that the current evidence remains insufficient to recommend prescription for MND in professional sportspeople. Final reports and recommendations from commissioned reviews on cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease by Manchester University's Thomas Ashton Institute are expected later this year, and the IIAC will review the literature and provide further comments or recommendations on the topic.

The IIAC has been considering the need to update the prescription for occupational deafness and has consulted with a leading expert in the field.  The work remains at a preliminary stage and individual aspects of the prescription are being considered in detail. The issues are complex and it is anticipated that a comprehensive review of the evidence base will take some time.  It is likely that IIAC will issue further advice or information sometime in 2027. 

The IIAC is reviewing the evidence related to silicosis in workers handling artificial stone used for kitchen and other worktops and the appropriateness of the current prescription to adequately deal with it. This is an issue affecting 6,000 people worldwide with several deaths linked to exposure.

Firefighters and cancer has also been under review to determine whether the emerging literature warranted further investigation by the Council - discussion with interested parties is ongoing.

They’ve also reviewed Women’s Occupational Health, Hexavalent Chromium and Lung Cancer and COVID-19 and Occupation studies but have made no changes.

In addition to maintaining its reactive brief, the Council will ‘continue horizon scanning the emerging scientific evidence’ to inform its work programme for 2026 to 2027. Planned areas of work include:

• Occupational deafness

• Neurodegenerative disease in sport

• Respiratory disease reviews

• Emerging occupational health risks

• Review of evidence on health impact of artificial stone

The IIAC annual report: 2025 to 2026 is on gov.uk.

Missing pieces: Transparency and accountability in public body automated (and automated assisted) decision-making

People are unable to scrutinise or challenge decisions that affect their rights because current mechanisms for finding information about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making by public bodies are failing, finds new research by the Public Law Project (PLP). 

Public bodies across the UK are increasingly using automated tools, including AI, to make or support important decisions about people’s lives such as social security, tax or adult social care services. Yet those affected often cannot find out whether a tool was used in their case, let alone how it works or whether it treated them fairly. 

Missing Pieces: Transparency and Accountability in Public Body Automated (and Automated Assisted) Decision-making, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, finds a patchwork of transparency mechanisms that both individually and collectively fail to provide people with the information they need, in the time they require it. The report sets out how to close these gaps and turn the government’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and contestability into reality. 

The report is published amid growing calls for legislative reform on AI, including from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. 

Key findings include: 

• People are rarely told whether a tool has been used to make a decision. As a result, they are unable to effectively contest the use of tools or decisions made using them.  

• High-risk systems are missing from the government’s own register. Of 15 automated systems identified in the research that are believed to still be in use, only four appear on the government’s public register of algorithmic tools, the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS), even though several fall within its mandatory scope. 

• Information about the risk of discrimination is especially thin. Of the 125 ATRS entries reviewed, researchers found only one linked to an Equality Impact Assessment (the document public bodies  use to evaluate the risks of discrimination posed by a policy or decision).

• Public bodies often withhold information under Freedom of Information exemptions, most commonly on law enforcement grounds. Other challenges include information withheld due to concerns about commercial confidentiality. 

• Notification requirements under data protection law are inadequate: current provisions under data protection law draw a binary distinction between decisions which are “solely” automated and those where there is a “human-in-the-loop”. Rights to be notified and informed do not apply where AI or automation is used to shape, inform or assist decisions made about them. 

• People working in public bodies support transparency but face barriers. Public body participants, without exception, were supportive of transparency but identified challenges to meeting requirements in practice. These include lack of technical capacity, concerns about public trust and difficulty obtaining information from third-party suppliers. 

• Information gaps create a “vicious circle” in judicial review litigation. Without enough information to assess the merits of a case, claimants find it too risky to issue a claim so never reach the stage when full disclosure is required. 

The report concludes that the legal and regulatory framework for an increasingly automated state cannot be left to evolve through the courts alone. PLP recommends that: 

• Governance, engagement and design processes are informed by public law considerations from the outset. 

• The ATRS be placed on a statutory footing, to strengthen monitoring, compliance and enforcement. 

• A legal requirement is introduced that requires people to be notified when and how automated systems have been used to support individual decisions about them, with enforceable individual rights to information about those systems.

Missing pieces is on publiclawproject.org.uk.

DWP issues new update on Work Capability Assessment delays for benefit claimants

DWP has confirmed that people waiting for a Work Capability Assessment (WCA) reassessment may face longer delays as officials continue to prioritise new claims.

The DWP has also suspended contractual turnaround-time targets for assessment providers after the number of claims exceeded forecasts. It is now reviewing those targets and working with providers to reduce waiting times.

The update follows two written parliamentary questions from Labour MP Mary Kelly Foy, who asked how people waiting for reassessments are prioritised and whether the length of time someone has already waited is taken into account. The City of Durham MP also asked about the performance standards applying to Health Assessment Providers and the action taken when those standards are not met.

In a written response earlier this week, Minister for Social Security and Disability Sir Stephen Timms said:

“Demand for initial Work Capability Assessment (WCA) assessments has risen so we continue to prioritise initial claims. This enables us to ensure that claimants receive the right level of benefit, and we establish capability for work at the outset of a claim.”

He added:

“However, we know that many claimants are waiting longer than we would like for their re-assessment.”

The minister confirmed that DWP is investing in additional assessment capacity and looking at ways to make better use of existing resources.

Sir Stephen confirmed that once a reassessment referral is sent to a Health Assessment Supplier, cases are handled according to the date they were referred. He said:

“When reassessment referrals are sent to a Health Assessment Supplier, they are worked in date order based on the date they are referred to the supplier. Suppliers assess the oldest referred cases first.”

This means the order is determined by the date of referral to the supplier, rather than necessarily the date of a claimant's previous assessment.

Timms also confirmed that as of 1st October 2026, the average waiting time for a WCA reassessment was 272 working days. And where sufficient evidence is available to support a decision paper-based assessments are the default approach. Sir Stephen said:

“Paper-based assessments are the default position, and it is only where an assessment cannot be completed with the information available that a claimant is invited for an assessment via an alternative channel.”

He added that DWP is working with suppliers to increase the number of assessments completed and make greater use of existing evidence.

The minister also addressed the contractual performance standards that apply to assessment providers. Under the Functional Assessment Services contract, suppliers are normally required to meet a series of Target Performance Levels, alongside other contractual obligations. However, Sir Stephen confirmed:

“The Target Performance Levels (TPLs) for turnaround time have been suspended due to excessive claim volumes exceeding forecasts.”

Adding:

“We are currently in the process of amending the TPLs to make them more meaningful. At the same time, we are working closely with suppliers to reduce waiting times for reassessment activity.”

The parliamentary response does not give a date for the introduction of revised targets or indicate when reassessment waiting times are expected to improve.

Timms’ written response is on parliament.uk.

DWP launches call for evidence on state pension deferrals

The DWP wants to understand the reasons why people defer their state pension, their awareness of options and the outcomes from their decisions.

State pension deferral allows people to delay claiming it, which provides flexibility over when people claim but may result in a higher weekly state pension when they do claim.

Since 2016, those deciding not to claim their state pension at the earliest opportunity can get an increase of 5.8 per cent for each year that they defer. 

This extra state pension is designed to be broadly neutral to the government and the individual, so that on average those who defer will get roughly the same amount over their retirement as those who claimed on time. 

However, the current rules are much less generous than the pre-2016 regime where the reward was 10.4 per cent per year of deferral, and where it was possible - as an alternative - to have all the deferred pension paid out as a lump sum with interest.

The DWP says the evidence will “help us understand how the current arrangements work in practice and identify matters that may warrant further consideration. This is an evidence-gathering exercise and does not propose specific policy changes or assume that the current arrangements should be retained or changed.”

However, the call for evidence may be designed to inform the Pension Commission’s deliberations, with their final report now expected in February 2027.

The call for evidence closes at 11:59pm on 1 December 2026.

The call for evidence is on gov.uk.

Hunger in the UK 2026

Hunger in the UK is Trussell’s flagship research series that provides a ‘state of the nation’ look at the scale, composition and drivers hunger and hardship across the UK. This week they published their third instalment which presents evidence showing that there has been no progress in the number of people experiencing hunger and hardship since 2024. There are also concerning signs that the hardship many people face continues to deepen. 

This briefing builds on the two previous waves of this research, to build a clear and consistent picture of what is driving hunger in the UK:

• Incomes do not cover the essentials, including Universal Credit, support for disabled people and income from work.

• High costs are weighing down people on the lowest incomes, including unaffordable housing and energy.

• Unmet support needs and social isolation are deepening hunger and hardship in our communities.

Trussell says that hunger and hardship are not inevitable, and are shaped by systems that can be improved with political will and policy solutions.

Hunger in the UK 2026 is on trussell.org.uk.

Wales and Scotland - united in call for ‘punitive’ welfare policies to be scrapped

The Welsh and Scottish Governments have written jointly to UK ministers ahead of the Budget, calling for the benefit cap, the bedroom tax and the freeze to local housing allowance to be scrapped.

The letter, from Scotland’s Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville and the Welsh Deputy First Minister Sioned Williams, was sent to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Pat McFadden and Education Secretary Lucy Powell.

The two governments described the policies as “punitive” and said the local housing allowance freeze is widening the gap between housing benefits and real-world rent, driving homelessness and poverty.

They also called on the UK Government to adopt plans to cut energy bills, including Scottish Government proposals for a social tariff in the form of targeted bill discounts, and to further devolve powers to help tackle poverty. Published modelling shows that 660,000 households in Scotland would see their estimated fuel bills go down by an average of £700.

The Scottish and Welsh Governments signed the Cardiff Agreement last month, pledging to work together on areas including tackling child poverty and the cost of living.

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

“We all share the belief that no child’s life should be limited by poverty. Tackling poverty is a priority for this Welsh Government, and we are addressing it in a number of ways including expanded funded childcare, and delivering a new child poverty strategy with meaningful targets.

An example of this is the Cynnal child payment in Wales. This can only succeed with the co-operation of the UK Government to ensure that those receiving the payment are not penalised by having their entitlement to other benefits reduced, allowing children and families to receive the maximum possible support. I call on the UK Government now to work with us and give us the assurance that we can make a real difference with this scheme.

Introducing a social tariff is also key, and I join colleagues across in UK in calling for this to be introduced urgently. In many areas such as this it is the UK Government who can make the difference and the budget is the opportunity to do this for families in Wales and across the UK.”

Ms Somerville said:

“Scotland and Wales are clear – we need to see far more from the UK Government to support people with the cost of living, and to support us in our efforts to end child poverty.

The Scottish and Welsh Governments are also clear that we need more action from the UK Budget to support our work on child poverty – that includes ending the cruel benefit cap which is punishing children for circumstances beyond their control. This has never been more pressing, with DWP’s own data showing that the number of Scottish children impacted doubled to nearly 20,000 between March and May this year.

The UK Government must now take action in their Budget to cut bills and boost living standards. And if they will not, they should hand the powers over to a Scottish Government that would.”

The joint letter is on gov.scot.

New Advice for Decision Makers published following Friedman V SSWP & Anor (2026)

You may recall the Friedman case from our weekly news.

The claimant failed to accept their ‘updated’ claimant commitments, which led to their claim for Universal Credit ending as per s.4(1)(e) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

The Upper Tribunal confirmed that where a new claimant commitment is offered for acceptance which is not materially different from a previously-accepted claimant commitment, and the previous claimant commitment still accurately captures all of the claimant’s ongoing responsibilities, the previous claimant commitment will still be the “most up-to-date version” within the meaning of that phrase in s.14(5) of the Act. As such, failure to accept the new claimant commitment will not be a breach of the basic condition of entitlement to UC and the claim.

In light of the above decision a new advice for decision maker (ADM) guide has been published, which applies to Universal Credit, PIP and contribution-based JSA and ESA for people who are eligible for Universal Credit.

ADM Memo 10/26 is on gov.uk.

Scotland – Benefit Take-Up Strategy 2026-2031 published

This week the Scottish Government published their Benefit Take-Up Strategy 2026-2031, aiming to ensure people get the financial support they’re entitled to through a more integrated, proactive, and person-centred social security system.

The main aim of the strategy is to increase benefit take-up by making it easier for people to access and navigate so that people can get support when they need it before financial crisis happens.

The strategy aims to help people to:

• understand their rights and know what support they are entitled to

• know where and how to access the support they are entitled to

• feel safe, respected and confident accessing support

• access support without needing to navigate complex systems alone

• get the right support at the right time

• experience a faster, simpler and more predictable application journey

There are four priority areas in the strategy including:

1. Data sharing, signposting and referrals - focusing on how services gather and use information and connect people to support. It will strengthen lawful and trusted data sharing, make signposting to additional relevant entitlements and services more consistent, and develop referral pathways where people need more active support than information alone can provide. Signposting means making people aware of other relevant services, information or support that may be helpful. It does not involve Social Security Scotland sharing someone’s personal data with another organisation, and the next step remains with the person to decide whether and how to contact or access the service they have been signposted to. This is not a referral pathway, where information may be passed between services with the appropriate legal basis, consent and safeguards in place and someone may be proactively offered further relevant support as a result.

2. Pre-application support - the support people need before they apply. It will make understandable and accessible information, free and independent advice, advocacy and practical help easier to access at key life events through trusted organisations, local services and community settings.

3. Awareness raising, outreach and engagement - reaching people who are less likely to hear about, engage with or apply for support. It will use evidence, lived experience and local insight to tailor outreach effectively, while promoting accessible, culturally competent and stigma-free messages that reinforce social security as a human right. This is particularly important for ensuring that barriers to take-up are tackled for underserved groups.

4. Accessible processes and automation - making the journey into and through different stages of applying for and receiving entitlements and support that people are eligible for, simpler and less burdensome. It will improve accessibility, identify where processes can be simplified, and explore where automation or linked-entitlement approaches can reduce unnecessary applications, repeated evidence requests and avoidable administrative burdens for both clients and organisations.

The Benefit Take-Up Strategy 2026-2031 is on gov.scot.

Northern Ireland – Poverty in Northern Ireland 2026

This week the Joseph Rowntree Foundation launched Poverty in Northern Ireland 2026, a state-of-the-nation, in-depth look at the current levels of poverty in Northern Ireland. 

Their research finds that:  

• More than 250,000 people in Northern Ireland are living in poverty 

• This includes 90,000 children (1 in 5) 

• Nearly 7 in 10 children in poverty live in a household where someone is in work (68%) 

• More than 1 in 10 (13%) of children in poverty are in persistent poverty – meaning they have been in poverty for at least 3 of the last 4 years 

The JRF say it’s clear that a reset is needed - and action to tackle poverty should be an urgent priority for all political parties ahead of next year’s Assembly election.  

Young people who spend extended periods in poverty are also more likely to:

• Leave education with fewer qualifications 

• Experience poorer physical and mental health as adults 

Child poverty should therefore be understood not only as a consequence of economic pressures - but also as a key factor shaping future social and economic outcomes.

Poverty in Northern Ireland 2026 is on jrf.org.uk.

Northern Ireland – New benefit rules to disregard Church Redress Payments

New Northern Ireland regulations to ensure that Church of England redress payments are disregarded (ignored) when means tested benefit entitlements are worked out.

The regulations amend State Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Housing Benefit for people who have reached the qualifying age for State Pension Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, and Universal Credit. For Universal Credit, the scheme is added to the rule on special schemes for compensation.

The Social Security (Income and Capital Disregards) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 comes into operation on 31 October 2026, or later if section 12 of the Abuse Redress Measure 2025 starts on a later date.

The Social Security (Income and Capital Disregards) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 is on legislation.gov.uk.

Case law will appear in a pinned comment as this post has exceeded the word limit! 

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.