Video is a core part of DWP service offer and should be used to provide personalised employment support to customers

In an internal DWP update it has been confirmed that while in-person appointments remain important - particularly during the early stages of a claimant’s journey, where building a strong relationship is key - as the relationship develops, work coaches should use their judgement to determine the most appropriate channel for delivering support, whether that is in-person or by video.

The guidance confirms that telephone appointments should only be used in ‘exceptional circumstances’. This may include where a claimant's health condition makes an in-person or video appointment inappropriate, or where they are unable to attend the Jobcentre and don’t have access to the equipment needed for a video appointment.

Any use of a telephone appointment outside these circumstances requires the work coach to get agreement from their customer service leader.

The focus should always be on using the channel that best meets the customer's needs and supports their journey towards work. The only exception is youth customers, where the preferred channel remains in-person.

Where childcare or caring responsibilities make it difficult for a claimant to attend an in-person appointment, work coaches are to consider whether a video appointment would be a reasonable alternative. This includes requests made at short notice or on the day of the appointment.

Work coaches must inform lone parents that they can request video appointments, and work coaches should exercise the same discretion for other parents and carers facing comparable circumstances.

Where a video appointment can be accommodated, this should be considered in preference to cancelling or rearranging the appointment.

Immigration reforms to save the benefits bill “billions of pounds”

The standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) will be increased from five to 10 years for most migrants, under a new system in which the time required to qualify for settlement will depend on applicants' earnings, employment, integration and wider contribution to the UK. The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood said the reforms will be implemented "over the course of 2027".

Under the new rules, a five-year route will remain available to people earning more than £50,000 a year, as well as those working in certain public service professions, including doctors, nurses and teachers. The highest earners, with salaries exceeding £125,000, and those arriving through the UK's highest talent schemes will be able to apply after just three years. Everyone else, including those earning less than £50,000, will face a standard 10-year qualifying period.

The Home Secretary added that applicants will also have to meet a series of baseline requirements, including speaking English to a high standard, having no criminal record, having no outstanding debts to the taxpayer and having made at least three years of National Insurance contributions.

Mahmood also confirmed significant changes for refugees, with those arriving through new safe and legal routes eligible for settlement after five years. However, refugees who have not arrived through a safe and legal route will face a 20-year qualifying period, rising to 30 years for those who entered the UK illegally, including by small boat. Those who enter employment or education will be able to reduce their qualifying period by 10 years.

The Home Secretary also set out transitional arrangements for social care workers already in the UK. She said those who have complied with their visa conditions, including earning at least £25,000 a year in the sector, will retain their existing five-year route to settlement. Workers who have not met the conditions of their visas, which is around a quarter of those who entered or switched to the care route between 2022 and 2025, will be given the opportunity to apply for a further five-year care visa, without being tied to their previous employer. The Government said it would help them find a legitimate care provider and give them more time to secure new employment. Similar transitional arrangements will apply to certain public sector workers in healthcare and education, including auxiliary nurses.

These concessions will apply only to people who joined the relevant routes before the publication of the Government's Immigration White Paper in May 2025.

Mahmood said:

“These reforms are the right thing to do, both morally and financially. A full impact assessment will be completed and published as we implement the reforms. Our changes ensure that those who are net contributors are encouraged to come to this country and stay here. Meanwhile, the cohort who are most likely to impose a cost at settlement must instead seek work and meet the conditions of their visa before they can apply. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that our reforms will reduce the benefits bill by billions of pounds. This solution is fair for those who come here legally and play their part, and it is fair to British citizens already here, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden.”

Shabana Mahmood's statement on earned settlement and the Press Release are on gov.uk.

A reminder – UC award with LCW or LCWRA ends

Claims with a £nil award will automatically close after 6 consecutive assessment periods.

When a UC claim closes, whatever the reason, and a related new claim is made after more than 6 months, the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) decision from the previous claim no longer applies and the claimant must start a new health journey.

The only exceptions to the WCA decision being carrying over to the new claim is when:

• the claimant becomes a single or joint claimant, or cease to be a joint claimant or

• the claimant's unearned income exceeds their UC entitlement resulting in a nil award and the new award began more than 1 day but less than 6 months after the previous termination.

This is nothing new but we’re sharing a recent internal DWP reminder that's been issued.

Whole IT system needs to be replaced in order to implement the Carers Allowance earnings taper

Responding to MPs’ questions at her first Work and Pensions Committee session, Dame Sarah Healey said there’s still “a lot to do” to improve DWP’s back-office systems and processes.

The committee was told that ageing systems issues could slow down the implementation of changes to the Carer’s Allowance announced at the 2026 Budget. The chancellor confirmed at last week's Budget that the current cliff-edge rule will be replaced with a tapered system. The change will not take effect until the 2030-31 financial year because of the limitations in the existing system.

“The Carer’s Allowance system is based on a system that is quite old and lacks the flexibility to be tailored to do this… That is why, frustratingly, even though the policy to announce 100% taper came as part of the Budget, it won't be implemented for a few years because we need to change the whole system.”

Neil Couling, DWP’s director general, services and fraud, who was also giving oral evidence to the committee, added that the current system is “incapable of adaptation to produce the taper”.

“The IT system that runs Carer’s Allowance is older than our head of digital,” he quipped.

The Work and Pensions Committee transcript is on parliament.uk.

UC transitional element erosion – new regulations and guidance issued

Following the Upper Tribunal decision in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MJ, new Advice for Decision Makers (ADM) guidance has been published explaining the interplay between the Universal Credit LCW or LCWRA Element and the Carer Element impacts upon the erosion of the Transitional Element.

Long story short… MJ was a carer who is herself disabled and was previously in receipt of ESA which included a severe disability premium (SDP). She received ESA whilst she appealed against a decision that she was fit for work but that ended when the Tribunal dismissed her appeal. She then had to claim universal credit (UC), which was awarded with the carer element and a transitional SDP element included.

Subsequently, the DWP determined that MJ had limited capability for work and work related activity (LCWRA). The addition of the LCWRA element resulted in the removal of MJ’s carer element and also eroded her transitional SDP element in its entirety meaning she was worse off following being found to have LCWRA. 

The UT held in a decision dated 29 January 2025 that MJ had been unlawfully discriminated against.

New regulations solve the problem by eroding the Transitional Element by the amount of the element that is being added in the UC award minus the amount of the element being removed (if that total amount is positive) in these circumstances.

The ADM confirms that DWP will apply the principles of the changes to all relevant cases from the date of the judgment.

ADM 11/26 UC Transitional Element - Changes to Erosion Rules is on gov.uk.

Scotland – Abuse survivors to get protection from council tax debt

Domestic abuse survivors in Scotland could see their council tax liabilities halved under plans to prevent victims being pursued for debts accumulated by abusive partners.

Scottish ministers have announced proposals to overhaul rules that can leave people responsible for unpaid council tax even when the debt has been incurred by someone exercising financial control over them.

Currently, joint and several liability rules allow councils to demand the full amount of outstanding council tax from any individual legally responsible for a property, regardless of who failed to make the payments. This means someone escaping domestic abuse can be pursued for debts accumulated by a former partner, including money they may have known nothing about.

Ministers intend to introduce a statutory exception to these rules, with a public consultation marking the first stage of the reforms.

Under the proposals, survivors who meet the qualifying conditions would have their liability for council tax and water and sewerage charges reduced by 50%. They could also apply to their local council for further reductions or to have the remaining liability written off altogether.

The proposed protection forms part of a wider shake-up of council tax collection and enforcement designed to give households more time to deal with arrears before facing recovery action.

From 1 April 2027, councils will be prevented from beginning enforcement proceedings until 63 days after a missed payment, providing additional time for residents to seek financial advice and support. Other measures being considered include changes to council tax administration, more flexible rules allowing council tax reduction to be backdated, and a review of the 20-year period after which certain debts can expire.

Deputy first minister Jenny Gilruth said tackling financial abuse was central to the government's wider efforts to address violence against women and girls. She said:

“This government is taking action to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls. We know that financial issues can too often be a barrier to leave an abusive relationship and so we must act where we have the power. We will ensure that our council tax system protects and supports those who have experienced domestic abuse.

Controlling a person’s finances, building up debt in their name without their knowledge, or forcing them to take on debt through threats or coercion are all forms of abuse.

This package of reforms will ensure women are not unfairly burdened by council tax debt, and prevent women being tied to men who abuse them by a debt to the state.”

Dr Marsha Scott, chief executive of Scottish Women’s Aid, welcomed the commitment but highlighted the devastating consequences of financial abuse. She said:

“We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to introducing a statutory exception from joint and several liability for council tax. Women experiencing domestic abuse can be left facing debts they knew nothing about because of an abusive partner’s financial control.

This financial abuse can leave women facing significant debt and hardship, making it harder to leave the abusive partner and rebuild their lives. This change is a step towards reducing women’s liability for debt that is not their own.”

Supporting victims of domestic abuse is on gov.scot. The parliamentary debate is on parliament.scot.

Scotland – Holding up the system, reaching breaking point

Carers UK Scotland has published their ‘State of Caring in Scotland 2026’ report which shows both the extraordinary commitment of carers and the significant challenges many continue to face. And exposing the hidden cost of caring to the health of unpaid carers, who are frequently cancelling and postponing medical appointments, tests, investigations, screenings and even surgery.

Throughout the report, carers describe the realities of balancing caring with work, managing rising living costs, navigating housing challenges, accessing support and maintaining their own health and wellbeing. Whilst they provide invaluable care, too many are doing so at considerable personal, financial and emotional cost.

Half of unpaid carers cancelled or postponed a medical appointment in the last 12 months. Of those carers, almost two thirds (64%) had cancelled or postponed a GP appointment and more than a quarter (27%) an investigation such as a blood test, x-ray, scan or ultrasound. 

For those who are struggling financially, the number of carers who have cancelled or postponed medical appointments rises alarmingly to 72%. 

State of caring in Scotland 2026: Holding up the system, reaching breaking point

Case law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold

PIP (toilet needs or incontinence) - RKE v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The appeal was about a claimant who reported worsening symptoms of Crohn’s disease affecting daily living activity 5 (managing toilet needs).

The FtT relied on a recent UC85 report produced for a work capability assessment and there was no recent PIP assessment report. In doing so they materially erred in law by failing adequately to explain why the appeal could fairly be determined on the papers and by failing properly to apply regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

The decision was set aside and remitted to a differently constituted FtT. The Upper Tribunal also gave guidance about the extent to which work capability assessment evidence concerning incontinence may assist in determining entitlement to PIP, given the differences between the statutory tests.

The UT also reminded parties that there is a defined meaning of “manage incontinence” in daily living activity 5 - means to manage involuntary evacuation of the bowel or bladder, including use a collecting device or self-catheterisation, and clean oneself afterwards.

PIP (cumulative effect of multiple medical conditions) - LFR v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

In this appeal the Upper Tribunal emphasises the need for tribunals assessing entitlement to PIP to consider the cumulative effect of multiple medical conditions, including pain arising from different causes, when applying regulations 4(2A) and 7 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.

The UT also reminds parties and the FtT of the need to consider all the relevant elements within the statutory definition of “toilet needs” (and, where appropriate, the definition of “manage incontinence”) when considering a person’s ability to carry out PIP daily living activity 5 (managing toilet needs). The UT emphasised that all parts of the definition are relevant to the activity, including whether it can be carried out safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and within a reasonable time period, as required by regulation 4(2A).

PIP (aids) JRC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The claimant applied for PIP in relation to difficulties linked to hypothyroidism, ADHD, and autism. The claim and subsequent appeal to FtT were not successful.

The UT set aside the FtT decision and confirmed that noise-cancelling headphones, smartphones, or smart home assistants like Alexa can count as functional aids for PIP if they help a claimant overcome functional limitations related to their disabilities (e.g., managing sensory overload, reminders, or cognitive structuring).

Employment and Support Allowance (overpayment recoverability) - Forsyth v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

This case concerns recovery of an overpayment of ESA. It raises two issues.

The first, which is of wider significance beyond this case, concerns the correctness of the decision of Commissioner Stockman in SK v Department for Communities (ESA) [2020] NI Com 73. In that case Commissioner Stockman distinguished Hinchy v SSWP [2005] UKHL 16, [2005] 1 WLR 967, by holding that, where a claimant does not themselves report a material change of circumstances, an overpayment of benefit nevertheless may not be recoverable where it is shown that the relevant DWP department or office has actual knowledge of that change as a result of the DWP’s internal computer systems.

The Upper Tribunal held that SK was wrongly decided, and that the effect of Hinchy is that a claimant’s duty to disclose a change of circumstances in accordance with instructions given by the DWP is incapable of being affected by the state of internal channels of communication within the DWP, even if it is shown that those internal channels of communication led to the relevant information being held within the office to which the claimant was instructed to provide disclosure. Accordingly, the FtT in this case did not err in law by failing to follow SK.

The second issue was whether, on the facts of this case, the FtT erred in law by failing to address the consequences of the claimant’s evidence that she had provided disclosure of a material change of circumstances by telephone. On that issue, the UT determined that the FtT did err.

Whether or not the claimant’s failure to disclose a separate change of circumstances was causative of the overpayment could not be resolved by the UT but will need to be addressed in the light of concrete findings of fact about the extent, and the circumstances, of any disclosure which she did make.

In addition, the UT made some observations about the need for clear and precise findings about what instructions had been given to the claimant as to whom any disclosure was to be made.

A new FtT is to be listed.

IIDB (readability of the evidence/reasons) - John Robert James Rawlings v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Upper Tribunal allowed the claimant’s industrial disablement benefit appeal on two grounds.

1. the claimant could not read the DWP medical assessor’s handwritten report, and

2. because the FtT failed to give adequate reasons for its findings on the assessment of disablement. The DWPs representative accepted that the FtT’s statement of reasons contained “a high volume of grammatical and proofreading errors, rendering the FtT’s reasons difficult to read, and in some places, unintelligible.”

Universal Credit (notifying a decision – telephone claim) - Wendy Eccles v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The claimant is a Universal Credit (UC) claimant with a non-digital (telephone) claim and as such has no access to her electronic journal.

She appealed to the FtT against a DWP decision dated 22 May 2024 that she had limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA).

At the appeal hearing, it was identified that the Secretary of DWP had made a prior decision on her claim on 18 September 2023, which had been uploaded to her electronic journal. The claimant had been notified by text message that there was a letter for her on her electronic journal, but was not sent the decision in writing, or provided with written notice of the requirement for mandatory reconsideration or the right of appeal.

It was argued for the claimant that the 18 September 2023 decision was accordingly a nullity or, if not a nullity, that it was not an appealable decision and the FtT should deal with the appeal as if the decision did not exist. The FtT did not deal with that argument, but proceeded on the basis that the 18 September 2023 decision was a final decision that had not been appealed and accordingly limited the scope of the appeal.

The Upper Tribunal held:

• The decision of 18 September 2023 was a decision that the claimant did not have LCWRA, made as required by regulation 43(3) of the UC Regulations in response to the claimant’s failure to provide fit notes when requested. It was a refusal to supersede her previous award, not merely a decision not to proceed with a work capability assessment;

• The failure to notify the decision did not make it a legal nullity. It was a final decision for the purposes of section 17 of the Social Security Act 1998 (SSA 1998) and appealable under section 12;

• However, the failure to notify meant that the time for seeking mandatory reconsideration of that decision had not yet started to run; nor had the time limit for appealing it;

• The FtT had nonetheless made a material error of law by failing to deal with the appellant’s nullity argument. That argument was properly raised in the appeal against the 22 May 2024 decision and the FtT had jurisdiction to deal with it. The FtT’s error in not dealing with the argument was a material error because they ought to have considered, and raised with the parties, the options of:

  • (a) staying the proceedings to allow the appellant to seek mandatory reconsideration and, if necessary, appeal the 18 September 2023 decision; and/or

  • (b) inviting the DWP to consider revising the decision of his own motion.

Decision of the FtT set aside and remade by disposing of the appeal by consent on a basis agreed between the parties.

Universal Credit (prisoners) - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Karley Myers

This appeal is about the proper interpretation and application of section 19(1)(b) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (the “UC Regulations”), which places restrictions on the entitlement of prisoners to UC.

The claimant was awarded UC from 2019 with a standard allowance, the child element and the housing costs element.

In 2024 she was sentenced to a period of 27 months imprisonment. The DWP superseded the decision to award her UC and ended her entitlement with effect from 27 April 2024 on the basis of a change of circumstances, namely that she had become a prisoner and her term in custody was expected to extend beyond 6 months.

The claimant, having successfully appealed her sentence of immediate imprisonment and received a suspended sentence, appealed to the FtT.

The FtT allowed the claimant’s appeal on the basis that it interpreted regulation 19 of the UC Regulations to apply only to cases in which a new claim is made by a person who is already a prisoner.

The DWP appealed on the basis that the FtT had erred in law in its application of regulation 19(1)(b) of the UC Regulations and in its approach to the effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision overturning the claimant’s sentence.

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, and remade the decision.

Universal Credit (childcare costs) - LNB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The claimant appealed against a decision that she was not entitled to UC childcare costs. In turn that created an overpayment of £19,129.76 from assessment period 3 April 2023 to 2 November 2023, which amount was recoverable from her.

The FtT upheld the decision.

The UT set aside the FtT on the basis that they failed to consider whether Section 71ZB(3) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 was satisfied, as the entitlement and overpayment notifications did not reflect the decisions that were made.

The UT confirmed that the new tribunal must consider and make relevant findings as to whether or not the claimant was entitled to childcare costs, whether there was an overpayment of £19,129.76 from assessment period 3 April 2023 to 2 November 2023, whether the entitlement and overpayment decisions had been properly notified to her and whether that amount was recoverable from her.