Thousands of disabled people face ten-month wait for benefits due to DWP backlog

Disabled people are going without benefits for more than ten months on average due to delays in the social security appeals system, according to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

The fact that the average waiting time between the government rejecting a benefit application and the end of the appeals process is over ten months means that many people will in practice be left waiting more than a year.

Such long delays are particularly relevant to the DWP’s plans to cut the number of people who can claim the personal independence payment (PIP) disability benefit. Not only are these cuts expected to increase the number of PIP appeals, but the government has tried to assuage MPs’ concerns about the plans by arguing that the increased number of appeals will mean fewer people will ultimately lose out than critics fear.

As a result, the government’s defence of its planned cuts relies on more people using an appeals system that is already riven with heavy delays during which applicants do not receive PIP payments.

Read more:

• I’m a Labour MP and this is why I still can’t support the government’s disability benefits cuts
• Labour’s disability benefits bill is supposed to help people into work – but the jobs aren’t there
• Revealed: DWP has lost more employment tribunals for disability discrimination than any other UK employer

Responding to a written question from Liberal Democrat MP Rachel Gilmour regarding the backlog of PIP appeals, DWP minister Stephen Timms said: “The median journey time for an appeal where the initial decision was made in December 2023, was 42 weeks.”

The figure covers PIP applications where the DWP made an initial decision in December 2023 and which then went all the way to tribunal.

The DWP told Big Issue that the 42-week “median journey time” covers the entire length of the appeal process, from the DWP refusing a PIP claim to the eventual tribunal hearing in court, via the mandatory reconsideration (MR) phase claimants must go through before progressing to tribunal. While the MR phase, where the DWP effectively marks its own homework, mostly finds against PIP applicants and claimants, the vast majority of the much smaller numbers who have the energy to then go tribunal are successful.

Separate government figures show the DWP takes two months on average to process MR applications, while tribunal appeals on average take over seven months to complete – suggesting that although the 42-week period also includes the time it takes applicants to submit forms and evidence, most of it is accounted for by delays in officialdom.

Timms’ written response also said that 8,900 PIP appeals are currently in progress.

“It’s quite a daunting process for anyone, really, and it feels very odd to have to go through all this effort essentially just to get your PIP or your benefits,” said Arun Veerappan, director of research at the Disability Policy Centre think tank, which has criticised the government’s planned cuts.

“People think claimants game the system, but they’re just not being scored correctly in the first place. So they will undoubtedly challenge things, and that’s just going to cause bigger costs for tribunals, for the court service, and greater delays. Average tribunal costs for I think the court service is about £1,000 per case.

“But also it’s needlessly dragging things out, because we know if those claimants were taking their cases, they’d be awarded anyway. So it’s more a case that they’ve just been given the wrong score to start with, rather than them trying to get higher than they’re entitled to. We’re just creating lots of unnecessary hoops for no reason to make claimants’ lives worse.”

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said in March that the effect of the cuts would be halved by “behavioural effects” meaning that some applicants and claimants who would currently fail to meet the planned four-point threshold would, in practice, manage to meet it.

“[T]hese changes will lead to higher levels of mandatory reconsiderations and appeals among unsuccessful claimants,” the OBR wrote in its spring outlook in which it costed the government’s green paper cuts.

As Timms told the House of Commons in May: “The OBR is right on this. Its assessment is based on previous experience of changes of this kind. The behaviour both of the people claiming the benefits and of those who conduct the assessments changes. For example, I have met people who were awarded two points for one of the activities last time around, when I thought they were entitled to four, but it did not change their award, so it was not challenged and nobody minded. In future, someone in that position could well score four points on that activity and so retain the benefit, even though they did not score four points on any of the activities last time around.”

While last week’s “compromise” offer from the government largely restricted PIP cuts to new applicants, the plans still entail more rejected applications and thus more appeals, and ministers will likely continue to point to this to address concerns about the numbers of new applicants who will ultimately lose out.

Veerappan himself has experienced the PIP appeals process – and the sheer length of time it takes.

“I developed ankylosing spondylitis, which is a progressive autoimmune condition,” he said. “It’s a progressive autoimmune condition that can cause the spine to fuse, and it restricts your mobility. And over the last few years, I’ve had to use a walking stick.

“And I also have a really rare, complex neurological condition that means sequencing and processing tasks are very difficult, like I can’t get things in the right order to make a cup of tea, for instance. I had this for a couple of years, but then because everything was progressive, it got a bit worse.”

He applied for PIP in April 2023 and was awarded eight points for the PIP daily living element, entitling him to the standard allowance rather than the higher enhanced payment, and denying him any mobility award at all.

He scored two points in each of four categories – which, for applicants from November 2026, will no longer be enough to qualify under the government’s plans.

Veerappan thought he should have received the enhanced payment. “I thought the PIP assessment was done terribly,” he told Big Issue. “Because I could grip the walking stick, they assumed I therefore had the ability to cook a meal using fresh ingredients. And they said because I didn’t take the highest dose of pain meds every day, then I can’t really have trouble with washing and bathing. Even though there’s loads of side effects from very high dose pain meds.”

He hired a solicitor at his own expense and applied for an MR in October 2023. Five months passed before the response came back: no change. Having already compiled a bundle of evidence for the MR, they then had to add to it in order to bring a tribunal appeal – in the end it was 123 pages long. They lodged his appeal in April 2024 – and waited.

It was not until 11 months later that they were told of the appeal date, which took place in April 2025, a whole year after they’d lodged the appeal.

“And we walked in,” Veerappan said. “The DWP presenting officer was not there, did not attend. I understand that’s quite common in these cases, where they’re particularly stretched. Before we even began proceedings, the judge said that we find in your favour and, based on the evidence we’ve seen, that you should be qualified for enhanced mobility and enhanced daily living.”

The enhanced payments were backdated to his original application, allowing him to fund a more expensive mobility aid to make it less painful to walk – which he’d had to do without during the two years it had taken to qualify for the higher payment. He was also able to get a Motability car.

He had at least received the basic PIP daily living payment for two years. Should MPs vote for the government’s cuts today (1 July), then from November 2026 an applicant in Veerappan’s position would receive no PIP at all until the appeal was decided.

Veerappan has serious concerns about the planned new four-point PIP threshold – which in practice will be four points in most daily living categories.

“When it comes to two-point descriptors, these are usually quite objective – because if you have a musculoskeletal condition, obviously the use of an aid might benefit you. It’s quite objective in that sense – you can look at the medical evidence. ‘He clearly has arthritis, clearly this would help, he has arthritis in his wrists and his hip, this will help.’

“But when it comes to four-point descriptors that say you need supervision or supervision or assistance to cook a meal, the questions there give the assessor a lot more room or risk of misunderstanding or misapplying criteria. You need a lot more information, really, but there’s a bigger chance you’ll misunderstand. And I think the government has made the error here in assuming that low-scoring claimants are low-needs claimants. But that’s not the case.”

A government spokesperson said: “The vast majority of people who are currently getting PIP will continue to receive it.

“At the heart of our welfare reforms is our review of the PIP assessment to ensure it is fit for the future, and we will work with disabled people and the organisations that represent them as we deliver our Plan for Change.

“Appeals are lodged with, and administered by, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and we continue in our aim to make the right decisions as early as possible in an applicant’s claim journey, so that people can get the support they are entitled to swiftly.”

The Ministry of Justice is looking to recruit about 1,000 judges and tribunal members this year across all courts and tribunals – not limited to the social security tribunal that judges PIP appeals.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

Real stories. Real impact. Real change.  

No clickbait. Just trustworthy journalism that gets to the heart of big issues in the UK and beyond. Words drive real change.

If this article gave you something to think about, help us keep doing this work.  

Support independent journalism from £5 a month.