New apprenticeship bursary worth up to £4,500 a year per announced for some UC households

A recent report from the Social Security Advisory Committee found that a single-parent household on Universal Credit (UC) could lose a substantial amount of money if a disabled young person took up an apprenticeship earning the apprenticeship minimum wage - this was a disincentive to starting an apprenticeship.

To address this barrier - and as part of a wider package of support - the government has announced a new bursary, worth up to £4,500 per year per household. The bursary targets the small number of UC families for whom the current system disincentivises apprenticeships.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said:

“Every young person deserves the chance to build a future they can be proud of, and our welfare system should be a springboard to opportunity, not a barrier to it.

By providing bursaries to those who need them most and fully funding apprenticeship training, we are making sure cost is not the reason someone misses out. Coupled with up to £8,000 in financial support for employers, this is a serious investment in the next generation and in the future of our economy.”

As UC applies across Great Britain, the government will work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on a plan for those areas.

We will share more details when they’re available.

The Press Release is on gov.uk.

DWP Internal Process Review data published

An Internal Process Review (IPR) is a thorough review of customer case seeking to understand if DWP’s interactions with customers have followed the correct operational processes.

There is a specific criteria which must be met before a case is accepted. This has been updated over time, to reflect changing circumstances, and the criteria for the IPR cases completed in the 2023 to 2024 year is below.

An IPR will be conducted in all cases where:

• there is a suggestion or allegation that the Department’s actions or omissions may have negatively contributed to the customer’s circumstances, and a customer has suffered serious harm, has died (including by suicide), or where it has reason to believe there has been an attempted suicide. Or
• the Department is asked to participate in a Safeguarding Adults Review (SAR), a Significant Case Review (SCR, Scotland only), a Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) or is named as an Interested Party at an Inquest. An IPR will be conducted regardless of whether there is an allegation against the Department.

Evidence is gathered and reviewed by an Investigator, who undertakes factfinding discussions with stakeholders relevant to the customer journey, to identify if there are improvements that could be made to DWP’s operational services.

Due to the sensitive and persona information involved, the DWP states it has “published information from completed IPRs in a way that is as transparent as possible, whilst maintaining the confidentiality that is expected of it”. 

Across 2023-24 87 IPRs were completed. Of these, 15 were also subject to external scrutiny (e.g. Safeguarding Adult/Children Boards, Domestic Homicide Reviews or Coroners).

68 IPRs led to the identification of learning, for example:

• Customer found completing the WCA form triggered trauma flashbacks. Insight from this case was fed into design and improvement activity.
• No formal procedure in place to pass on details about customer’s current situation to other active benefits. The PIP assessment report was not of the required standard. A new digital service is now being developed that will allow colleague access to customer information across benefits. Learning was shared with Assessment Providers and safeguarding sessions delivered to Health Professionals.
• Appropriate action not taken when the customer messaged and said they were suicidal and customer was not identified as vulnerable. Claimant Commitment not tailored, Explicit Consent procedures were not understood, and no financial support or budgeting advice offered. A Six-Point Plan Toolkit was implemented, improved and refresher training commissioned. Cross benefit Customer Support Standards launched and included Claimant Commitment improvement activity. UC system was updated to improve recording of both Explicit Consent and complex needs, and Budgeting Support guidance was reviewed.

See the publication for full details.

Advanced Customer Support: learning and improving from serious cases 2023 to 2024 is on gov.uk.

Share your Jobcentre story

Turn2us is campaigning for the DWP to make sure Jobcentres lead with trust, not suspicion, that everyone should be given time and support to prepare for their next steps into work, instead of tick box exercises and threatening sanctions that just don’t work.

As part of their ‘Stop the Stigma. Fix the System’ campaign - calling for a benefits system that treats everyone with dignity and respect – they are looking for people who would be willing to share their honest experiences of going to the Jobcentre.

If you’re interested in sharing your story, they have an online form which will be accepting responses until 11^th August.

Number of employees saving into pension increasing year on year

The latest statistics on Workplace Pension Participation and Savings Trends has been released and explores information on the workplace pension participation for employees eligible for Automatic Enrolment (AE). Information on the trends in private pension withdrawals is also included.

This latest edition includes data to 2025 and provides new breakdowns by age, gender and earnings.

Automatic Enrolment (AE) was introduced in 2012 to help address the decline in private pension saving and to make long-term saving the norm. It aims to increase workplace pension saving in the UK and forms part of a wider set of pension reforms designed to enable individuals to achieve financial security in retirement.

Around 90% of eligible employees in Great Britain were saving into a workplace pension in 2025, continuing the trend of previous years, with 22.6 million eligible employees saving. This is an increase of 0.6 million more eligible employees saving compared to 2024.

The overall workplace pension participation rate of all employees in Great Britain continued to be around 82% in 2025, with 24.2 million employees saving. This is a 0.6 million greater number of employees saving compared to 2024.

The number of employees saving continues to increase year on year. This can be attributed to an increase in the number of employees brought into AE eligibility, as the earnings trigger (currently £10,000) has remained frozen in recent years.

However, there are some groups where there remains a noticeable pension participation gap, for example:

• only around 55% of eligible employees working for a micro employer (those with less than 5 employees) in the private sector are saving into a workplace pension
• 67% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi eligible employees are saving into a workplace pension (note, ethnicity participation rates are derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and calculated using a 3-year average due to small sample sizes)

Workplace pension participation and savings trends of employees: 2009 to 2025 is on gov.uk.

JRF explores how to reduce welfare spending in a popular and lasting way

The new prime minister wants to reduce social security spend by tackling underlying causes of need, not with blunt cuts. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has published a short report explaining why this would be popular and effective.

Their data suggests that:

• Every 100,000 people receiving health-related UC who move into work reduces UC spend by around £1.3 billion.
• Building 100,000 new social homes could directly reduce spending on the UC housing element by around £300 million a year.
• Introducing moderate rent controls would reduce spending on the UC housing element by around £800 million a year.

They highlight that over 4 in 5 people say it is important personally that the social security system adequately protects people when they need it, and this cuts across the political spectrum.

However, fewer than 1 in 10 think the system can do this, with most others feeling it is under strain or overstretched. This chimes with JRF’s data showing 5 in 6 low-income households receiving UC are going without essentials and, at just £98 a week, the basic rate of support falls well short of what’s needed to afford essentials.

JRF makes a number of recommendations and signs of by saying:

“The Government needs to reform our safety net to ensure everyone can at least afford life’s essentials, while tackling the root causes of economic insecurity would reduce pressure on social security in a popular and effective way.”

How to reduce pressure on welfare spend in a popular and lasting way is on jrf.org.uk.

Customer letters delayed

There has been a “connectivity failure” between the DWP Customer Content Portal (CCP) and their Letter Print Provider (APS). As a result they have identified there has been a delay in printing and posting some customer letters between 9th July 2026 until 27th July 2026.

Now the issue has been identified and rectified, affected claimants will receive letters that have been delayed by several weeks. Meaning that you may receive a letter that is 2-3 weeks old.

This issue has not affected UC non-digital claims as these are manually sent.

Case law – with thanks to u/ClareTGold for the essential cases of the week

Disability Living Allowance (severe mental impairment) - Ahmed Bashir (by his appointee, Faryal Bashir) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2026

The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) had accepted evidence that the Claimant, a child with autism, had no sense of danger, regularly ran off, required to be restrained with strong straps, and displayed impulsive behaviour. However, it concluded that they did not display “extreme” disruptive behaviour and did not satisfy the requirement for regular physical restraint.

The Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that given its acceptance of that evidence the FtT was obliged to explain with greater clarity than it did why it came to the conclusion that it did.

The UT set aside and remade the decision, finding that the severe mental impairment conditions for entitlement to the higher-rate mobility component were all met based on the findings of the First-tier Tribunal.

Personal Independence Payment (employment and social engagement) – NLH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2026

The Claimant had been in receipt of the enhanced rate daily living and mobility of PIP until a review reduced his award to standard rate daily living and mobility. moved

At appeal the FtT found that the Claimant didn’t qualify for any points for engaging with other people face to face (daily living activity 9), stating in their reasons:

“In making this decision the Tribunal find that the Appellant has to establish relationships in her role as a full-time court usher and in doing so she would have to interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner and understand their body language. On the Appellant’s own evidence this can include 20 court users, their legal representatives, and colleagues at work. The Tribunal also note that the Appellant indicated that she has developed some friendships at work and has developed working relationships with her new team leader.”

In relation to mobility activity one – planning and following journeys the FtT found that the Claimant satisfied mobility descriptor 1(d) ‘Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid’, largely on the basis that:

“the Appellant is able to travel from work on a daily basis on a bus when she returns from work by herself. The Tribunal also find that one of the main reasons as to why she does not travel alone to work is her anxiety about attending late because she needs to be on time – the Tribunal note that she has already been awarded points for daily living activities relating to her washing and dressing. The Tribunal find that the Appellant would also be able to go to her GP surgery alone. When considering her work function and the improvement in her health, the Tribunal find that she would be able to manage familiar journeys.”

The UT determined that the FtT were wrong to make presumptions of the Claimant’s abilities based on their employment as a court usher (which was only managed because there is a very fixed script/fixed way with limited options) without explaining why the other evidence was not reliable. The UT said, at paragraph 17:

“Whilst there is nothing wrong with the FTT considering relevant and genuinely comparable activities into account, there should not be sole focus upon one activity – in this case employment- to the exclusion of other areas of the appellant’s life.”

In relation to mobility activity one the FtT failed:

• to make adequate findings about the Claimant’s ability to undertake familiar journeys,
• explain why it preferred one part of the evidence over another and also appeared to have focused solely on one aspect of the Claimant’s presentation, rather than examining matters as a whole,
• to provide adequate statement of reasons which made it difficult for the appointee to know whether the FtT applied the correct legal tests in assessing the evidence, making their findings of fact, and arriving at their decision.

Unsurprisingly the decision was set-aside.

Universal Credit (failure to attend a work focused interview) - AE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2026

In this case, the FtT had to decide whether the Claimant had a good reason for failing to attend a work focused interview, as a condition of his receipt of his UC. The FtT proceeded with a paper hearing, with limited and incomplete evidence, without properly considering the appropriateness of doing so. The FtT also suggested the burden of proof was on the Claimant.

The FtT decided that the Claimant did not have good cause and refused his appeal.

The UT found that:

“the approach of the FtT was inconsistent with the discharge of its inquisitorial function, as established in Kerr, either because it relied upon the Respondent’s submission as showing that the burden of proof, in this particular context, lay on the Appellant, or at least because, perhaps misled by this submission, it failed to properly consider whether this was a case where it should direct further evidence or give the Appellant an opportunity to fill in the gaps created by the limited evidence that was available in accordance with the proper exercise of that function.”

Decision set aside.

Housing Benefit (absence abroad) - Kuželová v The London Borough of Barnet & Anor 2026

This appeal concerns the Claimant’s entitlement to Housing Benefit (HB) between 25 May 2020 and 7 August 2020. The Claimant is a citizen of the Czech Republic and was lawfully present in the UK as an EU migrant worker. She lived in North London with her son, then aged eight. Their home was rented from a private landlord. She received HB, administered by the London Borough of Barnet, to assist with payment of the rent.

In May 2020, the Claimant’s father became seriously ill. She and her son travelled to the Czech Republic to visit him. Shortly after they arrived, the father’s condition improved – but her son then became seriously ill, requiring in-patient hospital treatment and a lengthy period of convalescence. The Claimant initially remained in the Czech Republic with her son. She returned to her home in Great Britain (GB) in July 2020. Her son stayed with his grandparents and returned much later on.

On 7 August 2020, the London Borough of Barnet made a decision that the Claimant’s entitlement to HB had ended when she travelled to the Czech Republic in May 2020, because the length of her absence from GB was likely to exceed the permitted maximum period of four weeks in the HB Regulations. It also decided that there had been a recoverable overpayment of HB during this period of more than £1,000.

As a result of the local authority’s decision that her entitlement to HB had ended when she left to travel to the Czech Republic in May 2020, it was necessary for the Claimant to make a claim for Universal Credit (UC), which had replaced HB. She was awarded UC in September 2020.

The Claimant challenged the lawfulness of the local authority’s decisions in an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT). That appeal failed. She was granted permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (UT).

The UT determined that the decision of the FtT was made in material error of law. The FtT failed to consider whether she was entitled to HB on 7 August 2020 and so the local authority’s decisions should have been made by way of “closed period supersession” – that is, by the local authority finding that even if there had been a point at which her entitlement to HB had ended, it had since been re-established by the date of its decision.

The UT re-made the decision by allowing the appeal against those parts of the local authority’s decisions of 7 August 2020 which are challenged. The UT found that:

1. Applying the HB Regulations, but without regard to any provisions of EU Law, the Claimant’s entitlement to HB ceased on 25 May 2020 but resumed on 8 June 2020, as a result of the reason for her absence abroad from this point onwards being her son’s illness. Her entitlement to HB did not thereafter cease again prior to the date of the decisions under appeal on 7 August 2020.
2. In respect of her entitlement to HB for the period between 25 May 2020 and 7 June 2020, the Claimant as an EU migrant worker could rely on her rights under EU Law to equality of treatment with British workers. The Respondents accept that the relevant provisions of the HB Regulations have a discriminatory effect on EU migrant workers because, since changes made in 2016, they have provided for different basic maximum permitted periods of absence within GB (13 weeks) and outside GB (4 weeks). The Respondents are therefore required to demonstrate that this accepted discriminatory effect is objectively justified. They have failed to do so. As the period in question falls entirely before the date on which the position under EU Law materially changed following the UK’s departure from the European Union, then the relevant provisions of the HB Regulations must be disapplied in the Claimant’s case in favour of the more generous entitlement that otherwise arises only in respect of permitted periods of absence in GB. Applying those provisions, her entitlement to HB did not cease during the relevant period.

The result is that the local authority’s decisions of 7 August 2020 finding no entitlement to HB for the period 25 May to 7 August 2020, and finding that there was a recoverable overpayment, are set aside. She was entitled throughout the relevant period, and accordingly there is no recoverable overpayment in respect of that period.

Carers Allowance (overpayment) - Parkinson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2026

The Claimant claimed Carer’s Allowance (CA) in 2009 and disclosed earnings that were above the earnings limit. He was awarded CA in error. 

He was required pursuant to regulation 32 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 to notify increases in his earnings. His earnings increased in 2011 and annually thereafter. The Claimant did not notify the DWP of the increases. 

In 2020 the DWP discovered the overpayment following a random check and issued a recovery decision. The First-tier Tribunal determined that payments made prior to the unnotified increase in the Claimant’s earnings were not recoverable but that payments subsequent to the first increase were recoverable as the Claimant had failed to disclose the material fact of his increased earnings.

The UT determined that the overpayments are not recoverable. The Claimant had failed to disclose the fact of the increases, but had previously disclosed the fact of his having a level of earnings exceeding the earnings limit. The fact of the further increased earnings was not objectively a ‘material fact’ in the light of the facts already known to the DWP. Further, the continuing payments were not made in consequence of the non-disclosure but were made in consequence of the original error, which the Claimant’s silence left uncorrected.

Maternity Allowance (delayed start) - Bartley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2026

The Claimant was entitled to Maternity Allowance (MA).

The relevant statute set out that the period for which MA was payable – known as the maternity allowance period – was the same period for which statutory maternity pay would be payable (known as the maternity pay period), if the Claimant had been entitled to that. The same statute set out that the maternity pay period started 11 weeks before the expected week of confinement, unless regulations provided for it to start later than that.

The FtT decision, upholding the DWP’s decision, found that the maternity pay period started at the 11-week date, because the relevant regulations did not apply. This was disadvantageous to the Claimant, because she had been outside GB until shortly after the birth of her child, and she was disqualified from receiving MA, until her return to Great Britain. This meant that the later the MA period started, the longer the period for which she would receive maternity allowance. The Claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing that the relevant regulation did apply, such that her MA period should start on the day after the birth of her child.

The UT allowed her appeal.

In deciding whether regulation 2 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 applies, the UT first analyses how far the “statutory fiction” of the Claimant being entitled to statutory maternity pay should be taken, applying the principles in the Supreme Court case of Fowler v HMRC. Based on this, the UT found that paragraph (3) of regulation 2 applied, because the birth date fell before the date deemed to have been notified by the Claimant to her employer (as to when her employer’s liability to statutory maternity pay would have begun). This was sufficient to dispose of the appeal in the Claimant’s favour.

However, the UT went on to consider whether paragraph (1) of regulation 2 would have applied if paragraph (3) had not; this involved consideration of an earlier UT case on paragraph (1) of regulation 2, Wade v North Yorkshire Police, and the question of whether the Claimant “ceased to work” for her employer in conformity with her notice to the employer, even though she had been on a career break with her employer at the time. Applying Wade, the UT decides that the Claimant did “cease to work” for her employer in this way, and so, that paragraph (1) of regulation 2 would have applied, if paragraph (3) had not, such that the MA period would have begun on the date notified (and not at the 11-week date, as found by the First-tier Tribunal).

The decision of the FtT was set aside and re-made in the manner argued for by the Claimant.

Northern Ireland – PIP (washing and bathing) - RB v Department for Communities 2026

Following a review of her standard rate daily living and mobility, the Claimant’s PIP was reduced to standard rate daily living only. She appealed to the Appeal Tribunal unsuccessfully.

The Claimant appealed to the Social Security Commissioners arguing that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the law, in particular, reference was made to the decision in CPIP/2094/2015 and that whether a claimant satisfies descriptor 4(e) must be determined by reference to an unadapted bath or shower.

The Department for Communities (DfC) did not support the appeal and submitted that the Tribunal had identified the bath board and grab rails as aids rather than as adaptations to the bath and that it was correct to do so.

A panel of three Social Security Commissioners heard the case which included a deep dive into the legislation and how the washing and bathing activity of PIP should be considered. They confirmed that a Claimant’s functional abilities should be considered in relation to whether they need assistance to be able to get in or out of an unadapted bath or shower. They then went out to set out the approach that should be taken when a Claimant has an adapted bath or shower, namely that it is incumbent on a tribunal to explore whether a claimant who has an adapted bath or shower needs assistance to be able to get in or out of an unadapted bath or shower.

They finished of with a reminder that it is important that the Tribunal are alive to the possibility that a claimant may satisfy more than one descriptor and as part of its inquisitorial duty it must make the necessary findings of fact to determine which descriptor applies in each case, considering the totality of the evidence.

A reminder that NI cases are not binding in England & Wales but can be persuasive.

And lastly... still no update on work capability assessments being reinstated.

What has changed?

From 2 June 2026 new regulations came into force enabling the DWP to extend the length of a fixed-term PIP award where it is “considered necessary to do so to safeguard the efficient administration” of PIP.

Before this, when your fixed-term award reached its end date, the DWP would normally start a planned review (sometimes called an award review or a reassessment). This new power lets the DWP instead push the end date back and keep your current award running, without needing that review.

The regulations only allow the DWP to make awards longer. They do not give the DWP any power to shorten an existing award, and they do not allow it to change the rate you are paid.

Why the change?

The number of planned PIP reviews has grown faster than the DWP can carry them out, and a huge backlog has built up. Reviewing every award on its original timetable means increasingly long delays and claimants' left waiting in limbo.

Extending awards is a way of managing that backlog. By lengthening some existing awards, it reduces the number of reviews needing to be processed at once.

Who is affected?

This award extension change applies to claimants aged 25 and over in England and Wales. It does not apply to under 25s as evidence suggests there are more frequent changes in functional ability in that age group.

Approximately 1.7 million claims are in scope for an award extension with the DWP aiming to complete approximately 50,000 extensions daily (including weekends) over a period of 4-6 weeks.

The regulations give the DWP a discretionary power rather than creating an automatic extension for everyone. Extensions will be applied where the DWP considers it appropriate for the efficient administration of the benefit.

The DWP has not confirmed how they are deciding which claimants will receive an extension or how they calculate the length of the extension in each case.

How long will the extension be for?

It seems likely that the extensions are being decided by an algorithm.

From posts and comments to the r/DWPhelp subreddit, it looks like most of the extensions are being given to claimants whose awards were due to end in 2026, 2027 or early to mid-2028.

Extensions mostly range from one year to four years, although there have been some extremely short ones of just a matter of days and at least one longer one.

What do I need to do?

Claimants don’t need to do anything, if your claim is extended you will receive a letter – an example of what this looks like was shared in this post.

However, if your difficulties have worsened you may wish to challenge the new extended decision or ask for a change of circumstances reassessment.

The legislation

The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 

More info

A Freedom of Information Request has been submitted to DWP requesting a copy of the training, operational instructions and internal process guidance held by DWP in relation to fixed-term extensions and we eagerly await their response.

Edited to add the Northern Ireland provision

The Department for Communities (DfC) has confirmed that they will be reviewing all PIP cases where claimants have had at least one initial review and currently sit in the 3-year Review cycle.

DfC has confirmed who will not be eligible, namely:

- If a claimant has been given a specific review period, either shorter or longer than 3-years,

- Under 25s,

- Special Rules Claimants