Good morning

Overview

A disabled claimant has now won a second Tribunal appeal after being left homeless and destitute as a direct result of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) administrative shortcomings and apparent lack of understanding and empathy towards vulnerable individuals.

Background to the claimant’s circumstances

I first reported this case after being approached by a then 58-year-old man, desperate for help after becoming homeless and penniless, and unable to make headway with the Universal Credit enquiries line in his efforts to have his Universal Credit award reinstated. He suffers from Bipolar Personality Disorder (BPD), among other conditions, and had been receiving Universal Credit since 2019.

The June 2024 review and termination of his award

In June 2024, his award was reviewed, and he was instructed to supply both bank statements and proof of identity to support the continuation of his benefit. Despite providing his bank details—which should have sufficed for identification—his Universal Credit was first suspended on 14 June, then terminated a week later, on 21 June 2024, because he had failed to reproduce an acceptable form of ID, even though he had provided this at the start of his claim in 2019.

The first Tribunal decision

It was not until September 2025, more than fourteen months later, that a First-tier Tribunal Judge overturned the decision. The Judge noted in his decision notification: “The Secretary of State (SoS) had not specified what was missing and had not explained why the documents provided did not meet the required standards… and the SoS did not have grounds to terminate Mr X’s award based on a failure to provide information.”

Arrears paid, but a second claim was refused

Understandably, my client was overjoyed by the Judge’s ruling, believing he could finally secure accommodation and resume receiving Universal Credit payments. With my assistance, he ultimately received the arrears due on that appeal. However, while waiting for the outcome, he had reclaimed Universal Credit in June 2024, only for that claim to be denied again. I helped him appeal the second decision and wrote to his MP, Bob Blackman, highlighting the severity of his situation.

The latest Tribunal decision: 1st August 2026

This morning, 1st August 2026, I heard from the Tribunal Judge that his appeal has again been allowed. The Judge determined that the DWP did not have grounds to terminate his award on the basis that he had not responded to requests for information, precisely as I had argued in my submission. Ultimately, he should now receive all arrears back to June 2024.

The human cost of repeated DWP errors

Despite this welcome outcome, the human cost has been appalling. This is a single man, now 59, in poor health, who lost his home and income, slept outdoors, washed in public toilets, and relied on charities for clothes and footwear. Whilst he is just one of many thousands who have been paid Universal Credit and later denied it, I struggle to think of another claimant exposed to the same level of impoverishment because of repeated and avoidable decision-making failures.

The wider legal issue

Judge Wright, in an Upper Tribunal case, highlighted a comparable situation involving a claimant who applied for Universal Credit in March 2020 and was required to provide proof of identity. In paragraph 23, Judge Wright stated: “To put it another way, the appellant’s alleged failure after 17 May 2021 to provide information to verify his identity could not, in itself, lawfully justify ending his entitlement to universal credit.” 

Regrettably, today’s DWP Decision Makers appear inexperienced and unaware of this crucial decision, which is binding on DWP. The Judge was also highly critical of the department’s mishandling of similar cases where it fails to recognise the difference between ongoing awards, like Mr X’s, as opposed to newly made “claims”.

My intervention with DWP

In recent weeks, I have persistently urged senior DWP officials to intervene and end the department’s excessive bureaucracy and unwarranted delays. While individual officials can be helpful, they remain dependent on staff who appear not to have been properly trained on adjudication issues and who seem bewildered when confronted with cases of this kind.

Current position and urgent next steps

No one should have to endure such hardship due to avoidable administrative obstacles. The most immediate difficulty is that he is not contactable at present, most probably because he does not have funds to purchase credit for his mobile phone. The DWP must now act quickly to restore his entitlement and pay the arrears due back to June 2024. Regrettably, this scenario is regularly being played out throughout Great Britain, but especially in the south of England where decision-making is desperately poor. Almost every referral I make is resolved in favour of the claimant, but only after lengthy exchanges.

Contact for advice or assistance

If you need clarification on any point or are experiencing problems of a similar nature with client tenants, please email bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

www.ucadvice.co.uk