Benefit claimants are being forced to wait over three months for reviews on decisions, DWP figures reveal, as a senior minister says there is no hard deadline on processing claims.
Departmental data shows the time for reconsideration on benefit decisions rose to 71 working days in 2024, more than doubling between December 2023 and July 2024. With weekends factored in, this is a wait of 99 days on average.
The delay means pensioners who are reliant on the winter fuel payment to heat their homes, or sick or disabled people assisted by benefits like PIP, face long waits on payment disputes as cost of living pressures bite.
DWP minister Sir Stephen Timms has now told MPs that the department is aiming to address the backlog of claims by March 2025. However, the Labour MP did not give a target average timeframe for delays to be processed, saying there is “no time limit.”
“This reflects the overarching policy that the focus should be on making the right decision and not the speed of clearance,” he said.
“Decisions should always be made without delay, but if the decision maker considers that more time is needed to gather or consider evidence, then they will give themselves that time to ensure they are confident that the decision made is correct.”
Under current rules, the main way a benefit claimant can challenge a decision is by asking for a mandatory reconsideration. This can be sought within a one month deadline if the claimant feels there was an error in the way their claim was processed, or disagrees with the reasons given for the decision.
Decisions for most benefits can be challenged in this way, including personal independence payments (PIP), universal credit, and the winter fuel payment.
Welfare experts say a long wait for mandatory reconsideration can be detrimental to applicants, who have very little idea of how long they will need to wait for a decision. If the appeal is ultimately successful, then payments will be backdated to the time of the original claim. If not, then they will receive nothing but can appeal further.
Rachael Walker, research director at Policy in Practice said: “It is essential that the government bring mandatory reconsideration processing times down – the longer mandatory reconsiderations take, the longer people are missing out on financial support they need and have a right to claim.”
“While the government technically has no limit on these processing times, it is the personal cost to claimants that should be the focus of their responsibility when aiming to reduce backlogs – claimants who themselves are subject to strict time limits as part of the MR process.”
Ms Walker says implemention a fixed reconsideration target a “double edged sword” as it could lead to rushed decision making which would be liable to cause further errors.
“The wider issue here is the number of MRs we see in benefits – using data and systems more proactively can help reduce error and rejection, as can giving people the tools and the support they need to claim in the first place,” she adds.
The success rate for mandatory reconsiderations varies between the benefit type claimed. In 2024, 52 per cent of ESA work capability assessment decisions that went to mandatory consideration were revised. Meanwhile, just under a quarter of personal indepedence payment (PIP) claims were revised after reconsideration.
And while the DWP grapples with mandatory reconsideration waits, its staff are also working to reduce the backlog of PIP award reviews and pension credit claims following changes to the winter fuel payment. In December, The Independent revealed that many pensioners were waiting over 100 days for a decision.
A DWP spokesperson said: “The focus of Mandatory Reconsideration is to ensure the right decision is reached, and we are clearing the backlog as well as recruiting additional staff to meet our aim of making decisions without delay.
“Reconsideration is a key element of the department’s decision-making process, and offers customers an opportunity to challenge decisions and provide any additional information which may be relevant to their claim.”
