Personal Independence Payment: Appeals

(asked on 21st February 2024) - View Source

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what number and proportion of Personal Independence Payment decisions overturned at tribunal were due to (a) the tribunal panel drawing a different conclusion based on the same evidence, (b) oral evidence given by the individual and (c) new written evidence provided at the hearing in each year for which data is available.


Answered by
Mims Davies Portrait
Mims Davies
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
This question was answered on 29th February 2024

Analysis of unpublished Personal Independence Payment (PIP) data held by DWP provides data on why decisions by DWP decision makers have been overturned at a tribunal hearing between January 2014 and September 2023 and is shown annually in the tables below. This information is taken from Decision Notices and recorded on the PIP computer system.

This data only provides one reason per appeal why decisions by DWP decision makers have been overturned at a tribunal hearing, and therefore may not give the full story as there may be other reasons.

Appeals data is taken from the DWP PIP computer system’s management information. Therefore, this appeal data may differ from that held by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.

These figures are the result of a complex data match across a number of data sets. This data is unpublished data. It should be used with caution, and it may be subject to future revision.

Learning from this information, we have made improvements to our decision-making processes to help ensure we make the right decision as early as possible in the claim journey. We have introduced a new approach to decision making at both the initial decision and the Mandatory Reconsideration stage, giving Decision Makers additional time to proactively contact customers where they think additional evidence may support the claim.

Summary reason DWP decision
overturned at Tribunal hearing

Appeal clearance year

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023 (to September)

Cogent documentary evidence
supplied at the appeal

100

2,000

6,300

5,000

4,400

2,600

1,900

400

200

300

Cogent oral evidence

1,100

14,700

22,900

26,500

25,100

26,200

11,800

8,800

8,800

11,800

Reached a different conclusion on
substantially the same facts

200

2,900

7,700

13,600

21,100

24,600

26,100

16,300

16,700

17,500

Other

100

2,300

5,200

8,200

7,600

7,100

5,000

1,900

1,900

2,000

Summary reason DWP decision
overturned at Tribunal hearing

Appeal clearance year

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023 (to September)

Cogent documentary evidence
supplied at the appeal

6%

9%

15%

9%

8%

4%

4%

1%

1%

1%

Cogent oral evidence

75%

67%

54%

50%

43%

43%

26%

32%

32%

37%

Reached a different conclusion on
substantially the same facts

14%

13%

18%

26%

36%

41%

58%

60%

61%

56%

Other

4%

10%

12%

15%

13%

12%

11%

7%

7%

6%

Note:

  • Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and percentages to the nearest percent.
Reticulating Splines