Toggle high contrast
Advanced search
Mobile menu

TUC response to Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment: Call for Evidence

Author
Quinn Roache
Policy Lead - LGBT+ and Disabled Workers
Report type
Consultation response
Issue date
Executive summary

Download full report (pdf)

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) was introduced in 2013, replacing Disability Living Allowance (DLA), and was presented by the then government as a reform intended to better target support. A central feature of the new system was an increased emphasis on reassessment and review.

PIP plays a critical role in enabling disabled people to work. Responses to our survey 1 show that of 77 of the 78 respondents (98.7 per cent) who were currently working and receiving PIP said it positively affected their ability to work. Many reported that it helps them manage their condition while working, remain in their current role, or work at all. At the same time, nearly all respondents (93 per cent) said they face additional costs as a result of working, highlighting the importance of PIP in meeting both work-related and wider disability-related costs.

However, evidence suggests that PIP is not meeting its intended outcomes. Disabled workers report low levels of trust in the system, associated with repeated assessment, uncertainty, and perceptions of conditionality. This is despite evidence that reassessment rarely leads to change, with around 60 per cent of awards remaining the same following review 2 . 

These issues are reflected not only in perceptions of the system, but in how it operates in practice. Our survey evidence shows that assessments frequently fail to reflect the realities of living and working with a disability, impairment or health condition. Eighty-one respondents (90 per cent) reported that their assessment did not fully reflect their experience. Key aspects commonly missed include fluctuating conditions, fatigue, recovery time, and the interaction between multiple conditions. 

Structural and accessibility barriers were also a consistent feature of responses. The application and assessment process was described as complex, time-consuming and difficult to navigate, particularly for those experiencing fatigue, cognitive impairment or communication needs. Delays, poor communication and repeated reassessment were identified as key sources of stress.

There is also evidence that PIP is being used to cover costs that should be met elsewhere. Just under half of respondents (44.5 per cent) reported using PIP to cover costs they believed should be provided by their employer or other support systems, including reasonable adjustments and work-related support. This highlights gaps in the interaction between PIP, employer responsibilities and wider provision.

These issues are reflected in the position adopted by the TUC Disabled Workers Conference, which has opposed proposed changes to PIP that were previously set out in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill 2024–25  3 , highlighting concerns about the impact of reforms on stability, confidence and access to support for disabled workers.

Disabled people have higher costs than non-disabled people, and are likely to have lower incomes. TUC analysis released on 12 November 2025 found a substantial pay gap between the earning of disabled and non-disabled workers. It is equal to £2.24 an hour (a 15.5 per cent pay gap) and results in an annual gap of over £4,000. The same analysis also identified the pay gap was even wider for disabled women – as non-disabled men earn over a quarter (27.3 per cent) more than them  4 . This, coupled with Scope analysis which found disabled people have to pay out an additional £1,095 a month to secure the same standard of living as a non-disabled person 5 and the higher rates of unemployment for disabled workers, points to the reason why a disproportionate number of disabled people live in poverty 6 .

The evidence also highlights that work does not reduce the need for support, but often increases it. Respondents to our survey reported that working brings additional financial costs and reduces capacity outside of work, yet the current PIP system does not adequately reflect these realities.

We need a social security system that supports disabled people and disabled workers. However, the evidence in our survey shows that the current PIP system is not working as intended. Assessments were widely described as stressful, adversarial and, in many cases, dehumanising, pointing to the need for a fundamental reform of the assessment process so that it better reflects fluctuating conditions, cumulative impact and the realities of work. A strong perception of distrust runs throughout responses, with claimants feeling they are not believed and that assessments are designed to catch them out. Many reported that the process itself worsens their condition, particularly for those with mental health conditions, energy-limiting impairments and Long Covid. Together, these findings point to a system that is misaligned with the realities of modern working life and is failing to deliver consistent, fair and accessible support.

Decision-making was frequently described as inconsistent and overly dependent on assessor judgement, highlighting the importance of improving assessor expertise and ensuring that medical evidence is properly understood and applied. Many respondents only received the correct outcome after appeal, most often at tribunal, while others were deterred from challenging decisions due to fear, exhaustion or the risk of losing existing support.

Structural and administrative barriers were also widely reported, including delays, poor communication and inaccessible systems. The process was described as difficult to navigate for those with fatigue, cognitive impairment or communication needs, underlining the need to make the system more accessible and less burdensome through simpler processes, better communication and greater flexibility for claimants. Repeated reassessment, often within short timeframes, was a particular source of stress, despite evidence that most awards do not change, demonstrating the need to reduce unnecessary reassessment, particularly for those with lifelong or degenerative conditions.

Overall, the evidence points to a system that is difficult to access, unreliable in its initial decisions and misaligned with modern working life. Respondents were clear that change is needed not only in process but in tone and approach. This includes moving away from narratives that frame claimants as a problem to be managed, and towards one that recognises disabled people as workers, contributors and individuals with legitimate needs. Without addressing both the structural issues and the underlying narrative, the system will continue to act as a barrier rather than an enabler for disabled workers.

Download full report (pdf)

Download TUC response to Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment: Call for Evidence
PDF | 627.52 KB

Join a union
Enable Two-Factor Authentication

To access the admin area, you will need to setup two-factor authentication (TFA).

Setup now