DWP Case Studies of  Systemic Failures

Systemic Failures in Universal Credit Migration
Impacting Vulnerable Adults with Lifelong Disabilities

This case concerns a vulnerable adult with lifelong disabilities who experienced significant administrative and safeguarding failures during migration from Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) to Universal Credit (UC). The issues documented here reflect wider patterns observed in other cases and highlight risks within DWP processes that disproportionately affect disabled claimants.

Key Failures

1. Failure to Close ESA Following Migration Notice

The claimant received a Universal Credit Migration Notice dated 8 August 2025, issued by UC. The claimant submitted the UC claim on time, and UC awarded the claim on 30 September 2025. Despite this, ESA failed to close the legacy ESA award when UC entitlement began.

This contradicts DWP migration rules, which require ESA to close automatically once a UC claim is made following a Migration Notice.

Further investigation revealed that ESA had changed the claimant’s award from income‑related ESA to contribution‑based ESA on 06 October 2025 without issuing any notification or decision letter. This undisclosed change contributed directly to ESA remaining open and continuing to pay after UC migration.

As a result, UC treated ESA’s ongoing payments as overpayments and deducted money that should never have existed.

2. Incorrect Deduction of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)

UC continued to deduct ESA from the claimant’s award, despite ESA only continuing because ESA failed to close the claim after UC migration.

UC treated ESA as ongoing income and deducted it pound‑for‑pound, even though the ESA payments existed solely due to an internal DWP administrative error.

This resulted in the claimant’s UC award being reduced by £609.05 per month, based on an “average ESA income” figure that did not match the actual ESA payments and should not have been applied at all.

3. Unlawful Capital Deductions Arising from ESA’s Failure to Close After Managed Migration

The claimant was moved to Universal Credit under a lawful Migration Notice, meaning the transition was mandatory and not voluntary. Under Managed Migration rules, the legacy ESA claim should have closed automatically once the UC claim was submitted.

Instead, ESA incorrectly treated the move as voluntary and continued the claimant’s ESA under a different entitlement type, without any request or authorisation. This resulted in ongoing ESA payments that should not have existed.

UC then misinterpreted these erroneous ESA payments as both ongoing income and as capital, despite ESA having confirmed in writing that arrears arising from administrative delay must be disregarded.

UC applied capital deductions and tariff income based on an incorrect assumption that the claimant held significant savings. UC later accepted this was wrong and refunded the deducted amount, confirming the capital assessment was unlawful.

This error originated entirely from ESA’s failure to close the legacy claim after Managed Migration, leading to the claimant being financially penalised twice: once through unlawful capital deductions, and again through deductions for ESA income that should never have existed.

4. Structural System Limitations

The issues identified in this case were significantly worsened by long‑standing structural limitations within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefit systems. These limitations create predictable risks for disabled claimants undergoing Managed Migration.

1. a) Lack of Shared Systems Between ESA and UC

Legacy ESA and Universal Credit operate on entirely separate IT systems. Staff in one department cannot see live information held by the other. As a result:

• ESA could not see that the claimant had been issued a lawful Migration Notice.
• ESA could not see that the claimant’s UC claim had been made under mandatory migration rules.
• UC could not see that ESA had failed to close the legacy claim.
• UC could not see that ESA’s ongoing payments were the result of an administrative error.

This lack of visibility forces each department to rely on assumptions rather than verified information.

1. b) Reliance on Policy‑Led Assumptions Instead of Data

Because the systems do not communicate, staff must apply policy rules based on what they think is happening. In this case:

• ESA assumed the claimant had voluntarily moved to UC and therefore continued ESA under a different entitlement type.
• UC assumed ESA payments were legitimate ongoing income and applied deductions accordingly.
• UC further assumed that ESA payments represented capital when saved, despite ESA having confirmed that arrears must be disregarded.

These assumptions were incorrect, but the system provided no mechanism for either department to verify or correct them.

1. c) No Automatic Safeguards to Prevent Contradictory Decisions

There is no automated process to:

• stop ESA payments once a UC claim is made under Managed Migration
• alert UC when ESA continues in error
• prevent UC from deducting income that should not exist
• prevent capital assessments based on incorrect data
• flag inconsistencies between departments

This creates a high risk of cascading errors, particularly for claimants who rely on appointees or have limited capacity to challenge decisions.

5. Claimants and Appointees Are Expected to Resolve Internal DWP Failures

Because ESA and UC systems do not communicate, the responsibility for identifying and correcting internal DWP errors is routinely pushed onto claimants and their appointees.

In this case, the appointee was repeatedly instructed to “contact ESA” to resolve issues that were caused by DWP’s own system failures, including ESA’s failure to close after Managed Migration and UC’s misinterpretation of ESA’s erroneous payments.

This expectation is inappropriate for any claimant, and particularly unsafe for a vulnerable adult with lifelong disabilities who relies on an appointee to manage their affairs. It represents a significant safeguarding risk and demonstrates a systemic failure to protect disabled claimants during Managed Migration.

6. Undermining of Transitional Protection

Transitional Protection (TP) is a statutory safeguard designed to ensure that claimants do not experience a reduction in income when moved from legacy benefits to Universal Credit under Managed Migration. It is intended to maintain financial stability and prevent hardship during the transition.

In this case, the claimant’s income dropped significantly without explanation, despite TP being in place. This reduction occurred because UC incorrectly treated ongoing ESA payments—caused by ESA’s failure to close the legacy claim—as legitimate income.

UC then deducted this income from the claimant’s UC award, which had the effect of eroding the TP that should have protected the claimant from financial loss.

The erosion of TP was not the result of any change in the claimant’s circumstances, but solely due to administrative failures within DWP systems. This represents a breach of the purpose and function of Transitional Protection and resulted in the claimant receiving less than their legally protected entitlement.

7. Safeguarding Concerns Not Acted Upon

Safeguarding concerns were raised multiple times due to the claimant’s lifelong disabilities, reliance on an appointee, and the escalating financial instability caused by administrative errors during Managed Migration. Despite this, no safeguarding action was taken, acknowledged, or referenced in any DWP response.

The safeguarding referrals highlighted risks including:

• the claimant’s inability to manage their own affairs
• the impact of incorrect deductions on essential living needs
• the emotional and administrative burden placed on the appointee
• the risk of further harm if the situation remained unresolved

Instead of addressing these concerns, the DWP issued generic responses stating that a Mandatory Reconsideration “will be looked at in due course.” This response did not acknowledge the safeguarding alerts, did not trigger any safeguarding process, and did not provide any assurance that the claimant’s welfare had been considered.

The failure to act on safeguarding concerns represents a significant breach of DWP’s duty to protect vulnerable claimants. It demonstrates a systemic inability to recognise or respond to risk, even when concerns are explicitly raised, and leaves vulnerable adults exposed to preventable harm.

8. Safeguarding Impact

The administrative and communication failures within the migration process created significant safeguarding risks for a vulnerable adult with lifelong disabilities. The sudden and unexplained reduction in income, combined with contradictory information from different parts of the DWP, resulted in:

• heightened emotional distress
• disrupted sleep and increased anxiety
• fear of being accused of fraud due to unresolved benefit overlaps
• concern about losing access to essential healthcare
• destabilisation of overall wellbeing and daily functioning

Safeguarding concerns were raised clearly and repeatedly by the appointee, yet no safeguarding action was taken. Responses did not acknowledge the concerns, did not reference the claimant’s vulnerability, and did not demonstrate that any safeguarding assessment had been carried out. Instead, generic automated messages were issued, which did not address the risks or the claimant’s inability to navigate complex administrative processes independently.

The absence of a safeguarding response, combined with inaccessible communication channels and the expectation that the appointee should resolve internal DWP errors, left the claimant without the protection required under DWP safeguarding guidance. This represents a systemic failure to recognise and respond to vulnerability during the migration process, exposing the claimant to preventable harm.

9. Systemic Pattern

The issues identified in this case reflect a broader pattern of administrative and safeguarding failures within the Universal Credit migration process. These failures are not isolated; they align with concerns raised by multiple claimants, representatives, and frontline staff. The pattern includes:

• legacy benefits remaining open after migration, leading to incorrect deductions
• historic administrative errors being carried forward into UC calculations
• inconsistent application of capital rules despite written confirmation from other DWP departments
• unexplained reductions in income that undermine Transitional Protection
• safeguarding concerns being acknowledged only through automated messages rather than assessed by trained staff
• reliance on a digital journal that is inaccessible to many disabled claimants
• communication systems that fragment, reverse, or obscure safeguarding information
• responsibility for correcting DWP‑initiated errors being shifted onto vulnerable claimants

The correspondence detailed in Appendices C1b and C2a demonstrates how complaint handling within the Department can become fragmented, misdirected, and inconsistent, with communication often routed through parliamentary channels rather than the legally appointed representative.

This reversal of communication flow not only delays resolution but places vulnerable claimants at risk, highlighting the need for appointees to assert their legal authority and challenge procedural errors when they arise.

Together, these issues demonstrate a systemic failure to coordinate internal records, apply regulations consistently, and recognise vulnerability during the migration process. The pattern suggests structural weaknesses rather than individual mistakes, exposing disabled claimants to avoidable risk and distress.

Introduction to the Complaints Resolution Manager Letters

C2. Complaints Resolution Manager Correspondence

Following the initial parliamentary engagement, the case progressed into formal handling by the Department for Work and Pensions’ Complaints Resolution Managers. Between 10 February and 21 February 2026, two letters were issued by different complaints staff within the same department, each referencing different ministers and dates, despite using the same case number.

These communications formed parallel complaint pathways and provided inconsistent explanations of the issues raised.

The first letter, dated 10 February 2026, acknowledged receipt of the appointee’s correspondence and advised that an investigation would be completed within 15 working days.

A subsequent letter dated 13 February 2026 stated that the concerns raised were being investigated alongside an earlier enquiry attributed to the Member of Parliament, despite no formal complaint having been submitted by the MP. The letter also indicated that the Department intended to issue its full response through the MP rather than directly to the appointee.

In response, the appointee wrote on 21 February 2026 to highlight multiple inconsistencies in the Department’s handling of the complaint, including incorrect dates, fragmented complaint pathways, misdirected correspondence, and the absence of legally required ESA decision notices.

The appointee also clarified that, as the legally appointed representative under a registered Lasting Power of Attorney, she must be the primary recipient of all correspondence relating to the claimant’s ESA and UC records.

This sequence of correspondence demonstrates the complexity and inconsistency of internal complaint handling processes, and the need for appointees to assert their legal authority when communication flows are reversed or fragmented.

Although this case study remains ongoing, with two separate investigations currently being conducted by two different Complaints Resolution Managers within the Universal Credit department, the evidence documented to date already reveals clear patterns of administrative failure.

As the investigations progress, this case study will be updated to reflect new findings. However, even at this stage, several systemic learning points have already emerged.

Learning Points / Recommendations

The issues identified in this case highlight several areas where systemic improvement is required to ensure the safety and stability of vulnerable claimants during the migration from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. The following learning points and recommendations arise from the pattern of failures documented:

    I. Automatic Closure of Legacy Benefits Must Be Enforced

Migration rules require legacy benefits such as ESA to close automatically once a Migration Notice is issued. Failure to do so results in incorrect deductions, financial instability, and unnecessary distress.

Recommendation: Strengthen internal processes to ensure automatic closure occurs consistently and is verified before UC payments are calculated.

    II. Historic Administrative Errors Must Not Be Carried Forward

Errors such as outdated or incorrectly applied allowances continue to affect UC calculations long after migration.

Recommendation: Implement cross‑departmental checks to identify and correct historic errors before migration takes place.

    III. Capital Rules Must Be Applied Consistently

Contradictions between ESA and UC regarding capital treatment create confusion and financial instability.

Recommendation: Ensure UC decision‑makers adhere to written confirmations issued by other DWP departments and apply capital rules uniformly.

   IV. Transitional Protection Must Be Safeguarded

Unexplained reductions in income undermine the purpose of Transitional Protection.

Recommendation: Introduce clearer oversight mechanisms to ensure Transitional Protection is maintained unless a legitimate regulatory reason for change is documented.

    V.  Safeguarding Concerns Must Trigger a Formal Response

Automated messages do not constitute safeguarding action and fail to protect vulnerable claimants.

Recommendation: Establish a dedicated safeguarding review process within UC, ensuring concerns are acknowledged, assessed, and acted upon by trained staff.

    VI.  The Universal Credit Journal Requires Accessibility Reform

The current journal design creates barriers for disabled claimants and prevents clear, chronological communication.

Recommendation: Redesign the journal to ensure chronological clarity, remove message fragmentation, and improve accessibility for claimants with cognitive, visual, or processing impairments.

    VII. Responsibility for Correcting DWP‑Initiated Errors Must Not Fall

            on Vulnerable Claimants

Shifting administrative burdens onto individuals who cannot navigate complex systems increases risk and undermines safeguarding duties.

Recommendation: Introduce internal escalation pathways to ensure DWP‑initiated errors are corrected by the department, not by claimants or their representatives.

Closing Statement

This case study highlights how administrative inconsistencies, inaccessible communication systems, and insufficient safeguarding responses can place vulnerable adults at risk during the transition from legacy benefits to Universal Credit.

The issues identified are not isolated; they reflect wider patterns observed across multiple cases and underline the need for strengthened processes, clearer accountability, and improved safeguarding practice.

Addressing these systemic weaknesses is essential to ensuring that vulnerable claimants receive the protection, stability, and clarity required under DWP regulations.

Relevant Legal and Regulatory Framework

It has been asked whether there are any points of law or regulatory duties relevant to the issues identified in this case. The following statutory and regulatory frameworks apply to the administrative and safeguarding failures documented:…

1. Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014

These regulations govern Managed Migration and require that:

• legacy benefits must close automatically when a UC claim is made following a Migration Notice
• claimants must not experience a reduction in income due to migration, protected through Transitional Protection
• arrears arising from administrative delay must be disregarded as capital

Relevance to this case:

ESA did not close automatically, Transitional Protection was eroded, and capital rules were misapplied, contrary to these regulations.

2. Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008

These regulations require:

• written notification of any change in ESA entitlement
• lawful basis for reclassification of Legacy ESA (e.g., from income‑related to contribution‑based), supported by a detailed written decision notice issued before any UC award is calculated
• correct treatment of arrears as disregarded capital

Relevance to this case:

ESA reclassified the claimant’s award without issuing a detailed written decision notice, failed to close the claim, and created arrears that UC later misinterpreted, compounding the communication barriers already faced by the appointee.

3. Public Law Principles (Administrative Law)

All public bodies must act:

• lawfully
• rationally
• fairly
• based on accurate information
• with proper consideration of relevant factors

Relevance to this case:

UC and ESA made decisions based on incorrect assumptions, contradictory data, and missing information, breaching basic administrative fairness.

4. Equality Act 2010 — Section 20 (Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments)

Public bodies must ensure:

• accessible communication
• reasonable adjustments for all disabled claimants
• avoidance of disadvantage caused by processes or systems

Relevance to this case:

The UC journal was inaccessible, communication was fragmented, and the claimant — a vulnerable adult with lifelong disabilities — was treated as independent despite having an appointee.

5. DWP Safeguarding Guidance (Internal but Binding on Staff)

DWP staff must:

• identify vulnerability
• act on safeguarding concerns
• avoid placing administrative burden on vulnerable claimants
• ensure claimants with appointees are not treated as independent

Relevance to this case:

Safeguarding concerns were ignored, automated messages were issued instead of assessments, and the burden of correcting DWP errors was placed on the appointee.

* Reader Advisory Note *

If you experience similar issues or believe the points raised in this case study relate to your own situation, please seek:

• Expert advice

Independent support can be obtained from organisations such as your:

• Local Citizens Advice
• a welfare rights adviser, or
• a legal professional specialising in social security law.

This case study is provided for information and systemic learning purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

Appendix A — Correspondence & Procedural Evidence

This appendix summarises the correspondence, procedural interactions, and documentary evidence submitted during the case. It demonstrates the administrative inconsistencies, communication failures, and safeguarding concerns raised throughout the Universal Credit migration process.

A1. Initial Correspondence to Departmental Team

A detailed submission was provided to the departmental correspondence team, including:

• confirmation of historic ESA underpayment and capital disregard
• evidence that the Migration Notice was issued without appropriate safeguarding checks
• documentation showing UC treated the claimant as independent despite appointeeship
• UC journal extracts demonstrating contradictory system information
• a Mandatory Reconsideration and safeguarding complaint submitted without substantive response
• confirmation that ESA remained open months after migration
• evidence that capital disregard rules were misapplied
• confirmation from an independent adviser that the deductions applied were incorrect

The Department acknowledged receipt but provided no safeguarding assessment, no explanation of deductions, and no correction of administrative errors. This reflects a wider pattern of procedural acknowledgement without meaningful action.

A2. Additional Procedural Submission

A further submission included:

• a detailed sequence of events over several days
• contradictory instructions issued by different DWP departments
• lack of coordinated action between UC and ESA
• absence of mandatory written communication regarding ESA reclassification
• safeguarding risks arising from inconsistent or unclear processes
• impact of systemic failures on frontline staff
• recommendations from an appointee perspective

An automated acknowledgement was issued, confirming only that the correspondence had been forwarded internally.

A3. Loss of Submitted Evidence (6 Feb 2026)

The Department confirmed that previously submitted evidence could not be located.

The representative resubmitted:

• ESA arrears confirmation
• bank statements
• the Migration Notice

The loss of evidence caused delays to the capital decision and required repeated submission of sensitive information. This reflects systemic issues in document handling and internal coordination.

A4. Update on ESA/UC Errors (9 Feb 2026)

A further update highlighted:

• newly identified discrepancies between ESA and UC records
• receipt of an ESA letter that should have been issued months earlier
• absence of the legally required breakdown of ESA entitlement
• incorrect UC deductions due to missing ESA information
• misapplied capital rules
• erosion of Transitional Protection

Independent advisers were unable to reconcile figures due to missing information, demonstrating systemic communication and record‑keeping failures.

A5. ESA/UC Contradictions and Safeguarding Concerns (10 Feb 2026)

A submission to the Ministerial Correspondence Team reported:

• ESA confirming income‑related entitlement remained active beyond the migration date
• ESA issuing new weekly rates extending into 2026
• UC relying on unverifiable ESA figures
• unresolved issues relating to ESA deductions, Transitional Protection, and closure dates
• inaccuracies in a DWP Complaints Team letter (wrong date, wrong year, wrong category)

A simplified financial summary showed a monthly loss of approximately £92 despite Transitional Protection.

A6. MP Correspondence (13 Feb 2026)

The MP’s office reported that DWP claimed to have responded to the representative.
However:

• no such response was received
• no written correspondence was forwarded

This reflects inconsistencies in communication between DWP and parliamentary casework channels.

Appendix B — Evidence Summary

The following evidence was reviewed:

• Migration Notice
• UC award notices showing deductions
• ESA correspondence confirming capital disregard
• UC journal entries demonstrating communication barriers
• safeguarding submissions
• ministerial correspondence acknowledging receipt
• internal DWP responses providing generic updates
• financial statements showing income reduction
• representative notes documenting attempts to resolve errors

Appendix C — Timeline of Administrative Events

The following sequence outlines key administrative events during the migration process:

1. Migration Notice issued
2. UC claim submitted
3. ESA remained open contrary to migration rules
4. Incorrect deductions applied
5. Income reduced without explanation
6. Safeguarding concerns raised
7. Automated responses issued
8. Ministerial correspondence received
9. Communication barriers persisted
10. Administrative errors remained unresolved

This timeline reflects the administrative events documented to date. Any further developments or correspondence will be added to ensure the record remains complete and transparent.

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved