The government’s Timms Review published an update in September 2026, outlining 'emerging recommendations' and proposed ‘principles for a reformed benefit' for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Meanwhile, disability charity Z2K has published research highlighting delays in benefit decisions.
The ME Association is sharing these developments as part of our ongoing information on disability benefits.
Please note: This blog was written with the help of AI and reviewed by the ME Association before publishing
The Timms Review: possible changes to PIP
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is intended to help people meet some of the additional costs associated with how a disability, long-term health or mental health condition affects their ability to undertake activities of daily living. The Timms Review is examining how the benefit could be improved and how a reformed system might work.
The September 2026 update sets out possible principles for a future benefit, alongside proposals to change the existing PIP system.
These proposals are still being developed. They are not confirmed changes to PIP eligibility rules or assessment procedures, and the government has not committed to implementing every proposal.
Emerging recommendations summarised as follows:
- Group 1 – Improving the experience for people applying for and receiving PIP: Make the application and review process simpler, clearer and less stressful, including reducing unnecessary reviews, improving forms (including making it easier to capture fluctuating conditions in assessment forms) and communications, providing reasonable adjustments and advocacy, and offering more personalised support.
- Group 2 – Reforming assessments and decision-making: Improve the consistency, transparency and accuracy of decisions by making better use of supporting evidence, learning from appeals, accounting for fluctuating conditions, reviewing hospitalisation rules and providing appropriate assessment methods.
- Group 3 – Building a strong foundation for a future benefit: Expand accessible digital services, including an online portal with offline alternatives, and improve data collection to better understand differences in claimants’ experiences and outcomes.
Principles for a reformed benefit summarised as follows:
- Group 1 – Overall vision: Create a fair, supportive benefit that promotes independent living, dignity, choice and participation in society. Cash payments would remain central, and the benefit would be non-means-tested, with the system designed alongside disabled people and tested before implementation.
- Group 2 – Assessment framework: Introduce a simple initial assessment to direct people to the most appropriate pathway, with different levels of assessment depending on individual circumstances and available evidence. Assessments would consider fluctuating and cumulative effects rather than relying on a snapshot of someone’s condition.
- Group 3 – Evidence and support: Embed reasonable adjustments throughout the process, reduce repeated requests for information through a “Tell Us Once” approach, and consider a wider range of evidence from health and social care professionals and people who know the claimant. Support and advocacy would be available to help people explain their needs and address gaps in evidence.
- Group 4 – The award: Keep the benefit non-means-tested, with cash as its foundation, while potentially including additional services or non-cash support. Awards would aim to reflect the extra costs of disability and long-term health conditions, including fluctuating and cumulative impacts, with signposting to further support.
Z2K research: delays in correcting benefit decisions
Disability charity Z2K has also published research examining how benefit decisions are challenged.
Its report highlights concerns about mandatory reconsideration, the process through which claimants generally ask the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to review a decision before appealing to an independent tribunal.
Z2K reports that 14% of PIP mandatory reconsiderations resulted in the original decision being changed, compared with 74% of PIP appeals (independently assessed at a tribunal) resulting in a decision being overturned, according to the figures cited in its research.
The charity argues that these figures raise questions about whether mandatory reconsideration is effective at correcting decisions before cases reach a tribunal.
Z2K also highlights the time people can spend waiting for decisions and appeals. It recommends replacing mandatory reconsideration with an independent review process.
These are Z2K's findings and recommendations, rather than changes agreed by the government.
What happens next?
The Timms Review's September update sets out proposals for further discussion and development. The final recommendations and any subsequent government decisions will determine whether, and how, the suggested changes are introduced.
For now, existing PIP rules and procedures remain in place unless separately changed by the government.
The ME Association will continue to monitor developments and share relevant updates.
Note: This article summarises information published by the UK Government at the time of publication. Please check the relevant sources for up to date information.