​​The department will support local authorities, schools, families and the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) tribunal to manage the move to our new SEND system. We heard clearly from parents, educators and practitioners the importance of a phased approach to a new system, starting with investment in early intervention. We will share clear guidance ahead of the commencement of new legislation and phase transition, moving children and young people to the new system over a period of seven years and only when they reach the end of their education phase, such as the end of year 6 or year 11.

Under our proposals, a triple lock of transitional protections will mean every child with a special school place in September 2029 will be able to stay in a special school until they finish education. Further proposals will mean children with an education, health and care (EHC) plan will not transition to the new system until 2030, and those who transition out of their EHC plan will have an Individual Support Plan in place ahead of their plan ceasing.

We are investing £200 million of transformation funding to build capacity, strengthen strategic planning and data capability, and implement local authorities’ Local SEND Reform Plans. Through the inclusive mainstream fund, we are also investing £500 million per financial year over the next three years to improve readiness ahead of transitioning to our improved SEND system from 2029.

The Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) assess the effectiveness of the SEND Tribunal case process through published statistics and operational monitoring. The latest published statistics are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026.

HMCTS is taking action to improve case progression and make best use of judicial and administrative capacity, including measures to resolve or narrow disputes earlier and streamline case management. Furthermore, we are currently running a recruitment campaign for more judges and administrative staff to increase capacity.

In our recent ‘SEND Reform: Putting children and young people first’ consultation, we set out proposals to strengthen accountability and improve parental confidence that local authorities will act on tribunal judgments, and to ensure that improvements are made to future decision-making. This includes publishing an annual special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) tribunal outcomes dashboard, providing anonymised outcomes of SEND Tribunals by local authority. We are carefully considering feedback from the consultation and will be responding in due course.

All local areas are due to receive a full inspection under the current Ofsted/Care Quality Commission Area SEND inspection framework by the end of 2027. We will update the framework to align to the clarified statutory roles that local authorities and Integrated Care Boards will have in relation to children and young people with SEND.

The department also publishes annual data on education, health and care (EHC) plans and assessments, including timeliness. This informs performance monitoring and targeted support. Where serious concerns arise, the department may intervene directly, using statutory powers and improvement partners to support recovery and improve services for families.

In terms of maintaining records, keeping accurate and proportionate records of decisions and why decisions were taken is a principle of good administrative practice and something we expect of all local authorities.

Parents and carers also have the right to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if they believe their child’s EHC Plan has been delayed, not been issued within the legal timeframe, or if the council fails to provide the specified provision.

The Ministry of Justice publishes information about the number of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal cases disposed of as well as outcomes, including the number of cases conceded, in the SEND Tribunal Tables.

In the department’s recent ‘SEND Reform: Putting children and young people first’ consultation, we set out proposals to ensure that the new system supports families to resolve any disagreements as early and collaboratively as possible, so children and young people can access the right provision quickly. This includes improving complaints processes and strengthening mediation, reducing the need for an appeal to the Tribunal.

To improve transparency around tribunal outcomes, we also propose to publish an annual SEND tribunal outcomes dashboard, providing anonymised information on the outcomes of tribunal cases by local authority. The department is currently considering all consultation feedback and will publish final proposals in due course.

It is essential that children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) receive the provision specified in their education, health and care plan, and that local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities, including complying with SEND Tribunal orders.

The department has never collected the data requested. However, as part of our SEND reforms, we set out proposals to improve parental confidence that local authorities will act on Tribunal judgments and to ensure that improvements are made to future decision-making. This includes publishing an annual SEND Tribunal outcomes dashboard, providing anonymised outcomes of SEND Tribunals by local authority.

We are currently considering all consultation feedback and will publish final proposals in due course.

The statutory guidance on the education, health and care plan system, the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Code of Practice 2015, explains expectations on local authorities for working with families. The code also reflects a range of statutory duties on local authorities about how they must communicate their decisions to families and provide them with information and support.

The department has consulted on a range of proposals to strengthen the SEND system. We are carefully reviewing all responses submitted to the consultation alongside feedback from engagement events. We will set out our response in due course.

The requested information for new claims under normal rules in areas under DWP policy ownership are included below. This data is for initial decisions between 1 April 2024 and 31 December 2025, the most recent date for mandatory reconsiderations and appeals data.

Table 1: award rates (%) for initial decision, mandatory reconsideration (MR), and appeal by condition subgroup.

Notes:

• There were insufficient appeals for claimants with conduct disorder for an appeal overturn rate to be meaningful.
• The rate for MRs is the percentage of cleared MRs which resulted in an award being changed.
• The overturn rate for appeals is the number of appeals that were overturned at a tribunal as a percentage of appeals which were cleared or lapsed (decision changed by DWP without going to a tribunal).
• The claimants’ primary conditions at the time of initial decision were used to categorise these percentages. Many PIP claimants have additional conditions which factor into the decisions made and claimants who have the listed conditions as supplementary conditions will not be included in the table.
• Percentages have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. It considers complaints about a judge’s personal conduct in line with statutory regulations, rules and related guidance. The JCIO does not have a role in monitoring or investigating judges’ conduct unless a complaint is made or referred to it. In terms of recusal, it can only consider these if the appeal court has criticised a judge for failure to declare a potential conflict of interest so serious as to raise a question of judicial misconduct.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct contains a core set of principles designed to support all judicial office holders’ conduct and decision-making, including judges in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. The Guide states that: “Judicial office holders must recuse themselves from any case where a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that they would be biased.” Responsibility for maintaining and upholding these standards rests with the independent judiciary. It would be inappropriate for the Government to discuss with JCIO what information they should consider in conduct cases.

When a tribunal decision changes a claimant’s benefit entitlement, the decision is implemented through established DWP processes. Where this results in an award overpayment or underpayment, the revised liability is calculated and where appropriate, the relevant information is passed to Debt Management so that any necessary debt recovery adjustments can be completed.

The process in place to prioritise refunds is through a designated inbox, which is monitored daily. If a customer is experiencing financial hardship they should contact DWP Debt Management to discuss their situation, including any follow-up about a potential refund after a successful mandatory reconsideration or appeal dispute.

When a tribunal decision changes a claimant’s benefit entitlement, the decision is implemented through established DWP processes. Where this results in an award overpayment or underpayment, the revised liability is calculated and where appropriate, the relevant information is passed to Debt Management so that any necessary debt recovery adjustments can be completed.

The process in place to prioritise refunds is through a designated inbox, which is monitored daily. If a customer is experiencing financial hardship they should contact DWP Debt Management to discuss their situation, including any follow-up about a potential refund after a successful mandatory reconsideration or appeal dispute.