Back

Literature Review: Decision-making for Adult Disability Payment

This literature review commissioned by the Scottish Commission on Social Security and produced by The Lines Between, explores decision-making for Adult Disability Payment.

Download report

Contents

4. Appeals

If a client disagrees with their redetermination decision, they can appeal. This chapter examines the role of appeals within the Adult Disability Payment (ADP) system and the extent to which the appeals process functions as an effective safeguard for clients who disagree with earlier decisions. It draws on available administrative data, client survey findings, evidence from the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment, and qualitative examples from advice and advocacy organisations to explore both outcomes and experiences of appeals. However, as the Resolution Foundation notes in a recent report, given the recent introduction of ADP, they believe there is not enough data yet to compare appeals outcomes with comparable PIP appeals.¹ Rather this chapter considers what data is available and only considers PIP minimally as a comparative benefit.

The chapter begins by outlining the scale of ADP appeals and their outcomes since the introduction of the benefit, highlighting the proportion of appeals that are upheld in favour of clients. It then considers clients’ reported experiences of the appeals process, including perceived barriers, sources of stress, and issues relating to access to evidence and timeframes. Where relevant, these experiences are considered alongside evidence on appeals within the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) system to provide contextual comparison.

This chapter assesses what is currently known about ADP appeals, identifies limitations in the available evidence, and highlights areas where further research is needed to better understand how appeals operate in practice and how they compare with PIP.

4.1 Background on appeals

From 21 March 2022 to 31 October 2025, there were 12,545 appeals for ADP, although evidence from support organisations indicates growth in their advice services for appeals.² ³ Of those, 4,790 have had an appeal decision made.⁴ The outcome of these appeals was: 2,545 (53%) were upheld (in the clients’ favour) and 2,245 (47%) were not upheld (this includes new applicants and those transferring from DWP).⁵

Data collected since the start of ADP shows that 78% of appeals received were for clients who applied as new applicants, and 22% were for clients who had their award transferred from the DWP.⁶ However, as the case transfer process has now ended so all applications will be from new or existing ADP clients.

Table 15: ADP appeal outcomes (21 March 2022 to 31 October 2025)⁷

Type	Appeals upheld (in clients’ favour)	Appeals not upheld
All	53%	47%
New applicants	52%	48%
Case transfer from DWP	60%	40%

Similar to the lack of data on redeterminations and health conditions, there is no available data on the percentage of appeal requests per primary disabling condition and appeal success or failure rates per condition this information.

4.1.1 Experience of ADP appeals

Client survey feedback suggested that of those responding, there was an even split in overall satisfaction with 45% rating the ADP appeal process as very good or good, whilst 45% rated it as poor or very poor.¹⁵ Barriers seemed to be less of a concern for appeals than for redeterminations with clients who responded reporting that 73% did not face any barriers when requesting an appeal, whilst 19% did.¹⁶

The Independent Review of ADP found that the reasons for individuals being more likely to appeal their ADP decision included:

The initial decision did not reflect their circumstances
Individuals felt their supporting information had not been accurately captured by Social Security Scotland¹⁷

Negative impacts on mental health and wellbeing alongside a lack of awareness on the right to appeal were highlighted by ADP clients as reasons for not continuing with an appeal after a redetermination.¹⁸ This aligns with the feedback about PIP appeals.

4.1.2 Experiences of PIP appeals

Similar reasons were mentioned by PIP applicants who lodged appeals to their mandatory reconsideration outcomes.¹⁹ However, PIP applicants also raised concerns about the fair treatment, particularly from the decision-maker for the mandatory reconsideration.²⁰ Advisors who assisted PIP applicants, mentioned feeling that clients had been hurried through the assessment process; and others believed there were errors in the assessment reports.²¹. Official study data reflects similar findings.²²

There is no current research on why ADP clients decide to appeal. Future focus should include research on client rationale for applyying for an appeal. Looking to research conducted with people appealing PIP decisions, for example, there is data that supports appeals can be based on factor such as an applicant’s confidence levels in the accuracy of their application to represent their lived experience.²³

4.1.3 Appeals timeframes

Timeframes for appeals and access to submitted information and evidence was highlighted a stressor for ADP clients.²⁴ Citizens Advice Scotland shared with the Social Justice and Social Security Committee an example of a client’s experience at an ADP appeal:

“Scott instructed his local CAB to represent him in respect of an appeal of a decision about his ADP application. The day prior to the hearing, Scott’s CAB representative received a copy of the original determination notice and some additional submissions, including key evidence from a Social Security Scotland healthcare professional… The convener of the hearing acknowledged the late submissions and arranged for a short break to enable the CAB representative and Scott to review them. The experience placed considerable psychological strain on Scott and pressure on his CAB representative.”³⁵

Overall, there is a lack of evidence about individuals’ experiences and understanding of the ADP appeal process. The available research predominantly comes from the independent review and research by Social Security Scotland, which had a small sample size.

4.2 Forthcoming changes to appeal process

Social Security Scotland is changing the appeal process to allow new determinations to be made without requiring an appeal to continue to a tribunal. The change was included in an amendment to the Social Security Scotland Act in 2025, but has not yet been implemented. The current process prevents this, as once an appeal has been made, Social Security Scotland are unable to make a new determination. For the DWP, the current system allows a new decision to be made by the DWP prior to a tribunal.

Issues with this process were highlighted by Child Poverty Action Group:

“Client was awarded 6 points for daily living for ADP at mandatory redetermination. He appealed because he thought he should get 8 points. Social Security Scotland agreed, but the tribunal did not and said the redetermination was too generous. The client requested permission to appeal from the first-tier tribunal but was refused so will now have to appeal directly to the upper tribunal. This would not be necessary if Social Security Scotland had been able to lapse the appeal in the first place.”³⁷

A similar experience was outlined by Citizens Advice Scotland:

“Chloe’s experience: Chloe went to her local CAB having been refused an award of ADP; she was awarded 0 points for both components at the redetermination stage. Chloe has been diagnosed with Functional Neurology Disorder which causes her to experience up to fifteen seizures per day; while she has access to a wheelchair, she cannot propel it by herself due to right side paralysis. An adviser supported Chloe to submit an appeal, leading Social Security Scotland to concede that Chloe should have been awarded 12 points for both Daily Living and Mobility. Chloe has been left confused, and she must still await the decision of the Tribunal, who may not agree with Social Security Scotland.”³⁹

Participants in a Scottish Government study were asked their views on changing the appeals process with many highlighting positive impacts, such as:

avoiding the stress of attending a tribunal
it would save time and money.⁴¹

A minority felt unsure about this change due to past experiences with the DWP. Participants also highlighted situations where an individual may still wish to appeal and attend a tribunal, such as being provided an opportunity to share evidence which was not considered in their initial claim.⁴²

This change was included in 2025 via an amendment to the Social Security Scotland Act, but the change has yet to be implemented. Social Security Scotland will provide a new determination following a client lodging an appeal, but this new determination is only made if the client agrees to it and this automatically ends the appeal. This could result in fewer appeals going to tribunal.

4.3 Summary

Appeals allow clients access to justice within social security systems, and over half of concluded ADP appeals were upheld in favour of clients. As with redeterminations, the rate of successful appeals raises questions about the consistency and accuracy of earlier decision-making stages.

Data about client experiences of ADP appeals is mixed. Survey findings show a near-even split between positive and negative overall experiences, indicating that while some clients navigate the appeals process without major barriers, others experience it as distressing and burdensome. Qualitative examples from third sector organisations highlight stressors, which can include difficulty accessing evidence and the psychological impact of tribunal proceedings.

When compared with PIP, similarities emerge in the underlying reasons why claimants appeal. In both systems, appeals are commonly linked to perceptions that initial decisions did not accurately reflect claimants’ circumstances, or that supporting evidence was misunderstood or insufficiently considered. However, more data, both qualitative and quantitative, exists to understand applicant experiences of PIP appeals, while the evidence on ADP appeals remains limited.

4.4 Identified research gaps

As noted in previous chapters, ADP has only been offered for a short time. Changes to the process of applying and appealing, as compared to previous practice under PIP, have not yet had time to develop into established trends. This leaves the statistical data indicative of experience to a point. As Judge and Murphy suggest, more time may be needed to let trends appear.⁴³

4.4.1 Qualitative research gaps

The research on ADP is limited and much of the evidence available is based on support organisations’ experiences with clients. Further research could consider why people decide to appeal, how difficult the appeal process is for individuals, and how many require third-sector support or assistance.