Literature Review: Decision-making for Adult Disability Payment

This section examines available data on ADP redeterminations. It considers experiences of clients and presents official statistics from Social Security Scotland. The section also considers experiences of redeterminations for ADP against those described by claimants of PIP and official statistics published by the DWP.

3.1 Introduction to ADP redeterminations and PIP mandatory reconsiderations

3.1.1 ADP redeterminations

A redetermination is the first formal stage of challenging a decision by Social Security Scotland about an ADP award. Clients can ask for a redetermination when they receive an initial determination that they are unhappy with. A redetermination is not a review. Instead, Social Security Scotland will look at the ‘application as if it is a new application, and will make a new decision.’¹ Citizens Advice Scotland, “Challenging a Social Security Scotland benefit decision,” Citizens Advice, [Online]. Available: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/benefits/benefits introduction/problems-with-benefits-and-tax-credits/challenging-benefit decisions/challenging-a-social-security-scotland-decision/challenging-a-social-security scotland-benefit-decision/. [Accessed 24 February 2026]. In that sense, there is potential the initial award could increase, stay the same, decrease or be removed entirely. If a client is unhappy with the decision made during the redetermination, they then have the right to appeal²In some cases, a client can make an appeal without seeking a redetermination. This is called a process appeal and applies only when Social Security Scotland rejects an application based on incorrect information, but a client believes all relevant information was included. to a First-tier Tribunal and the application will be reviewed independently of Social Security Scotland. Following this, if an individual or Social Security Scotland do not agree with the decision made by the First-tier Tribunal, they can challenge this in the Upper Tribunal. Decisions can only be appealed to the Upper Tribunal where a party believes the First-tier Tribunal made a legal mistake in its decision.

3.1.2 PIP mandatory reconsiderations

With PIP, applicants are offered a mandatory reconsideration when they would like to challenge a decision made by the DWP. As with ADP’s redeterminations, mandatory reconisderations can be requested in any case where the applicant would like their application considered again. For example, some common reasons applicants may request a mandatory reconsideration include if they feel their PIP claim was lower than they expected, if the term limit is shorter than an applicant feels it should be or if a claim was refused.³Citizens Advice , “Challenging a PIP decision – mandatory reconsideration,” Citizens Advice, [Online]. Available: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and carers/pip/appeals/mandatory-reconsideration-pip/. [Accessed 24 February 2026].

Unlike a redetermination, the decision-makers for reconsideration rely on the original assessment of the application. If an applicant disagrees after the mandatory reconsideration they can again appeal to an independent first-tier tribunal. As with ADP, the original award is not protected and the mandatory reconsideration process could review the application as a whole, lowering the award or deciding that no award should be given.

3.2 Differences between PIP and ADP processes

The main differences between PIP mandatory reconsiderations and ADP redeterminations include:

• Time limits to receive an outcome: for PIP mandatory reconsiderations, there is no time limit for the DWP to provide an outcome. For ADP on the other hand, a client has an immediate right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal if Social Security Scotland does not make their redetermination decision within 56 days of receiving a valid redetermination request.
• Time limits to submit a redetermination/mandatory reconsideration: PIP clients must submit a mandatory reconsideration within one month of their decision and can submit a late mandatory reconsideration if one month has passed, but only with a good reason. For ADP, clients can request a redetermination within 42 days of being notified of their determination and can make a late redetermination request up to one year from the date they were notified.
• Financial support whilst awaiting an outcome of a benefit challenge: ADP clients whose award is reduced or terminated following a review or change of circumstances can claim Short-term Assistance whilst they wait for the outcome of their redetermination or appeal, whereas for PIP this is not available.

3.3 Background on redeterminations

Research by the Resolution Foundation notes that most ADP clients do not challenge their initial decision.⁴Resolution Foundation, “Reforms to Scottish disability payments suggest that the system can be kinder without being costlier,” Resolution Foundation, 2025. In 2025, three years after the introduction of ADP, only 16% of clients requested a redetermination.⁵Resolution Foundation, “Reforms to Scottish disability payments suggest that the system can be kinder without being costlier,” Resolution Foundation, 2025. To provide a comparative point, the Resolution Foundation calculated the rate of reconsideration for PIP three years after the transition from DLA.⁶Resolution Foundation, “Reforms to Scottish disability payments suggest that the system can be kinder without being costlier,” Resolution Foundation, 2025. According to them, ADP clients are half as likely to request redeterminations as PIP clients are to request reconsiderations (16% compared to 32% respectively).⁷Resolution Foundation, “Reforms to Scottish disability payments suggest that the system can be kinder without being costlier,” Resolution Foundation, 2025.

Data from Social Security Scotland (2025) shows that from April 2022 to October 2025, 67,020 re-determinations had been completed. This figure consists of requests by new applicants, 53,885, and 13,135 who had their award transferred from the DWP.⁸Social Security Scotland, “Adult Disability Payment Statistics March 2025 to 31 October 2025,” Social Security Scotland, Scotland, 2025.

Table 10: ADP redetermination (March 2022 to October 2025)⁹Social Security Scotland, “Adult Disability Payment Statistics March 2025 to 31 October 2025,” Social Security Scotland, Scotland, 2025.

Of these, 30,505 (48%) were disallowed (decided in favour of Social Security Scotland), 30,810 (49%) were allowed (decided in favour of the client) and 1,880 (3%) were invalid.

Table 11: ADP redetermination outcomes (March 2022 to October 2025)¹⁹Social Security Scotland, “Adult Disability Payment Statistics March 2025 to 31 October 2025,” Social Security Scotland, Scotland, 2025.

Social Security Scotland noted that, for the period of March 2022 to October 2025 the ‘percentage of re-determinations disallowed has been higher in recent months, with 54 56% being disallowed in each of the last 8 months.’²¹Social Security Scotland highlights potential issues with their statistics. As the size and complexity of benefits administered by Social Security Scotland have grown, limitations in the calculation of redetermination rate measures have affected statistical reporting, specifically as it relates to “re-determinations as a percentage of application decisions made” and “re-determinations which are allowed or partially allowed as a percentage of all decisions processed”. As a result, the measures showing redeterminations as a proportion of decisions processed, including those allowed or partially allowed, were removed from recent publications to maintain trustworthiness and quality. These measures will remain excluded until alternative approaches are identified, and no timescale has yet been set for their reintroduction. ²²Social Security Scotland, “Adult Disability Payment Statistics March 2025 to 31 October 2025,” Social Security Scotland, Scotland, 2025.

3.3.1 PIP Mandatory Reconsiderations

UK Government statistics indicate that for PIP the rate of application for a mandatory reconsideration compared to the total number of applications is still around one in three as of July 2025.²³ Department for Work and Pensions, “Personal Independence statistics to July 2025,” UK Government, London, 2025. Of those, from November 2020 to October 2025, 28% of mandatory reconsiderations resulted in an award change, whereas around 63% had a new decision but their award was unchanged.²⁴ Department for Work and Pensions, “Personal Independence Payment: Official Statistics to October 2025,” gov.uk, London, 2025.

Table 12: PIP’s mandatory reconsideration outcomes as reported by DWP (November 2020 to October 2025)²⁵ Department for Work and Pensions, “Personal Independence Payment: Official Statistics to October 2025,” gov.uk, London, 2025.

Barry et al. (2018) found that the award did not change for 25% of claimants in their study, and15% got a new or higher award.³¹ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. Around half of the study participants felt that the DWP clearly communicated how their decision was reached.³² J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018.

Erez’s (2019) study of those living with MS found that, of survey respondents who requested a mandatory reconsideration, almost half (49%) had no change in their award whilst 30% received an increased award.³³ R. Erez, “PIP fails: how the PIP process betrays people with MS,” MS Society, 2019. However, they argue that a successful mandatory reconsideration does not necessarily mean the award is correct, as 40% of those who received an increased award as a result of a mandatory reconsideration still went on to appeal and either received another increase from the DWP prior to attending a tribunal or were successful at their appeal.³⁴ R. Erez, “PIP fails: how the PIP process betrays people with MS,” MS Society, 2019.

3.4 Client experiences of redeterminations and mandatory reconsiderations

ADP clients request redeterminations at a much lower rate than PIP clients but have a much higher rate of those determinations being awarded in favour of the client. There is no clear understanding as to why that is happening with limited research on client experiences of ADP redetermination and limited research with those who decide not to request a redetermination. The available data suggests there are mixed experiences with research reporting slightly more positive experiences. Much of research relies on client experience surveys and case studies, either conducted by third sector organisations or Social Security Scotland.

When asked to rate their overall experience of the redetermination process, 31% stated that their experience was poor or very poor while 48% felt it was good or very good.³⁵Social Security Scotland, “Client Survey – Adult and Child Disability Payment October 2024 March 2025: Summary Report,” Social Research, Scotland, 2025. Providing a more critical perspective, Citizens Advice Scotland (2024) submitted a briefing on clients’ negative experiences, stating in one case study that the redetermination process ‘place[s] a significant administrative and psychological burden on the claimant’.³⁶ Citizens Advice Scotland, “Client experience of Social Security Scotland’s redetermination and appeals process,” Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, 2024.

3.4.1 Client experiences of PIP mandatory reconsiderations

Dissatisfaction with the mandatory reconsideration process for PIP has also been identified, with suggestions that evidence has been ignored or the application not fully reviewed. For example, in their article, Barnard and Ludlow (2022) explored experiences of accessing justice in social security tribunals, drawing on observational data across 102 cases during a three-month period.⁴⁷ C. Barnard and A. Ludlow, “Administrative (in)justice? Appellants’ experiences of accessing justice in social security tribunals.,” Public Law: the constitutional and administrative law of the commonwealth, 2022. They described being ‘struck’ by the number of cases involving challenges to PIP decision making, and went on to highlight medical assessment errors concerning claimants’ identities or circumstances, as well as an example of a claimant’s assessment being raised from 0 points to 28 points by the tribunal.⁴⁸ C. Barnard and A. Ludlow, “Administrative (in)justice? Appellants’ experiences of accessing justice in social security tribunals.,” Public Law: the constitutional and administrative law of the commonwealth, 2022. Their data raises concerns around the quality of decision making for the initial decision and the mandatory reconsideration related to PIP.

In Northern Ireland, Rader (2018) found that among those who challenged their PIP decision, individuals found the process was stressful and complicated. Where the mandatory reconsideration resulted in the initial decision being upheld, respondents felt that their supplementary evidence had not been used.⁴⁹W. Rader, “Personal Independence Payment: An Independent Review of the Assessment Process,” Department of Communities (Northern Ireland), Belfast, 2018.

Similar issues relating to evidence not being taken into account during a mandatory reconsideration was highlighted by the Social Security Advisory Committee (2018) and in the second independent review of PIP in Northern Ireland.⁵⁵M. Cavanaugh, “Personal Independence Payment: A Second Independent Review of the Assessment Process,” Department of Communities (Northern Ireland), Belfast, 2020.

3.4.2 Barriers to ADP redetermination

Some barriers to applying for redeterminations are described in the evidence. Harris (2025) notes concerns raised by clients including confusion around the process or their rights within the process, that a new determination may result in fewer or no points, the potential impact of the process on health and wellbeing, and previous negative experiences with benefits systems, such as PIP.⁵⁶E. Harris, “The Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment,” Scottish Government, 2024, Edinburgh.

Many of these concerns are echoed in the Social Security Scotland client survey.⁵⁷Social Security Scotland, “Client Survey – Adult and Child Disability Payment October 2024 March 2025: Summary Report,” Social Research, Scotland, 2025. For example, just over half of survey participants (57%) strongly agreed or agreed that they understood what the redetermination process would involve. However, almost a quarter (23%) felt it was not clear what the process would involve, for reasons including being unsure about what supporting information was needed, whether it would be obtained by Social Security Scotland or if it was the responsibility of the client to supply.⁵⁸ Social Security Scotland, “Client Survey – 2023-2024: Summary Report,” Social Research, Scotland, 2024.

Overall once clients start the process, they report satisfaction at the procedure. The survey found that 73% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they knew how to request a redetermination from Social Security Scotland.⁵⁹Social Security Scotland, “Client Survey – Adult and Child Disability Payment October 2024 March 2025: Summary Report,” Social Research, Scotland, 2025. The majority also strongly agreed or agreed that Social Security Scotland provided them with ample time to request a redetermination.⁶⁰Social Security Scotland, “Client Survey – Adult and Child Disability Payment October 2024 March 2025: Summary Report,” Social Research, Scotland, 2025.

Another area of client concern around redetermination considered submission of supporting evidence. To understand how an initial determination had been made, clients suggested they needed access to the previous application, complete with all supporting evidence. This was noted as particularly useful if a client is using new advisors or support at the redetermination stage.⁶¹Citizens Advice Scotland, “Client experience of Social Security Scotland’s redetermination and appeals process,” Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, 2024. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) highlighted difficulties in obtaining supporting evidence used in a client’s initial ADP decision; this was needed to aid the redetermination process.⁶²Citizens Advice Scotland, “Client experience of Social Security Scotland’s redetermination and appeals process,” Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, 2024. CAS states that Social Security Scotland asked the client needed to submit a Freedom of Information request to receive this information.⁶³Citizens Advice Scotland, “Client experience of Social Security Scotland’s redetermination and appeals process,” Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, 2024.

Similarly, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) submitted evidence to the ADP review.⁶⁴Child Action Poverty Group, “Response to the Adult Disability Payment Review: Call for Views,” CPAG, Scotland, 2024. They noted that callers to their helpline also had issues accessing documents from a client’s initial application, particularly from the local delivery team:

3.4.3 Barriers to PIP mandatory reconsiderations

Similar concerns are also reflected in research on PIP’s mandatory reconsideration process since the introduction of the process in 2013, particularly the need to submit one before moving to an appeal.⁷⁷ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. ⁷⁸ Child Poverty Action Group, “’Mandatory Reconsideration’ in 2024: A briefing from CPAG’s early warning system,” Child Poverty Action Group, 2014. Applicants complain of confusion around the process of requesting a mandatory reconsideration.⁷⁹J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. ⁸⁰ Child Poverty Action Group, “’Mandatory Reconsideration’ in 2024: A briefing from CPAG’s early warning system,” Child Poverty Action Group, 2014. Recent research from CPAG suggests that applicants are not signposted to information about mandatory reconsiderations during their explanation calls and DWP-published research found that participants misunderstood the difference between an appeal and a mandatory reconsideration.⁸¹ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. ⁸²Child Poverty Action Group, “’Mandatory Reconsideration’ in 2024: A briefing from CPAG’s early warning system,” Child Poverty Action Group, 2014.

Concerns around evidence submission have also been raised in relation PIP’s mandatory reconsideration process.⁸³ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. ⁸⁴ Department for Work and Pensions, “Personal Independence Payment: Official Statistics to October 2025,” gov.uk, London, 2025. ⁸⁵P. Gray, “The Second Independent Review of the Personal Independence Payment Assessment,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2017. ⁸⁶ W. Rader, “Personal Independence Payment: An Independent Review of the Assessment Process,” Department of Communities (Northern Ireland), Belfast, 2018. ⁸⁷ L. Blair, “A Rubber Stamp: Mandatory Reconsideration in the Personal Independence Payment application process,” Citizens Advice, Surrey, 2019.

3.4.4 Profile of clients seeking PIP mandatory reconsiderations

Social Security Scotland does not currently gather or release data on the people who apply for redeterminations by primary disabling condition. However, the DWP provides insight into experiences of people based on their disabling condition through official statistics about mandatory reconsiderations and provides a breakdown of health conditions that have the highest rates of mandatory reconsideration requests. As is shown in the Table 9 below, psychiatric disorders have the highest rate of mandatory reconsiderations:

Table 13: PIP mandatory reconsideration requests per health condition (June 2013-October 2025)⁸⁸Department for Work and Pensions, “Personal Independence Payment: Official Statistics to October 2025,” gov.uk, London, 2025.

Barry et al. (2018) found that people living with mental health issues were more likely to request a mandatory reconsideration due to the outcome of their face-to face assessment, which they felt was predominantly focused on physical health issues.¹⁰¹ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018.

Pybus et al.’s (2019) study echoes this difference between physical and non-physical health conditions with an analysis of data on individuals who moved from DLA to PIP between 2013 and 2016.¹⁰⁵K. Pybus, K. E. Pickett, S. L. Prady, C. Lloyd and R. Wilkenson, “Discrediting experiences: outcomes of eligibility assessments for claimants with psychiatric compared with non psychiatric conditions transferring to Personal Independence Payments in England,” British Journal of Psychiatry Open, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1-5, 2019. They undertook a comparison of claimants with mental health issues and those without to understand how many claims were disallowed after an eligibility assessment. Claimants with psychiatric conditions were far more likely to lose existing entitlement following a PIP eligibility assessment than those with nonpsychiatric conditions, with almost one-third losing entitlement compared to around one-sixth.¹⁰⁶K. Pybus, K. E. Pickett, S. L. Prady, C. Lloyd and R. Wilkenson, “Discrediting experiences: outcomes of eligibility assessments for claimants with psychiatric compared with non psychiatric conditions transferring to Personal Independence Payments in England,” British Journal of Psychiatry Open, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1-5, 2019.

Overall, the data from the DWP and the research above highlights that individuals living with mental health issues are more likely to submit a mandatory reconsideration and feel that the outcome of their initial PIP assessment did not accurately reflect how their mental health impacts their daily living.

Understanding similar experiences for ADP clients could help explain experiences and how they vary by primary disabling condition. It could also help Social Security Scotland understand if they are biases in their treatment of applications from people based on primary disabling condition.

3.4.5 Reasons for PIP mandatory reconsiderations

PIP programme has been active for almost a decade longer than ADP and consequently there is more research on applicants’ experiences, particularly around the mandatory reconsideration and appeal processes.¹⁰⁷ L. Blair, “A Rubber Stamp: Mandatory Reconsideration in the Personal Independence Payment application process,” Citizens Advice, Surrey, 2019. ¹⁰⁸ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. ¹⁰⁹ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. This section considers the available research about PIP to highlight any data gaps in understanding the client experience for those seeking ADP redeterminations.

This evidence suggests that a common reason for requesting a mandatory reconsideration is due to not feeling heard or understood.¹¹⁰P. Gray, “The Second Independent Review of the Personal Independence Payment Assessment,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2017. ¹¹¹ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. For example Barry et al, found that of the people they spoke with a mandatory reconsideration was requested for the following reasons:

• not getting an award (40%)
• feeling the assessor treated an applicant unfairly (22%)
• feeling that parts of the evidence were not considered (18%)¹¹² J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018.

The Independent review of PIP found that professionals and organisations who responded to the review felt that the main reason claimants appealed their outcome was due to their assessment report being incorrect and not accurately reflecting their health issues.¹¹³P. Gray, “The Second Independent Review of the Personal Independence Payment Assessment,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2017.

There is some evidence outlining reasons individuals may be deterred from submitting a mandatory reconsideration for their PIP decision. Applicants’ fears about applying for a mandatory reconsideration, include concerns about the impact of the experience on mental health and wellbeing. Barry et al. (2018) found that of those they surveyed who did not request a mandatory reconsideration, felt that process would be too stressful (10% of respondents) or that the outcome would not change (9%)¹¹⁴The research found that 60% of respondents said they did not request one due to being content with their award at the initial decision..¹¹⁵J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018.

Machin and McCormack (2021) conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with twelve individuals with mental health conditions who moved from DLA to PIP.¹¹⁶F. McCormack and R. Machin, “The impact of the transition to Personal Independence Payment on claimants with mental health problems,” Disability & Society, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1029-1052, 2021. All the interviewees expressed unease about appealing their PIP decisions and only one had lodged a mandatory reconsideration, despite four interviewees receiving a lower rate of PIP compared to their DLA. One interviewee said in relation to submitting a mandatory reconsideration:

Similar findings emerged from DWP research on the experiences of people applying for PIP who live with anxiety.¹³¹Department for Work and Pensions, “Understanding PIP Applicant Experiences: the experience of applicants with anxiety,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2025. Some of those who were not happy with the outcome of their PIP application, did not plan to challenge this due to a lack of confidence that the decision would be changed.¹³²Department for Work and Pensions, “Understanding PIP Applicant Experiences: the experience of applicants with anxiety,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2025.

A similar picture was evident in Northern Ireland, where an independent review examined the mandatory reconsideration process and found that some claimants felt too stressed following their experience at the initial PIP assessment that they were deterred from submitting a mandatory reconsideration.¹³⁷ W. Rader, “Personal Independence Payment: An Independent Review of the Assessment Process,” Department of Communities (Northern Ireland), Belfast, 2018. Some were also worried that they may lose their PIP award altogether if they did challenge the decision.¹³⁸ W. Rader, “Personal Independence Payment: An Independent Review of the Assessment Process,” Department of Communities (Northern Ireland), Belfast, 2018.

Research from applicants to PIP highlight that feeling unheard or misunderstood are a key reason for applicants to request a mandatory reconsideration. In contrast, those who avoid requesting one, often do so due to a fear around the experience and impact of it on their mental health and wellbeing.

Similar feelings about the mandatory reconsideration process were reflected in research with people living with multiple sclerosis (MS). The study found that some individuals were scared to submit a mandatory reconsideration through fear that the result would be a decrease in their award.¹³⁹ R. Erez, “PIP fails: how the PIP process betrays people with MS,” MS Society, 2019.

Erez (2019) also argued that the timeframe to submit a mandatory reconsideration may be too short for those living with MS due to their health and how it impacts them, particularly if they are experiencing a relapse.¹⁴⁵ R. Erez, “PIP fails: how the PIP process betrays people with MS,” MS Society, 2019.

Overall, the available research shows that a main barrier to submitting a mandatory reconsideration for PIP is the stress the process may cause and a worry that the claimant’s award could be reduced or lost completely. Considering the much lower rate of redetermination for ADP, it would be interesting to understand if the changes implemented by Social Security Scotland when creating a more human-centred approach to the application process – the submission of different types of supporting evidence and limited consultations used for clarification purposes – reduces the need for ADP clients to submit redeterminations.

3.5 Understanding the differences between ADP and PIP

As noted throughout this chapter, there is very limited evidence to explain why the redetermination rate for ADP is much lower than the mandatory reconsideration rate for PIP. Subsequently, there is little available to understand why the success rate for clients is higher for ADP redeterminations than for PIP. Judge and Murphy (2025) warn that ‘if a large proportion of claimants are successfully awarded disability benefits following a redetermination or appeal, it suggests that the system is not doing a good enough job at getting decisions right in the first instance.’¹⁴⁶L. Judge and L. Murphy, “Delivering dignity? Early Lessons from the Introduction of Adult Disability Payment in Scotland,” Resolution Foundation, 2025.

Harris (2025) found issues relating to both the appeal and redetermination processes.¹⁴⁷E. Harris, “The Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment,” Scottish Government, 2024, Edinburgh. Support organisations highlighted issues with decision making, leading to inconsistencies and different decisions being made at different stages. However, there was a lack of evidence to support this. One organisation said this has increased their appeals workload.

However, at the time the data in this report was being collected, ADP was still a relatively new programme. They, along with others, emphasise the importance of allowing more time to pass before trying to unpack trends.¹⁵³L. Judge and L. Murphy, “Delivering dignity? Early Lessons from the Introduction of Adult Disability Payment in Scotland,” Resolution Foundation, 2025. Judge and Murphy noted that there were similar trends in PIP mandatory consideration rates before a sharp upturn in requests after a few years.¹⁵⁴L. Judge and L. Murphy, “Delivering dignity? Early Lessons from the Introduction of Adult Disability Payment in Scotland,” Resolution Foundation, 2025.

The table below shows the success rates for mandatory reconsiderations for PIP (including England & Wales and Northern Ireland) and redeterminations for ADP for the period March 2022 to October 2025. This shows that ADP decisions are more likely to be changed at the redetermination stage compared to PIP.

Table 14: Summary of mandatory reconsideration/redetermination outcomes for ADP and PIP¹⁵⁵ Department for Work and Pensions, “Personal Independence Payment: Official Statistics to October 2025,” gov.uk, London, 2025. ¹⁵⁶Department for Communities Northern Ireland, “Personal Independence Payment Statistics – November 2025,” Department for Communities Northern Ireland, Belfast, 2025. ¹⁵⁷ Social Security Scotland, “Adult Disability Payment Statistics March 2025 to 31 October 2025,” Social Security Scotland, Scotland, 2025.

Research highlights that improvements to the application process have been received positively.¹⁶³E. Harris, “The Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment,” Scottish Government, 2024, Edinburgh. ¹⁶⁴L. Judge and L. Murphy, “Delivering dignity? Early Lessons from the Introduction of Adult Disability Payment in Scotland,” Resolution Foundation, 2025 ¹⁶⁵ S. Halliday, T. Csoban, R. Friskney, G. Macintyre, J. Meers, B. Seyd and J. Tomlinson, “Bureaucratic justice in disability benefits.,” Administrative Fairness Lab Report, 2025. ¹⁶⁶D. Heap, “Goodbye to PIP, but hello to what? Disability, social security, devolution and policy change in Scotland,” Policy Press, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 170-180, 2024. ¹⁶⁷ Social Security Scotland, “Client Survey – 2023-2024: Summary Report,” Social Research, Scotland, 2024. Acceptance of wider types of supporting information and adjustments to the consultation process, such as short engagements to clarify any questions about the application, may reflect a system that more accurately captures data, reflecting a reduced need for redeterminations.

Currently, no data is available on the health condition of those who submit a redetermination for ADP which would also enable a comparison with the PIP statistics.

For example, for some people whose primary disabling condition involves mental health concerns, a mandatory reconsideration for PIP, due to the assessment process involving a face-to-face assessment, feels too focused on assessing physical health issues.¹⁶⁸ J. Barry, M. Blake, L. Bridges, D. Candy, E. Carragher, E. Duxbury, H. Fowler, C. Lambert and L. Morris, “Personal Independence Claimant Research – Final Report,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2018. However, studies have shown that those living with mental health issues feel deterred from submitting a mandatory reconsideration due to the stress it may cause.¹⁶⁹ F. McCormack and R. Machin, “The impact of the transition to Personal Independence Payment on claimants with mental health problems,” Disability & Society, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1029-1052, 2021. ¹⁷⁰W. Rader, “Personal Independence Payment: An Independent Review of the Assessment Process,” Department of Communities (Northern Ireland), Belfast, 2018. . In comparison, the ADP application process does not involve a face-to-face assessment. However, more research is required on ADP to understand the experiences of those who have mental health issues to understand their experiences of applying for ADP and the rates at which they do or do not submit a redetermination.

It is also worth noting the number of case transfer clients (those moving from PIP to ADP) who requested an ADP redetermination. This accounted for 20% of redeterminations processed during March 2022 to October 2025.

3.6 Summary

Redeterminations enable ADP clients to challenge initial decisions they deem unfair or incorrect. The evidence shows that only a minority of ADP clients challenge their initial determination, with redetermination requests occurring at around half the rate of PIP mandatory reconsiderations. However, nearly half of completed ADP redeterminations result in an outcome favourable to the client, compared with a much lower proportion of PIP mandatory reconsiderations leading to an award change. This contrast raises important questions about both decision-making accuracy and claimant behaviour across the two systems.

3.6.1 Why are PIP decisions more likely to receive a reconsideration than ADP redeterminations?

There is not enough data and evidence available to provide a definitive understanding of clients’ motivations for seeking redeterminations. Research with PIP claimant experiences shows dissatisfaction with both the application form and the assessments that could drive higher rates of mandatory reconsideration. For example, PIP claimants describe being unheard, unfairly treated, or inaccurately assessed. The PIP assessment process is widely described as stressful, dehumanising, and insufficiently responsive to fluctuating or nonphysical conditions, leading claimants to challenge decisions they believe do not reflect their lived experience.

In contrast, ADP’s application and decision-making processes was intended to take a more person-centred and rights-based approach. Social Security Scotland did this by relying more heavily on supporting information, limiting the use of consultations, and removing routine face-to-face assessments. One possible interpretation of the lower rate of redetermination requests is that clients are more satisfied with initial decisions, but the available evidence does not allow this to be confirmed.

3.6.2 Why are ADP determinations more likely to be changed at the redetermination stage?

Due to the relatively short amount of time the ADP programme has been running, research does not exist to support definitive conclusions. It could be possible that the high success rate of ADP redeterminations suggests that it functions as a more substantive review than PIP mandatory reconsideration. For example, unlike PIP, where reconsiderations rely heavily on the original assessment, ADP redeterminations involve a new decision-maker reviewing the application, allowing for consideration of new evidence and a fresh analysis of the clients’ circumstances.

In contrast, many successful redeterminations may indicate shortcomings in initial decision making. If nearly half of redeterminations result in changed outcomes, this suggests that a significant proportion of initial determinations may not fully or accurately reflect clients’ circumstances. Decision-makers have acknowledged the subjectivity involved in depending more heavily on varied supporting information to make decisions as compared to frameworks used in assessments.¹⁷¹Scottish Government, “Disability benefits policy evaluation: Decision-making,” Scottish Government, Scotland, 2026. The rate of redeterminations upheld could be a reflection of the system working well or working inaccurately depending on the reason behind the decision changes. Similar analysis around the complexity of decision making was noted in a 2007 report from the DWP about the uptake rate for Disability Living Allowance and acknowledges ‘uncertainty surrounding eligibility as given’.¹⁷² D. Kasparova, A. Marsh and D. Wilkinson, “The take-up rate of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance: Feasibility study,” Department for Work and Pensions, London, 2007. While uncertainty may be a part of the system, further research with clients, decision-makers and advocates would be useful in understanding more about the process and what the data is signifying.

3.7 Identified research gaps

As with data available about the initial decision-making process, there is limited research on ADP, with the main work being undertaken by Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government. Gaps can again be broken down into qualitative and quantitative gaps.

3.7.1 Qualitative research gaps

• There is very limited understanding of clients’ experiences of the redetermination and appeal processes, particularly individuals living with certain health conditions, e.g. mental health, as there is substantial data on the impact of the PIP mandatory reconsideration process on those with anxiety and other mental health conditions.
• There is no qualitative evidence to understand the if the official statistics around redetermination rates imply high overall success with gathering accurate information at the application stage.
• Similarly, there is no evidence to understand why there are low rates of redetermination requests (implying initial decision accuracy) combined with high rates of allowed redeterminations (implying inconsistency and inaccuracy in the decision-making process).

3.7.2 Official statistics gaps

• There is no data on the primary disabling conditions of people who submit a redetermination or the rates of success for people with different conditions.