Department for Work and Pensions

4. Miss J complains that in September 2025, the DWP did not consider her needs when she requested a further extension to delay her move from Income-Related ESA to UC.

5. Miss J says the uncertainty surrounding the move caused her significant anxiety, which was made worse by her health conditions, including agoraphobia (a fear of being in situations where escape might be difficult or that help would not be available if things go wrong) and her family situation.

6. She says this affected her mental and physical health and caused her to worry about having no income if she missed the deadline.

7. In bringing the complaint to us, Miss J is seeking financial compensation as recognition for the handling of her situation.

8. Income-Related ESA was a payment from the government for people under State Pension age who could not work due to illness or disability. It was a "means-tested" safety net, meaning your payments were based on your household's overall income, savings, and living situation.

9. UC is a single, monthly payment from the government to help with living and housing costs. You can claim it if you are unemployed, unable to work, or on a low income.

10. The UK government has been transitioning individuals on certain older benefits, including Income-Related ESA, to UC. The process, called ‘managed migration,’ is mandatory for most claimants and had to be completed by March 2026. The DWP sent 'Migration Notice' letters to claimants telling them to claim UC within three months and that moving was mandatory, even if they chose not to apply.

11. In April 2025, the DWP issued Miss J a 'Migration Notice' letter. This explained she needed to move to UC as she would soon stop getting Income-Related ESA.

12. Miss J complained to the DWP and requested it cancel the move to allow her to remain on ESA indefinitely. Miss J told us this was because she felt the change would worsen her anxiety and agoraphobia. She was also dealing with personal pressures, including both parents being diagnosed with life-changing illnesses and additional difficulties managing her paperwork because of hoarding.

13. At the beginning of May, the DWP UC team responded to Miss J’s complaint. After considering her circumstances, it granted an extension to her move date to the end of July.

14. In mid-May, Miss J further complained to the DWP and again asked for a cancellation of the move because of the above. The DWP responded and granted a further extension of her move date up to the beginning of September to give her more time, after which it said she would need to apply to UC.

15. Miss J remained concerned about the transition, particularly as she had read that the change in benefits did not completely take effect until March 2026. She contacted her MP and approached the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) for further support at the end of August.

16. After speaking with ICE, Miss J accepted she needed to move to UC. Because of her circumstances, ICE contacted the UC team to ask for support to complete the application.

17. The UC Team did not agree on a further extension, although it agreed to support her in making an application. ICE sent its final response to Miss J at the beginning of September.

18. In September, a DWP manager assisted Miss J in processing her UC claim, and she was able to complete the rest of the application online by herself. Miss J is now in receipt of the new style ESA, supplemented by UC with Transitional Protection payment, which she says she is managing on.

19. New Style ESA is a fortnightly payment for people who cannot work due to illness, disability, or a health condition. It is not means-tested against your savings or partner's income; eligibility is based purely on your National Insurance (NI) contributions.

20. 'Transitional Protection' is a top up payment made if the claimants calculated UC entitlement was less than what they were receiving on ESA, so they did not lose out. This protection continues unless the claimant’s circumstances change significantly.

23. Miss J’s main concern is that the DWP did not consider her personal circumstances when she requested a further extension to delay her move to UC beyond September 2025. She says this caused substantial stress and exacerbated her existing health conditions, including agoraphobia, which made processing the required information and engaging with the process very difficult for her.

24. Miss J explained to us that she was also dealing with significant personal challenges at the time, including her parents’ serious illness and difficulty managing paperwork due to her long-standing struggles with hoarding. She said these factors made the transition even more overwhelming for her.

25. Miss J has also raised concerns about UC’s monitoring and questions might affect her sense of security and could make her feel more vulnerable. She says she ultimately realised that delaying the process further would not have prevented the move to UC by March 2026.

26. Under section 44 of the UC migration (Managed Migration) Regulations, the DWP has the authority to issue a 'Migration Notice' that requires claimants of legacy benefits (such as Income-Related ESA) to claim UC by a specified 'deadline day'.

27. Section 45 of the Regulations allows the DWP to extend the deadline on its own initiative or if a claimant requests an extension and provides sufficient reasons for it to be granted. These extensions are discretionary and do not allow indefinite postponement of the transition. It explains there is no right to a mandatory reconsideration (MR) or an appeal about being issued with a migration notice, the deadline day, or the refusal to extend a deadline.

28. A MR is an official request to the DWP to look at a benefit decision again because you think they made a mistake. It is a required "first step" that you must complete before you can formally appeal the decision.

29. The government’s policy is that the managed migration process must be completed by all claimants by March 2026. The Written Ministerial Statement reaffirmed the government's commitment to completing the transition to UC and closing legacy benefits, including Income-Related ESA, by the legally mandated deadline of March 2026.

30. The DWP guidance explains, in certain circumstances, it will not include claimants in the Move to Universal Credit programme. These exceptions include those claimants who are in prison, receiving ESA and within 6 months of State Pension age, Posted Workers (work for a UK company in an EU country), and Zambrano Carers (a non-EEA national who is the primary carer of a British Citizen child that lives in Great Britain, and the child could not live in GB without their primary carer). Miss J’s situation did not fall under any of these exceptions.

31. As set out in our Principles of Good Administration, public bodies are expected to act openly and transparently, to be flexible in responding to individual circumstances, and to minimise any adverse effects resulting from their decisions.

32. The DWP explained that it had reviewed all the information Miss J provided. Its senior decision-makers considered her circumstances in detail and determined, in line with its guidance and criteria, that Miss J did not meet the eligibility requirements for an additional extension or cancellation of her Migration Notice.

33. It also explained that Income related ESA will end on a date set by the Secretary of State, and that there is no legal right to a MR or appeal against the decision to require UC migration as part of the managed transition process.

34. Government policy makes it clear that the move to UC is mandatory for all claimants of legacy benefits, such as Income-Related ESA, by March 2026.

35. We can see that when Miss J raised concerns about transitioning from ESA to UC, the DWP granted her multiple deadline extensions to accommodate her circumstances. Initially, it extended her deadline to the end of July, and then to September 2025.

36. The DWP reviewed Miss J’s circumstances when she requested another extension to delay her transition until March 2026, which included her health conditions and caregiving responsibilities. It decided she did not meet the criteria for an additional extension under its guidance and policies. It explained it had already granted two extensions and that it did not allow indefinite deferrals or exemptions from the managed migration process.

37. When Miss J came to terms with the need to move to UC, the DWP, together with ICE, provided her with tailored assistance to ensure the transition went as smoothly as possible. Support included practical help from a manager who guided Miss J through the application process and ensured they supported her throughout.

38. Miss J successfully completed her UC application and is now in receipt of New Style ESA, UC, and a Transitional Protection payment. This ensures that her total income has not decreased because of moving to UC, providing financial stability unless her circumstances change significantly.

39. We understand this process was especially challenging for Miss J because of her health conditions, including agoraphobia, and the additional strain of supporting her seriously ill parents.

40. We also recognise that the uncertainty and disruption involved in transitioning to UC caused Miss J a great deal of distress and further impacted her mental and physical health. We sincerely empathise with the difficulties she has described and the toll the process had on her wellbeing.

41. Our view is that the DWP acted in line with relevant legislation and government policy throughout this process. It ensured Miss J received an appropriate amount of time to prepare for and complete her transition to UC. and assistance to transition to UC. The policy requires all recipients of legacy benefits, including Income-Related ESA, to move to UC by March 2026.

42. While the DWP has the discretion to extend transition deadlines in certain circumstances, it is bound by regulations that do not allow for indefinite deferrals or exemptions based solely on health or personal difficulties.

43. In line with its obligation, the DWP acted flexibly in granting Miss J two extensions to her original deadline. These extensions demonstrate it recognised her vulnerabilities and made efforts to accommodate her needs as much as possible within the constraints of the policy.

44. The DWP also kept Miss J informed at each stage of the process, explaining decisions clearly and providing additional support when she needed it. Assigning a manager to assist her with the application process further reflects the DWP’s commitment to ensure the transition process was as manageable as possible for her.

45. We appreciate that this was a difficult period for Miss J and acknowledge the emotional and physical toll the transition to UC caused her. As the DWP followed relevant policy and guidance and showed that it took her personal circumstances into account, we find no indications that anything went seriously wrong.

46. We thank Miss J for bringing her concerns to us and sincerely wish her well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Miss J’s complaint about the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). We are sorry to hear about the challenges she faced when changing her benefits and understand this process has been particularly distressing for her.

2. While we recognise the significant stress this process has caused Miss J, we have found that the DWP acted in line with relevant policies and guidance. The DWP provided several extensions to accommodate Miss J’s circumstances and supported her in transitioning from Income-Related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) to Universal Credit (UC).

3. We will explain our decision in detail below. We hope this will help Miss J to understand our decision and give some reassurance about what happened.