https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Targeted_Case_Reviews.pdf
Executive summary
In 2022, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched ‘Targeted Case
Review’ (TCR), a large-scale fraud and error reduction scheme involving checks
on the accuracy of payments made to millions of Universal Credit claimants
(DWP, 2022). The scheme has scaled up dramatically since then. With over two
million reviews completed to date (DWP, 2026a), almost 6,000 agents tasked
with carrying out this work, and incorrect payments identified in 1 in 5 cases, the
DWP estimates that TCR will deliver more than £13 billion of savings by end of
this decade (DWP, 2025). In just a few years, the scheme has quietly become the
flagship component of the UK government’s approach to addressing fraud and
error in the welfare system.
Our research, based on a total of 35 original qualitative interviews with
Universal Credit claimants and welfare rights advisers, provides empirical
evidence of how the TCR scheme is operating in practice and, in particular, how
it is being experienced by those who come into contact with it. From our analysis
of this qualitative data, we identify four key themes emerging from claimants’
and advisers’ experiences of the various procedures constituting the TCR
scheme:
Administrative burden. The review process imposes significant and varied
administrative burdens on claimants, incurring learning costs,
psychological costs, and compliance costs (Herd and Moynihan, 2018).
- Mixed levels of support. While some claimants and advisers reported
having experienced positive interactions with supportive officials who
facilitated the review process and accommodated the claimant’s needs,
many others described having gone through the process without any offer
of support from the DWP or information about how to access this. - Implications for claimants’ trust in the welfare system. The impacts of
the TCR scheme are shown to have broader implications both in terms of
reinforcing as well as eroding claimants’ trust in the welfare system. - Difficulties challenging DWP decisions. Claimants and advisers described
encountering difficulties in challenging DWP decisions made both during
4
and as a result of the TCR process (e.g. decisions taken to suspend or
terminate benefit payments).
While these findings raise many questions that require further investigation, we
propose the DWP could take steps initially to:
- Produce clear, claimant-facing information that explains the TCR process
and distinguishes this from other review processes. Claimants want
better communication from the DWP which clearly explains the purpose
of the TCR scheme (e.g. confirmation that this is not, of itself, a fraud
investigation), establishes clear expectations as to the nature, aims and
objectives of the review process, and thus distinguishes this from other
such review processes operating within Universal Credit (and which
claimants may also be / have been subjected to). - Track and limit repeat reviews. Repeatedly subjecting claimants to TCR
risks adverse consequences, including exacerbating the negative impacts
and perceptions of the review process which, in the long term, may
undermine claimants’ trust in the DWP. - Revisit the proportionality of evidence requests and explore capping the
scope of requests to reduce administrative burden for claimants.
Claimants tasked with gathering and submitting various personal
documents (such as ID documents and bank statements) within strict
deadlines face significant administrative burdens. Yet these burdens are
exacerbated when the scope of evidence requested spans many months,
if not years, of the period in which the claimant has received Universal
Credit payments. The DWP should therefore revisit the proportionality of
such evidence requests considering the severe impacts this can have on
claimants who nevertheless remain obligated to comply with these
requests or risk having their benefit payments stopped. - Embed consistent safeguarding mechanisms and opportunities for
support within the TCR process. Many vulnerable claimants and claimants
with complex needs are disproportionately exposed to the negative
impacts of the TCR process. It is crucial, therefore, that the DWP consider
the effectiveness of existing safeguarding mechanisms within the TCR
5
process, and ensure that meaningful opportunities for support are offered
as standard to all claimants subjected to review