The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is independent of Government and is responsible for deciding how Freedom of Information Act complaints are prioritised, investigated and resolved. Whilst DCMS sponsors the ICO, government policy for Freedom of Information sits with the Cabinet Office.

The Department does not hold the operational information requested. The ICO publishes information about its performance and case-handling activity on its website and reports annually to Parliament on its approach to complaints and investigations.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is independent of Government and is responsible for deciding how Freedom of Information Act complaints are prioritised, investigated and resolved. Whilst DCMS sponsors the ICO, government policy for Freedom of Information sits with the Cabinet Office.

The Department does not hold the operational information requested. The ICO publishes information about its performance and case-handling activity on its website and reports annually to Parliament on its approach to complaints and investigations.

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 information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

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.

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 mean and median waiting time between a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeal being lodged and the Department submitting its response to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), for initial clearances and award review clearances in the calendar year 2025, was 5 weeks.

The Department does not hold data on when a tribunal hearing date is set. This information is in the domain of HMCTS.

We are increasing resources available for writing appeal responses by redeploying staff and making overtime available.

We are also looking to make appeal writing more efficient by improving the programme that decision makers use. The improved tool will integrate better with other DWP computer systems, which will make it faster and easier to use than the current process.

We will continue working to make the right decision as early as possible in the claim journey so people get the support they are entitled to without needing to appeal.

SATs marking in 2026 has been completed and results have been delivered. Marking was subject to the department’s required quality assurance processes, including marker training, qualification exercises and ongoing quality checks. The standards maintenance process, which ensures results remain comparable with previous years, was completed on 2 July and can only be completed with sufficiently accurate and representative data.

Pearson have fully apologised for their failure to deliver the key stage 2 results on time and for the impact this has had on schools, pupils and parents. The department will use all the provisions in the contract to ensure that Pearson is held to account and we will explore all possible options for future delivery. The government has confirmed that there will be a full independent review into how such serious failings have occurred, with further details and terms of reference to be set out shortly.

Following feedback received from schools, Ministers have extended the deadline for applications for reviews of test results until 7 September 2026, allowing schools to submit requests during term time.

Total legal aid expenditure on immigration and aysulm appeals in the First-tier and Upper Tribunals is set out in the table below.

The number of certificates opened for immigration and asylum appeals is set out in the table below.

Due to the way in which data is recorded on Legal Aid Systems it is not possible to disaggregate number of Controlled Work matter starts for immigration and asylum appeals before the First-tier and Upper Tribunals from other Controlled Work matter starts in the immigration and asylum category.

Legal aid for immigration and asylum cases is primarily provided as Controlled Work. Controlled Work covers the provision of legal advice and representation before the First-tier Tribunal and certain work before the Upper Tribunal.

Total legal aid expenditure on immigration and aysulm appeals in the First-tier and Upper Tribunals is set out in the table below.

The number of certificates opened for immigration and asylum appeals is set out in the table below.

Due to the way in which data is recorded on Legal Aid Systems it is not possible to disaggregate number of Controlled Work matter starts for immigration and asylum appeals before the First-tier and Upper Tribunals from other Controlled Work matter starts in the immigration and asylum category.

Legal aid for immigration and asylum cases is primarily provided as Controlled Work. Controlled Work covers the provision of legal advice and representation before the First-tier Tribunal and certain work before the Upper Tribunal.

The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) comprises three separate tribunal jurisdictions: Social Security and Child Support (SSCS); Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC); and Asylum Support (AST).

The data requested for CIC and AST are not held centrally for analysis and reporting purposes. The data requested for SSCS is set out below:

1.From April 2023 the SSCS Tribunal started to list cases using a new Scheduling and Listing solution. This, alongside HMCTS migrating to a new Strategic Data Platform, has resulted in some cases heard and decided using this new listing solution not currently being included in the data.

2.A small number of cases have been removed from the dataset used to calculate the longest cases as these dates have been found to have input errors, and the case did not take as long as has been recorded in the system.

The longest waiting times provided in this Answer are outliers and include cases which were stayed pending the outcome of a decision of the Supreme Court; and very complex cases which have been appealed (up to three times) to the Upper Tribunal, and then remitted to the First-tier for re-hearing. The mean waiting time in 2025/6 in SSCS was 35 weeks. As a result of this Government’s inheritance, there has been a focus over the last year on clearing older cases which will, in the short term, result in an increase in the average waiting time, as illustrated by the fact that in 2024/5, the mean waiting time was 32 weeks.

Data on the average waiting time between appeal lodgement and first hearing, and between appeal lodgement and final disposal, for Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) appeals is not routinely recorded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the average waiting time for a SEND appeal to be heard from receipt of the appeal, including a yearly breakdown for the period 2019 to 2025, could only be obtained through the manual review of individual case records. This information could therefore only be provided at disproportionate cost.

HMCTS does not routinely record the number of requests made under Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s procedure rules. This information is therefore not held.

Data on the average waiting time between appeal lodgement and first hearing, and between appeal lodgement and final disposal, for Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) appeals is not routinely recorded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the average waiting time for a SEND appeal to be heard from receipt of the appeal, including a yearly breakdown for the period 2019 to 2025, could only be obtained through the manual review of individual case records. This information could therefore only be provided at disproportionate cost.

HMCTS does not routinely record the number of requests made under Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s procedure rules. This information is therefore not held.

The outstanding Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) (HESC) include both appeals which have been listed and those which have not been listed and are awaiting a hearing.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals which were outstanding, broken down by those which have been listed and those which have not, and are therefore waiting a hearing in each month from July 2024 to March 2026 (the latest period for which data are available)

The data has been taken from the local management information system. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals (a) registered and (b) disposed of in HESC in each financial year from 2021-22, broken down by (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed, (iii) withdrawn and (iv) conceded by local authority before hearing.

The data has been taken from the local management information system with financial year set as April to March. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available. For this reason, the appeals shown in the above table may not match published totals.

Data on the waiting time between appeal lodgement and first hearing and lodgement to final disposal for SEND appeals is not recorded by the Tribunal, which would mean data on the longest waiting time and average waiting time could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

The outstanding Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) (HESC) include both appeals which have been listed and those which have not been listed and are awaiting a hearing.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals which were outstanding, broken down by those which have been listed and those which have not, and are therefore waiting a hearing in each month from July 2024 to March 2026 (the latest period for which data are available)

The data has been taken from the local management information system. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals (a) registered and (b) disposed of in HESC in each financial year from 2021-22, broken down by (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed, (iii) withdrawn and (iv) conceded by local authority before hearing.

The data has been taken from the local management information system with financial year set as April to March. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available. For this reason, the appeals shown in the above table may not match published totals.

Data on the waiting time between appeal lodgement and first hearing and lodgement to final disposal for SEND appeals is not recorded by the Tribunal, which would mean data on the longest waiting time and average waiting time could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

The outstanding Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) (HESC) include both appeals which have been listed and those which have not been listed and are awaiting a hearing.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals which were outstanding, broken down by those which have been listed and those which have not, and are therefore waiting a hearing in each month from July 2024 to March 2026 (the latest period for which data are available)

The data has been taken from the local management information system. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals (a) registered and (b) disposed of in HESC in each financial year from 2021-22, broken down by (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed, (iii) withdrawn and (iv) conceded by local authority before hearing.

The data has been taken from the local management information system with financial year set as April to March. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available. For this reason, the appeals shown in the above table may not match published totals.

Data on the waiting time between appeal lodgement and first hearing and lodgement to final disposal for SEND appeals is not recorded by the Tribunal, which would mean data on the longest waiting time and average waiting time could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

The outstanding Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) (HESC) include both appeals which have been listed and those which have not been listed and are awaiting a hearing.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals which were outstanding, broken down by those which have been listed and those which have not, and are therefore waiting a hearing in each month from July 2024 to March 2026 (the latest period for which data are available)

The data has been taken from the local management information system. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

The table below shows the total number of SEND appeals (a) registered and (b) disposed of in HESC in each financial year from 2021-22, broken down by (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed, (iii) withdrawn and (iv) conceded by local authority before hearing.

The data has been taken from the local management information system with financial year set as April to March. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available. For this reason, the appeals shown in the above table may not match published totals.

Data on the waiting time between appeal lodgement and first hearing and lodgement to final disposal for SEND appeals is not recorded by the Tribunal, which would mean data on the longest waiting time and average waiting time could only be provided at disproportionate costs.