Landmark Tribunal Ruling Forces DWP to Disclose Universal Credit Death Review Data

On 12 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) delivered a landmark decision in the case of Department of Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner & Anor, which focused on the application of Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This ruling holds considerable implications for transparency and access to government-held information, particularly regarding welfare matters.

The case was initiated by Mr John Pring, who sought details concerning Internal Process Reviews (IPRs) related to Universal Credit claims from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). His request specifically included the number of completed IPRs over the last four years, particularly those involving claimant deaths and associated recommendations concerning Universal Credit. The objective behind Mr Pring’s request was to enhance public accountability concerning the DWP's handling of sensitive cases.

In response, the DWP acknowledged that it held the requested information but chose to withhold it, invoking Section 21 of FOIA for the first two questions, claiming the information was accessible through alternative means. For inquiries related to IPR recommendations, the DWP turned to Section 22, asserting that it intended to publish the information imminently. However, on 11 July 2024, the Information Commissioner issued a decision notice concluding that the DWP did not satisfy the criteria needed to invoke this exemption, prompting the appeal.

During the tribunal hearings, the DWP defended its decision to withhold the requested information, suggesting that delaying release until a planned publication date was vital to maintaining the integrity and context of the information. The DWP argued that disclosing individual IPR recommendations prematurely could misrepresent the associated issues and erode public trust in the department, especially given the sensitivity surrounding claimant deaths.

The tribunal, however, ruled that the DWP failed to demonstrate convincingly that the withheld information was genuinely intended for publication in accordance with Section 22's stipulations. The judges acknowledged Mr Pring's concerns, affirming the public's right to be informed about systemic issues in governmental operations that could significantly affect vulnerable individuals relying on welfare support.

Ultimately, the tribunal's decision favoured Mr Pring, permitting the disclosure of the requested information. Judge Harris emphasised that the principles of transparency should take precedence in this scenario, noting that the public's interest in understanding the DWP's actions concerning critical recommendations should not be overlooked.

This ruling holds broader implications for government departments when it comes to handling sensitive information requests. It underscores the necessity of achieving a balance between operational transparency and the possible consequences of disclosing sensitive details. The First-tier Tribunal's decision serves as a precedent supporting the public's right to access information, especially in matters relating to public welfare.

In light of this case, discussions surrounding governmental transparency, the public's right to know, and the careful considerations necessary when withholding information under FOIA exemptions gain increased importance. Looking forward, how the DWP and other governmental bodies choose to adjust their policies and practices concerning information disclosure will be crucial in preventing similar disputes in the future