Listening to Real Experiences: Understanding Access to Local Welfare Assistance
Schemes
Peer Researchers: Andrew Anthony Monica
Neil Sahar Tammy
Written by: Shannon Johnstone, Expert Link and NEIF
Published: December 2025
Acknowledgements
This research project has been co-produced. We are grateful to everyone who contributed and took part.
Methodology
Theme 1: Awareness of Welfare Assistance Schemes
Theme 2: Accessing Support – Application Process and Barriers
Theme 3: Outcomes – Decisions, Delays, and Communications
Theme 4: Emotional Impact and Dignity
Theme 5: Suggestions for Improvement –What Participants Want to See Change
Introduction
“I enjoyed very much the interviews that I did… It was a great pleasure listening to people’s responses.”
This report shares findings from a peer-led research project exploring experiences of trying to access Local Welfare Assistance (LWA), Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP), and other forms of crisis support in the UK.
The research was co-produced by members of the National Expert Influencing Forum (NEIF). The NEIF is facilitated by Expert Link and funded by the Lloyds Bank Foundation. The NEIF brings together people from across the country who have direct experience of homelessness, multiple disadvantage and the welfare system, and supports them to influence national policy through co-production.
Members shape priorities, lead conversations with government departments, take part in peer research, and co-design recommendations based on what they know works in real life. The NEIF is made up of three sub-committees - Supported Housing, Welfare and Assessments, and Local Welfare Assistance Schemes - allowing members to go deeper into key policy areas while staying connected as one national forum. Above all, the NEIF exists to make sure lived experience is not just included but is central to how policy is made.
Expert Link is a national, peer-led organisation that brings people with lived experience of homelessness, multiple disadvantage and the welfare system into the heart of decision-making. Everything we do is rooted in co-production, trauma-informed practice and the belief that people are the experts in their own lives.
Expert Link supports a UK-wide network, builds leadership and research skills, and works with national and local partners to influence policy and practice. Our work is funded by a mixture of grants and partnerships, and we prioritise honesty, accessibility and the un-edited voices of lived experience in all our outputs.
Using a co-designed topic guide and peer interview method, NEIF members conducted interviews with people across different regions who had navigated (or attempted to navigate) welfare systems. The findings reveal a complex picture of barriers, inconsistencies, emotional strain, and unmet need - alongside powerful suggestions for how systems could be reimagined.
This report shares those insights, placing lived experience at the heart of efforts to improve emergency support and social security for all.
“I hope you’re able to find some valuable insight, so they can listen to us and make some changes, embedding some of these concerns and our voices.”
Methodology
“The structure needs to be built first, according to the resources and being very realistic so we’re not collapsing at any point of time.”
Interviews were carried out using a peer research approach led by members of the National Expert Influencing Forum (NEIF). NEIF members completed peer research training and coproduced every stage of the project, including the focus of the research, the questions we asked, how we interviewed people, and how we made sense of what we heard.
We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews in Autumn 2025 with people experiencing economic hardship. Semi-structured meant we used a consistent topic guide to keep interviews focused, while giving participants space to tell their story in their own words and spend time on what mattered most to them. Participants could pause, skip questions, or take breaks at any time.
The topic guide was designed to be trauma-informed and participant-led. Consent and confidentiality were prioritised throughout, and interviews followed safe space principles. This included using Chatham House rules, so learning can be shared without attaching names to what was said.
Interviews were recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to identify patterns across experiences, grouping recurring issues into themes and drawing out what helped, what got in the way, and what participants wanted to see change. The report includes anonymised, verbatim quotes to amplify lived experience. Findings reflect the experiences shared by participants and are intended to provide qualitative insight, not statistical representation.
“Yeah, because to be taken seriously, especially when it comes to the qualitative analysis we need to use a standard and recognised method.”
“It’s all been done with the usual professionalism that we've come to expect from Expert Link. It wasn’t rushed and it was balanced in the right way, which is excellent. It’s been so useful to do the process from start to finish together.”
“I'm just glad somebody's doing this... thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences.”
Theme 1: Awareness of Welfare Assistance Schemes
1. Mixed Levels of Awareness Before Applying
A significant portion of participants had no idea support existed until they encountered a financial shock or were prompted by someone else.
Some assumed that once statutory welfare (like Universal Credit) was in place, there were no additional local funds.
A few thought the schemes were only for “other people” (homeless, refugees) and not for themselves
This indicates that for many people the scheme is not visible as part of the wider welfare safety net. Instead, it appears as something you only learn about after a setback, which can delay support until problems have escalated.
“Ididn’tevenknow itwasathinguntil mysupportworker mentionedit.I thoughtonce UniversalCredit cutoff,thatwasit forallhelp.”
2. Signposting Was Crucial
“Ihadnocluethe fcouncilhadhelp torrentorenergy op‑up. Itfeltlikewewerejust meanttofendfor ourselves.”
“WhenIlostwork, Ithoughttheonly optionwas borrowingoff someone.Ididn’t knowthisfund existed.”
Most participants who accessed support got there because of a referral or conversation with a trusted intermediary (charity, foodbank, housing officer).
Those without a support network struggled even to hear about the scheme.
The role of intermediaries extended beyond sign posting: they often helped with forms, eligibility checks, and submission.
This suggests awareness is often created through human contact, not public information. Without a trusted person to mention the scheme and help people take the first step, many participants are unlikely to discover or access support.
“My housing officer helped me fill out the form and told me about the grant… otherwise, I wouldn’t have known.”
“After I saw the leaflet at the community centre, I asked. But if I hadn’t gone there, I’d never have seen it.”
“The lady at the foodbank said, ‘You should try the council hardship fund’… I didn’t know councils had that.”
3. Digital and Language Barriers to Awareness:
Online information about schemes often uses bureaucratic or technical language, limiting comprehension for many.
Some interviewees lacked reliable internet access or digital literacy, which prevented self discovery of available support.
Language, literacy, and jargon created a barrier: even if they found the page, they didn’t always understand that they were eligible or the process.
This highlights a digital divide in awareness. Even when information exists online, complex language, low confidence navigating websites, and unreliable internet can mean people do not reach the point of understanding what the scheme is or whether it applies to them.
“I can’t read all the words on those council sites — they use too much jargon. I get lost after the first page.”
“It’s not even on the JobCentre walls. If you’re not looking in the right place, you’d never know it’s there.”
“If you don’t have internet, how are you meant to find out about these things? They don’t advertise them anywhere.”
4. Confusion About Eligibility and Purpose:
Many participants were unsure whether they qualified - due to ambiguous eligibility criteria, lack of clarity about the types of assistance (rent vs energy vs one‑off crisis) and whether the support was means tested.
Some assumed the schemes were only for “desperate cases” (homeless, jobless) and didn’t consider applying themselves.
This shows that uncertainty about “who the scheme is for” acts as a barrier in itself. People were often making a judgement about eligibility before applying, and some excluded themselves because they did not feel they were “the right type of person” to ask for help.
I didn’t know if I was allowed to ask for help. I thought they’d say, ‘You’ve already got UC, that’s enough.
I wasn’t sure if it was only for homeless people or if people like me with rent arrears could get it. The words said ‘hardship’ and I thought: I’m not ‘hardship’ level, I’m just falling behind - would they help someone like that?
5. Lack of Consistent Messaging:
Participants described receiving conflicting information depending on which staff member or agency they spoke to Some agencies appeared unaware of the scheme or had outdated information, leading to frustration, mistrust and sometimes abandonment of the application process. Inconsistent communication also meant people gave up, thinking the scheme was too complicated or “probably not for me”.
This suggests that inconsistency between agencies and staff does not just confuse people, it affects trust. When information feels unreliable or contradictory, participants described losing confidence and sometimes stopping the process altogether.
“The JobCentre lady said she never heard of it. Then I rang the council and they said they ran it! That was confusing.”
“Three people told me different things - one said yes, one said no, and one said ‘maybe if you're lucky’.”
“I asked twice and got two different answer‑books. It made me feel like no‑one cared. So I stopped asking.”
Summary of findings:
Many participants only became aware of local welfare assistance when they experienced a financial crisis or when a trusted person told them about it.
Charities, foodbanks, housing staff and support workers were often the difference between people finding the scheme or not.
Digital exclusion and complex language made it harder for people to find and understand information independently.
Unclear eligibility and “who it’s for” messaging led some people to rule themselves out before applying.
Inconsistent or conflicting information across agencies undermined trust and stopped people from pursuing support.
Recommendations:
Produce plain language information (leaflets + a printable PDF) and place it in high-footfall, trusted locations (foodbanks, libraries, community centres, Jobcentres, housing offices) as well as online
Create a single source of truth (one council webpage + one downloadable FAQ) that partners can share to reduce contradictory messages.
Provide intermediaries with a simple signposting toolkit (eligibility prompts, example scenarios, what evidence is needed, where to refer for help completing forms).
Use multiple access routes to information (online + print + inperson conversations) so people without internet aren’t excluded.
Use inclusive messaging that clearly states common situations that may qualify (e.g., behind on rent/energy, sudden income drop) and challenges the idea it’s “only for other people.”
Theme 2: Accessing Support – Application Process and Barriers
1. The Application Journey Was Often Overwhelming:
Most participants described the process as confusing, complex, and emotionally draining. Forms were seen as long, invasive, and hard to understand. The psychological barrier was significant - facing a long form while in crisis felt like “too much.”
This shows the application process itself can become a barrier, especially when people are already in crisis. When forms feel long, invasive or hard to understand, participants described hitting a point where the task becomes emotionally unmanageable, not just practically difficult
“Itwaslikethe bloodyPIP assessment…pages andpagesasking personalquestions. Ifeltjudgedjust fillingitout.”
“Myinitial reactionwas:oh gosh, I’m overwhelmedwith this… wheredoIstart, whatdoIsay?”
2. Digital-Only Access Pushed People Out:
“Iwashomeless,I wastired,and they’reaskingme forbank statementsand proofof everything.Icould barelythink straight.”
Many councils required online applications, which excluded people with poor digital skills, no devices, or mental health issues.
Several interviewees needed help from charities or friends to even complete the form.
This highlights how digital-by-default design can exclude people before they even start. For many participants, accessing the form and completing it depended on borrowing devices, navigating public spaces like libraries, or relying on another person, which can delay support or stop the process entirely.
“You had to do it online, but I had no laptop, no phone credit. I was screwed.”
“I had to go to the library to try and fill it in. But I didn’t even know what they meant by ‘supporting documentation’.”
“If I didn’t have my neighbour help me, I would’ve given up. I didn’t understand half the questions.”
3. Language and Bureaucratic Jargon Confused Applicants:
Language used in the forms and websites was often overly formal, full of jargon, or vague. Participants said they felt unsure how to “say the right thing” to get approved.
“I don’t know how to write the way they want. I just said, ‘I need help’ — but that’s not good enough for them.”
“It’s like you have to sound desperate in a certain way. I don’t know how to write that.”
4. Lack of Face-to-Face or Human Support Made It Worse:
“Even
the word
‘discretionary’
– I didn’t know what it meant. Thought it was like... optional.”
Participants often said they wanted someone to sit down with them and explain things. The absence of face-to-face help made the process feel isolating and inaccessible. Support workers, when present, played a vital role in navigating the application.
This shows that where human support is absent, the process can feel faceless and isolating. Participants often moved forward only when a trusted organisation or support worker stepped in, indicating that the scheme can be inaccessible without someone to help interpret, explain and troubleshoot
There was no one to talk to. I sent the form off into the void and just waited.
This suggests the language used in forms and guidance shapes who feels able to apply Participants described feeling they needed to “perform” need in the right way, which created anxiety and uncertainty, and risked penalising people who are less confident with formal written communication. National Expert
Only when [Organisation] stepped in and helped me did anything actually move forward.
If someone could’ve just explained it to me in person, I might’ve got it done sooner. But I didn’t know where to go.
5. Psychological and Emotional Toll of the Process:
The process often compounded existing mental health struggles. Several described the experience as humiliating, exhausting, or re-traumatising.
This indicates the process can amplify distress rather than reduce it. Participants described the act of applying as humiliating or re-traumatising, and in some cases it worsened mental health at the point people were seeking help, thereby undermining dignity and safety.
“I was trying not to cry doing the form. It made me feel small, like I was begging.”
“They ask for everything – I didn’t even want to remember half that stuff again.”
“I told the GP I’d kill myself if something didn’t change. That’s how bad it got before anyone helped.”
Summary of findings:
Forms were often experienced as overwhelming, intrusive and long, especially when people were already under pressure.
Online-only application routes excluded or delayed support for people without devices, data, digital skills, or stability.
Formal language and bureaucratic jargon reduced understanding and confidence, leaving people unsure how to explain their situation in the “right” way.
Where face-to-face or human support was missing, the process felt isolating and harder to navigate, and people often only progressed once a support worker or organisation stepped in.
Applying while in crisis had a significant emotional impact, with participants describing humiliation, exhaustion, and for some, re-traumatisation.
Recommendations:
Offer alternative application routes alongside online forms (phone, in-person, and assisted appointments), so people can access support without needing digital access.
Use plain English throughout all forms and guidance: avoid jargon/acronyms, explain key terms (for example “discretionary” and “supporting documentation”), and provide accessible formats, including other languages where needed.
Simplify and shorten forms, removing repeated questions and limiting intrusive requests to what is necessary, with clear explanations of why evidence is required.
Provide practical application support through navigators/support workers (including through trusted partners such as housing providers and advice organisations), so people are not reliant on informal help from neighbours or friends
Build trauma-informed practice into the application process in ways that are specific to this stage: reduce the burden at the point of crisis, allow breaks/pauses, offer reassurance and clarity, and use communication that supports dignity rather than suspicion.
Theme 3: Outcomes – Decisions, Delays, and Communications
1. Delays Were Common and Stressful:
Most participants reported long wait times with little or no update. Delays left participants in limbo - unable to plan or make other arrangements. Some waited weeks or even months before hearing back.
This shows delays are not just inconvenient, they create uncertainty at the point people are least able to cope with it. Without timely decisions or updates, participants described being stuck in limbo and unable to make alternative plans, which can deepen crisis.
2. Communication Was Poor or Non-Existent:
Participants often received no acknowledgement that their form had been received. When a decision came, it was usually a short letter or email, lacking detail. Many were left unsure why they were refused or what they could do next.
This suggests that silence and minimal decision letters undermine confidence in the process When people do not receive acknowledgement, clear explanations, or a way to speak to someone, they are left feeling dismissed and unable to understand what happened or what to do next.
“I got a one-line email that just said: 'You’re not eligible'. That was it.”
“I don’t even know if they read what I wrote. They just said no. No explanation.”
“There was no number to call, no one to talk to. It felt like a black hole.”
3. Outcomes Felt Arbitrary or Unfair:
Several participants felt the decision-making process was inconsistent, unclear, or even discriminatory.
Two people were approved after re-applying with similar circumstances, suggesting inconsistency
Others questioned if decisions were made by someone who truly understood their situation.
This indicates that perceived inconsistency damages trust in the scheme. When participants see different outcomes for similar situations, or receive a different decision after reapplying, it reinforces the sense that decisions are unpredictable rather than based on transparent criteria
“I said I had nothingno fridge, no food - and they said no. My mate applied and got it for the same thing.”
“It’s
like they
throw darts at a board to decide. Nothing makes sense.”
“I got approved second time round with almost the same info. Why not the first time?”
4. Lack of Transparency and Appeals Process:
Few participants knew they could challenge or appeal decisions. Those who tried said the process was unclear or non-existent Participants felt the lack of explanation made it impossible to appeal effectively
This shows that without clear reasons for decisions and a visible route to challenge them, accountability breaks down. Participants described being unable to “correct” an application or appeal effectively because they were not told what was missing or how to request a review.
They just say ‘declined’ — but you don’t know why. How are you supposed to fix it?
I tried to ask for a review, but no one answered my emails. I gave up.
If I knew how to appeal, I would have. But they don’t tell you that part.
5. When Outcomes Were Positive, Relief Was Palpable:
Participants who were approved expressed immense relief and gratitude, often describing the support as life-changing. These successes were usually after someone helped them reword their application or chased the council.
This highlights the potential impact of the scheme when it works, providing immediate stability and restoring dignity. It also shows that positive outcomes were often linked to additional support, such as someone helping to reword an application or chasing a response, suggesting access to advocacy can shape results
“It paid for a cooker that meant I could actually make food at home again. I cried.”
“They gave me £180 for bedding, plates, and a kettle. I felt human again.”
“Honestly, that help kept me off the street. It came just in time.”
Summary of findings:
Delays were common, and lack of updates left people in prolonged uncertainty, increasing stress and making it harder to plan or cope.
Communication was often absent or minimal, with little acknowledgement, limited detail in decision letters, and no clear way to speak to someone.
Decisions were experienced as inconsistent and unclear, with some participants questioning fairness and whether their circumstances had been properly understood. Most participants did not know there was a route to challenge decisions, and where they tried, the review/appeal process felt unclear or unresponsive. When support was awarded, the impact was often immediate and significant, helping people meet basic needs and restoring stability and dignity, sometimes “just in time.”
Recommendations:
Provide automatic acknowledgements when applications are received, with clear timescales and regular progress updates (even if the update is “still in progress”).
Ensure decisions include a clear written explanation for approvals and refusals, including what evidence or criteria the decision was based on, and what (if anything) could be done differently next time.
Create a transparent, accessible review/appeal pathway that is clearly signposted at the point of decision, with a named contact route (phone/email) and realistic timeframes.
Strengthen consistency and fairness by supporting decision-makers with clear criteria and guidance, and training that is trauma-informed and equity-aware, including how to communicate decisions respectfully
Consider peer or co-produced review mechanisms (for example, periodic sampling/quality checks or a lived experience panel shaping guidance) to improve trust, transparency, and learning.
Theme 4: Emotional Impact and Dignity
1. Humiliation and Loss of Dignity:
Participants often described feeling looked down on, dismissed, or treated as less-than. The judgmental tone of interactions and forms made people feel ashamed or belittled. Age, disability, or migrant status sometimes compounded this.
This shows that the tone of the process can be as harmful as the practical barriers Participants described feeling judged and reduced, and where age, disability or migrant status intersected, the sense of being looked down on was intensified.
“Theylookedatme likeIwasstupid whenIaskedfora job.Justbecause I’molder.Thatfelt humiliating.”
e“Ihadtotellthem verylittledetail ofhowIwasstruggling. Itwaslikebegging. Likeprovingyou’re desperate enough.”
2. Emotional Breakdown and Desperation:
“Theymademe feellikeIwas nothing.Just anotherproblem ontheirdesk.”
A number of participants described reaching mental health crisis points during the process. The combination of financial hardship and lack of support drove people to desperation, including thoughts of self-harm.
This indicates that for some people the process interacts with crisis in dangerous ways. Financial pressure combined with delay, silence or repeated hurdles contributed to escalation in distress, including thoughts of self-harm.
“I was in tears doing the form. You’re writing about your life falling apart and just hoping someone will read it.”
“I went to my GP and said, either you do something for me or I’m going to commit suicide.”
“The stress made my anxiety spiral. I couldn’t sleep, couldn’t eat. Just waiting and worrying.”
3. Isolation and Powerlessness:
Participants felt deeply alone, with no clear point of contact or support system. The system was seen as faceless and rigid, making people feel powerless and voiceless.
This suggests that when there is no clear point of contact, the system becomes experienced as faceless and unreachable. Participants described uncertainty and lack of feedback as leaving them feeling voiceless, alone and unable to influence what happens next.
“I had nobody helping me. I did it all solo. And that was horrendous at my age.”
“You send it off and just hope. There’s no feedback, no help, no voice at the end of the line.”
“It was like screaming into the void.”
4. Internalising Blame and Shame:
Several people internalised their difficulties, believing they were personally at fault or undeserving.
The repeated need to justify their hardship made them question their own worth.
This shows how repeated gatekeeping and the need to “prove” hardship can turn inward. Participants described questioning their own worthiness and blaming themselves, which can discourage future help-seeking even when need is high.
I kept thinking maybe I didn’t do it right.
Maybe I’m not struggling enough to deserve help.
They make you feel guilty for asking. Like you’re scamming the system just for needing a bed or food.
Each one made me feel smaller. Like I wasn’t worth helping.
5. Restoring Dignity Through Support:
When participants did receive meaningful support, it had a transformative emotional effect - often described as “relief,” “hope,” or feeling “human again.” These moments were rare, but deeply impactful.
This highlights what good support can do beyond the practical outcome. When people felt treated as a person and listened to, the emotional effect was described as relief and renewed hope, showing that dignity and human connection are central to impact.
“That grant let me buy a kettle and a plate. It made me feel like I could start again.”
“They treated me like a person. Not a case number. That’s all I wanted.”
“Someone finally listened. That meant more than the money, honestly.”
Summary of findings:
The process often eroded dignity and self-worth, with participants describing humiliation, judgement and shame.
For some, the experience contributed to severe distress and crisis, especially when combined with financial hardship and lack of timely support.
Isolation and lack of human connection intensified harm, with people describing the system as faceless and unreachable.
The need to repeatedly justify hardship led some participants to internalise blame and question whether they “deserved” help.
Where support was delivered in a human way, it could restore dignity and hope, and in some cases mattered as much as the money itself.
Recommendations:
Design communication and processes to be person-centred and trauma-informed in practice, including: clear explanations, respectful tone, choice of channel, ability to pause/return, and avoiding unnecessary repetition of painful information.
Use clear, kind language that validates need and explains decisions, rather than language that makes people feel tested or suspected.
Train staff and decision-makers to approach applicants with compassion and consistency, including awareness of how bias and intersectional experiences (age, disability, migrant status) can shape people’s treatment.
Provide safe, supported routes to apply, including peer navigators or trusted partner support, and private spaces where people can complete forms without shame or pressure
Build in wellbeing safeguarding where appropriate: clear signposting to crisis/mental health support, and basic check-ins or referral pathways for people in acute distress.
Theme 5: Suggestions for Improvement –
What Participants Want to See Change
1. Make the System More Human and Personal:
Participants expressed a strong desire for more human interaction — being treated with empathy rather than suspicion. They want staff to understand how demeaning it feels to have to fight for basic help
This shows that participants were not only asking for policy or process change, but for a shift in how people are treated. Being spoken to with empathy and respect was described as fundamental, especially when asking for basic help already feels exposing.
2. Provide Alternatives to Digital-Only Access:
Many called for in-person options, paper forms, or phone support - especially for those with disabilities, older age, or low digital skills. Community hubs or support spaces were suggested as a vital bridge.
This highlights that digital-only routes do not just inconvenience people, they exclude them. Participants described wanting choice in how they access support, including in-person and phone options, and community spaces that can bridge the gap for those without digital skills, devices or confidence.
“Not everyone has a laptop or data. They need to go back to paper too.”
“If there was a centre you could go to, like a help desk, that would make it easier.”
“Why can’t they have someone sit with you? Like a benefits buddy or something.”
3. Simplify the Language and the Process:
There was strong feedback to use plain English, eliminate jargon, and clarify what evidence is really needed.
Participants asked for guides or examples that walk people through the form.
This suggests that complexity is experienced as a barrier and, at times, as gatekeeping. Participants wanted straightforward wording and practical examples so the system feels navigable, rather than something you can “get wrong” through misunderstanding.
“They should write it like normal people speak. Not all this 'discretionary eligibility' nonsense.”
“They could have a sample form, like ‘here’s how someone filled this in’.”
4. Faster and Clearer Communication of Decisions:
“It’s like they want to trip you up. The questions should be straightforward.”
Participants asked for quicker updates, automatic acknowledgements, and more information on decision timelines.
Transparency about delays or next steps was often missing.
This shows that uncertainty and silence are part of the harm. Participants described wanting clear timelines, acknowledgement, and updates so they are not left anxiously guessing whether their form has been received or what happens next.
At least let us know you got the form. Even a text would help.
Waiting in silence is the worst. You think, maybe they binned it.
They need to tell people how long it’ll take. Not just vanish.
5. Better Support for Navigating the System:
There was a recurring call for navigators, peer mentors, or trained advisers to help applicants through the process. Many suggested this could be based in local charities or job centres.
This indicates that many people see support as something you often need help to access. Participants repeatedly described the value of trusted guidance, including peer support, and wanted this to be built into the system rather than relying on luck or informal help.
“What we need is someone who’s been through it who can help you do it too.”
“The council should fund people to sit with us and go through it step by step.”
“A proper advice point. That’s all. Not just a website.”
6. Housing and Rent Support Improvements:
Several participants pointed out that housing costs have risen but benefits have not, and discretionary housing payments were often denied without justification. Calls for fairer rent caps, more transparent DHP decisions, and linking welfare assistance to actual rent levels were strong.
This highlights that local welfare assistance and housing costs cannot be separated in people’s lived reality. Participants described rent pressure and unclear DHP decisions as driving hardship, and wanted housing-related support to reflect real costs and be applied transparently
“My rent goes up, but my housing support stays the same. How is that fair?”
“They keep turning down my DHP even though I can’t cover the rent. What’s the point of it then?”
Summary of findings:
Participants wanted a system that feels human, where people are treated with respect, empathy and dignity rather than suspicion.
There was a strong call for non-digital routes to information and applications, including inperson and phone support, particularly for people facing disability, older age, low digital confidence, or unstable access to devices/data.
Participants wanted plain language and a simpler process, including clearer guidance on what evidence is needed and practical examples to reduce confusion.
People asked for faster, clearer communication, including acknowledgement of receipt, realistic timelines, and updates so they are not left in silence.
Many wanted navigation support (peer mentors, advisers or navigators) to help people complete forms and understand decisions.
Housing-related support was a recurring concern, with participants describing a mismatch between rising rents and support levels, and a need for transparent, fairer DHP decisions.
Recommendations:
Introduce community-based navigation support (including peer roles where appropriate), designed with lived experience and delivered through trusted local partners
Provide multi-channel access across the whole journey: information and applications available online, on paper, by phone, and through in-person support options.
Redesign forms, letters and webpages using user-led plain language principles, including clear definitions of key terms, and examples/templates to show what “good” looks like.
Improve decision communications with acknowledgements, timelines, and status updates, plus clear explanations of outcomes and what to do next.
Review LWA/DHP processes to strengthen consistency, transparency and fairness, including clearer criteria and accessible routes to request a review.
Embed co-production and user testing as standard in any future redesign, so changes are shaped by the people most affected and checked for accessibility before roll-out
Conclusion
This peer-led research shows the lived reality of trying to access local welfare assistance in times of crisis. People shared experiences of a system that too often fails the very people it is meant to support, one that can be hard to find, hard to get through, and hard to face when you are already at breaking point.
Across the interviews, participants described confusion, silence, and shame when what they most needed was clarity, responsiveness, and dignity.
Applications were experienced as overwhelming, communication was scarce, and decisions often felt inconsistent or unexplained. At the same time, participants offered practical, insightful ideas for how things could be different, rooted in firsthand knowledge and a clear desire to make the system better for others as well as themselves.
When support did come through, the impact was immediate. A small grant, a kind voice, or a clear explanation could restore not just stability, but a sense of being treated as a person. These moments show that better is possible, and already happening in some places. The task now is to learn from what works and make it the standard, not the exception.
This research is a call to rehumanise public support. It asks decision-makers to centre lived experience, not as a tick-box, but as leadership. By listening to people who know the system from the inside, we can build support that is fairer, kinder, and more effective.
If you would like to find out more about the NEIF or Expert Link, please email: info@expertlink.org.uk