Written evidence submitted by Autistic Nottingham (AWS0003)
Who We Are
Autistic Nottingham is a Nottingham-based charity founded in 2019 and employing approximately 40 staff. We are an entirely autistic-led organisation: our senior management team, trustees, and a majority of our staff are autistic, neurodivergent, or disabled.
Since our inception, we have employed staff who rely on the Access to Work scheme to carry out their roles. As both an employer and a disabled-led organisation, we have extensive, long-term experience of Access to Work across multiple funding cycles, assessors, and caseworkers.
- Assessment waiting times approaching or exceeding twelve months
- Inconsistent and contradictory decision-making between assessors and caseworkers
- Refusal of essential equipment despite clear functional need
- Lack of disability competence, particularly regarding neurodivergence and acquired impairments
- Inaccessible and poorly managed communication pathways
- Financial and operational burden shifted onto small employers
The most significant and consistent issue we experience with Access to Work is the length of time taken to progress applications.
At present, the timescale from initial application to assessment is approaching one year. Of five staff members in our office who applied between late March and early April 2025, only three had been assessed by January 2026. Two were still awaiting assessment at that point.
These delays leave staff working without reasonable adjustments for extended periods and place significant strain on both individuals and the organisation.
Even where assessments are completed, outcomes are inconsistent and contradictory.
In one instance, two staff members requested the same specialist software. One received approval and funding within the same month. The second had the same software recommended by their assessor, yet their caseworker later stated that “Access to Work does not fund this software”.
Similarly, a staff member with severe arthritis and a knee replacement requested a specialist chair following assessment. While she indicated she would accept a stool or footrest as an alternative, the only response received was that “Access to Work does not fund chairs”.
These inconsistencies undermine confidence in the scheme and make planning impossible for employers.
Case Study: Regression in Access to Work Support Over Time (Employee Experience)
One employee at Autistic Nottingham has accessed Access to Work support over several years, allowing for comparison of how the scheme has changed over time.
In 2020, the employee was awarded funding for Irlen lenses (tinted glasses) to support visual processing difficulties at work. When their prescription changed, they contacted Access to Work by email and were granted a replacement allowance without the need for reassessment or additional paperwork. A new award was issued using the same costings.
During this process, an error was made whereby only half the cost of the lenses was initially approved, as the caseworker believed the award covered a single lens. This was resolved after the employee explained that glasses require two lenses. While quickly corrected, this highlighted a lack of basic understanding of everyday assistive equipment.
In 2023, when the employee’s prescription changed again, they were informed that this support could no longer be renewed and that a full reassessment was required. No explanation was given for the change in approach.
The reassessment was not completed before the employee went on maternity leave in May 2024 and was only finalised following their return to work in January 2025. As a result, the employee worked for an extended period without the previously agreed adjustment.
Following this, the employee submitted a further Access to Work application shortly after returning to work, anticipating long delays. During this period, the employee developed an acquired hearing loss following childbirth (August 2024). Despite clearly stating that telephone communication was not accessible, Access to Work repeatedly attempted to contact the employee by phone.
When this was challenged, the employee was sent a BSL interpreter video link, despite explaining that they do not use BSL and that their hearing loss is acquired.
The claim was subsequently paused until the employee attended a Jobcentre in person to verify their identity. Local Jobcentre staff were unfamiliar with the process, and the appointment took approximately two hours of the employee’s working day.
As of 2026, the employee still does not have adaptive equipment to enable them to independently manage work-related phone calls and must rely on other staff to carry out essential aspects of their role.
This case illustrates a clear regression in continuity, responsiveness, and disability competence within the Access to Work scheme.
As a small charity, we do not have the financial capacity to purchase specialist equipment for multiple disabled staff while waiting months or years for Access to Work decisions.
The current system places the burden of delay on disabled employees and their employers, rather than on the scheme itself. This undermines the purpose of Access to Work and risks excluding disabled people from sustained employment.
1. Clear and Enforced Timelines
Introduce maximum waiting times for each stage of the process. Where delays exceed these limits, interim funding or temporary adjustments should be automatically approved.
2. Consistency and Accountability in Decision-Making
Assessor recommendations should not be overturned without clear written justification. National consistency standards should be introduced.
3. Disability Competence Training
Mandatory training covering neurodivergence, acquired disability, and non-visible impairments should be required for all assessors and caseworkers.
4. Accessible and Effective Communication
Case handlers must be able to communicate clearly in spoken and written English. Communication preferences must be recorded and respected.
5. Improved Communication Pathways
Introduce named case handlers, clear escalation routes, and reduce reliance on telephone contact as a default.
6. Reduced Administrative Barriers
Identity verification processes should be streamlined and not require unnecessary in-person attendance.
7. Recognition of Employer Impact
Access to Work must acknowledge the financial and operational burden placed on small employers.
Without significant reform, Access to Work risks functioning as a barrier to employment rather than a mechanism for enabling it.
January 2026