Public Figures

Britain’s official statistics

Corrections · 18 August 2026

Claimant count by local authority: 516 figures changed between vintages

Comparing our archived vintage of 2026-08-17 with 2026-08-18, the Office for National Statistics and the Department for Work and Pensions, via NOMIS has restated 516 figures for periods it had already published. 44,248 values were unchanged.

Periods affected: June 2026.

PlacePeriodFigureWasNowChange
Aberdeen CityJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits56905650-40
AberdeenshireJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits32103180-30
AdurJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits11801175-5
Amber ValleyJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits20652060-5
AngusJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)3.23.1-0.1
AngusJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits21252110-15
Antrim and NewtownabbeyJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)2.22.1-0.1
Antrim and NewtownabbeyJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits20001965-35
Ards and North DownJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits23602330-30
Argyll and ButeJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits12651255-10
Armagh City, Banbridge and CraigavonJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits34603415-45
ArunJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits35053510+5
AshfieldJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)3.83.7-0.1
AshfieldJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits29902940-50
AshfordJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits25102480-30
BaberghJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits13701365-5
Barking and DagenhamJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)7.67.5-0.1
Barking and DagenhamJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits1172511490-235
BarnetJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)5.15.0-0.1
BarnetJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits1340013135-265
BarnsleyJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)3.33.2-0.1
BarnsleyJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits50655015-50
BasildonJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)3.93.8-0.1
BasildonJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits46304560-70
Basingstoke and DeaneJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)2.72.6-0.1
Basingstoke and DeaneJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits32853230-55
BassetlawJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)3.23.1-0.1
BassetlawJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits23752335-40
Bath and North East SomersetJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)1.91.8-0.1
Bath and North East SomersetJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits24152380-35
BedfordJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits53905325-65
BelfastJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)3.83.7-0.1
BelfastJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits87908700-90
BexleyJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits55855540-45
BirminghamJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)10.19.9-0.2
BirminghamJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits7757576460-1115
BlabyJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits14601435-25
Blackburn with DarwenJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits56755600-75
BlackpoolJune 2026Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16 to 64 (per cent)5.95.8-0.1
BlackpoolJune 2026People claiming unemployment-related benefits51955150-45

…and 476 more. The full comparison is between data/claimant-count/raw/2026-08-17/ and data/claimant-count/raw/2026-08-18/, both in this repository.

How this was found

Both vintages were parsed with the same code that produced the published series, and compared value by value. Only periods present in both vintages are counted: a period the newer file adds is new data, not a revision. Values whose digits were reformatted without changing were set aside — there were 0 of those.

New periods in 2026-08-18: July 2026.

Periods the newer vintage no longer covers: July 2021.

Found something else that does not add up? joshplawman@gmail.com. Everything in the log started with someone noticing.