Moving to France with a disability, or developing a disabling condition after the move, creates a practical question that Brexit has made more complicated: which French authority decides your rights, what evidence will it accept, and where do you appeal if the answer is no? The starting point is the MDPH, the French departmental house for disabled people (maison départementale des personnes handicapées). It receives the application and organises the assessment, but the decision is taken by the CDAPH, the commission for the rights and autonomy of disabled people (commission des droits et de l’autonomie des personnes handicapées).

The two benefits most often confused are the AAH, the adult disability allowance (allocation aux adultes handicapés), and the PCH, the disability compensation benefit (prestation de compensation du handicap). The AAH is an income-support benefit subject to disability, residence and means rules. The PCH is designed to fund needs caused by the disability, such as human assistance, equipment or adaptations. A British passport does not by itself exclude either benefit, but a British national who is not protected by the Withdrawal Agreement must usually prove regular residence in France as a non-EU national. A refusal can be challenged, but the timetable is short: the notification, the mandatory prior administrative appeal and the court deadline must be treated as one connected process.

I. How can a British resident in France qualify for MDPH, AAH or PCH support?

A. What Brexit changes for residence, regular status and the MDPH file

Brexit changes the residence evidence, not the underlying idea that a disabled person may apply for French support. The legal analysis has two separate layers. First, the MDPH and the CDAPH assess the disability, its functional consequences and the requested benefit. Secondly, the paying body, usually the CAF (the family allowance fund, Caisse d’allocations familiales) for the AAH, checks administrative and financial conditions. A problem at one layer should not be allowed to obscure the other.

For a British citizen who was already living in France before the end of the transition period and falls within the Withdrawal Agreement, the relevant residence document is normally the WARP, meaning the Withdrawal Agreement Residence Permit. The UK government’s official guidance on living in France explains the position of UK nationals covered by that agreement and the distinction between protected residents and people who moved later. A WARP is evidence of the protected status; it is not a substitute for proof that France is actually your settled place of residence. Keep the card, both sides, its expiry information and the application or renewal evidence together.

If you moved to France after the protected period, or cannot rely on the Withdrawal Agreement, you should expect to provide a current French residence permit (titre de séjour) or a document proving that its renewal is being processed. The current wording of Article L. 821-1 of the French Social Security Code applies the AAH to a person residing in metropolitan France who meets the disability threshold and contains specific rules for foreign nationals. The current Service-Public information on the AAH also distinguishes residence, nationality, age, disability and resources. Do not send only a British passport and an old utility bill when the decision-maker has asked for proof of regular status.

Residence evidence is particularly important when the refusal says that the applicant is not eligible as a foreign national. Prepare a chronological bundle rather than a random stack of documents:

• your passport and, where relevant, your WARP, residence card or renewal receipt;
• proof of your French address and the date from which you have lived there, such as a tenancy, property documents, utility bills or tax records;
• evidence of the household composition and, if relevant, the date of registration with the French health system;
• the exact MDPH application, the medical certificate and every acknowledgement of receipt;
• French translations of important UK medical, occupational or benefits documents, with the original documents retained; and
• the refusal notification and the envelope, email or portal record showing when it was received.

The residence test is not a Brexit penalty. It is a gateway condition which must be evidenced before the decision-maker reaches the merits. Under Article L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code, a foreign applicant who is not treated as an EU or European Economic Area national must generally show lawful residence or evidence of a renewal application. The precise document required can depend on the applicant’s status and the benefit, so the refusal wording matters. If the MDPH has treated a WARP holder as having no regular status, attach the card and explain the Withdrawal Agreement basis in a short chronology. If the refusal concerns an expired card, show the renewal receipt and the date of the renewal request.

The PCH has its own residence language. Article L. 245-1 of the Code of Social Action and Families describes the right of a disabled person residing stably and regularly in France to a benefit in kind which may be paid in kind or in cash, subject to the statutory age and disability criteria. The official Service-Public page on the PCH provides the practical route through the MDPH and explains the residence conditions for foreign residents. This means that a British applicant should not assume that a successful AAH claim automatically proves every PCH condition, or that a PCH refusal automatically defeats an AAH claim.

The MDPH does not decide the case by reading nationality first and medical evidence second. Article L. 146-9 of the Code of Social Action and Families requires the CDAPH to decide on the basis of the assessment by the multidisciplinary team, the applicant’s expressed wishes in the personal life project and the proposed personalised compensation plan. In the French text, the commission takes decisions “relatives à l’ensemble des droits de cette personne”, meaning all of the person’s relevant rights. That is why a British applicant should describe daily life in France in concrete terms rather than submit a diagnosis alone.

The personal life project (projet de vie) is not a literary exercise. It is the place to explain what you need to do, what becomes impossible or unsafe, how often the difficulty occurs, what assistance already exists and what would change if the requested benefit were granted. Describe a normal week and a bad week. Explain travel to work or medical appointments, medication management, cooking, washing, dressing, communication, concentration, fatigue, falls, sensory overload, pain, supervision and recovery time where these are relevant. A short factual account from a partner, carer, employer or occupational therapist may bridge the gap between a medical label and the restrictions the CDAPH must assess.

UK medical evidence remains useful, but it must be usable by a French decision-maker. A letter that says “chronic fatigue” or “fibromyalgia” without explaining the effect on standing, concentration, attendance, recovery and reliability does not answer the legal question. Ask the UK clinician to describe limitations, expected duration, treatment and prognosis. Add a French translation of the parts that matter. Where a French doctor, specialist, occupational therapist or social worker has assessed the person, place that evidence beside the UK record so that the MDPH can follow the chronology.

The same discipline applies to employment evidence. If you are still working from France for a UK employer, part-time work does not automatically disprove disability. It may show the adjustments, reduced hours, absences, supervision or recovery time required to keep working. Conversely, a period without work is not automatically proof of a qualifying restriction. The file should explain the link between the disability and the ability to obtain, keep or perform employment, rather than relying on the job title or an assertion that work is difficult.

There is also a practical distinction between the body deciding the right and the body paying it. The CDAPH is competent to decide the benefits and orientations listed in Article L. 241-6 of the Code of Social Action and Families, including the AAH referred to in Articles L. 821-1 and L. 821-2 of the Social Security Code and the PCH referred to in Article L. 245-1. The CDAPH decision should be read for its exact scope, duration and conditions. A positive CDAPH decision may still require a separate exchange with the CAF or another paying body about income, identity, bank details or the date of payment.

B. How AAH and PCH tests differ from a British disability claim

The AAH and PCH are not French versions of a single UK benefit. A British reader may be familiar with Personal Independence Payment, Employment and Support Allowance or Universal Credit, but a French authority applies French statutory tests. A UK award may be persuasive evidence of functional limitations, but it does not compel the CDAPH or the CAF to reproduce the same outcome.

For the AAH, start with the disability threshold. Article L. 821-2 of the Social Security Code provides a second route where the permanent disability rate is at least the regulatory minimum but below the threshold in Article L. 821-1, and the CDAPH recognises a substantial and lasting restriction on access to employment. The French expression is restriction substantielle et durable d’accès à l’emploi, commonly shortened to RSDAE. In plain English, a rate between 50% and 79% is not enough by itself: the dossier must show why the disability creates a substantial and lasting barrier to obtaining or keeping employment.

The first route is normally associated with a permanent disability rate of at least 80%. The second route asks for both the applicable rate and the employment restriction. The analysis is not a competition about how severe a diagnosis sounds. It considers the practical effect of the condition, the person’s capacities, the limitations created by treatment or fatigue, the possibility of reasonable adaptation and the pattern over time. A person who can perform a task for one hour but cannot repeat it, travel to it or recover from it may need to describe the whole work sequence.

This is where a British employment history can help. Include contracts, reduced-hours agreements, sickness records, occupational-health restrictions, failed applications, dismissals or resignations connected with the disability, requests for adjustments, and evidence of failed attempts to sustain work. Do not hide successful work. Explain the conditions which made it possible and why those conditions do not translate into ordinary full-time employability. For fluctuating conditions, use a dated symptom diary or attendance record instead of a general statement that the condition is variable.

The AAH also has a means element. The CAF or relevant paying body may look at pensions, earnings, replacement income and other resources under the applicable rules. UK State Pension, private pension, employment income and other UK payments must be described accurately; a cross-border payment should not be omitted simply because it arrives in a British account. At the same time, the existence of a UK pension does not answer the disability question. Separate the arguments: first show why the CDAPH should recognise the qualifying disability, then address how the paying body has calculated or refused the amount.

The AAH is therefore best presented as a two-stage file:

• a disability and employment-impact file for the CDAPH;
• a residence, identity and resources file for the CAF or other paying body; and
• a payment timetable showing the date from which the right should operate, any previous award and every contested calculation.

The PCH has a different centre of gravity. It is built around compensation for needs caused by the disability, not primarily around an income replacement. The needs may concern human assistance, technical aids, housing or vehicle adaptation, transport, exceptional or specific costs, or assistance from an assistance animal, depending on the statutory conditions and the element claimed. Under Article L. 245-1, the person’s project and the nature and importance of the compensation needs matter. Under the PCH procedure, the multidisciplinary assessment is supposed to identify the need and produce a personalised plan.

Write the PCH claim as a measurable schedule. For each task, state:

• the task, such as washing, preparing food, moving around the home, communicating or travelling;
• what the person can do without help and what cannot be done safely;
• the frequency and duration of the assistance required;
• who currently provides the help and what the cost or consequence is; and
• the requested solution, with a quote, specification or professional assessment where available.

An estimate for an accessible shower, vehicle adaptation or communication equipment should identify the item, its purpose, its price and the part not covered elsewhere. A request for human assistance should show hours and tasks, not merely say “I need help every day”. The PCH provisions of the Code of Social Action and Families also recognise the role of an evaluation and a personalised compensation plan. If the MDPH has offered less than requested, compare each refused hour, item or cost with the evidence that supports it.

The Colmar Court of Appeal decision of 2 June 2022, no. 20/035151, is a useful warning against presenting an AAH appeal as a purely formal challenge. The case concerned a refusal based on a rate said to be between 50% and 80% and the alleged absence of an RSDAE. After a medical assessment, the court confirmed the award where the evidence supported a rate above 80%. That result does not mean an expert opinion guarantees success. It shows why the appeal should identify the precise rate, the applicable route to the AAH and the medical evidence that the first assessment failed to weigh.

The benefit requested must match the evidence. A diagnosis may support an AAH rate, but it does not automatically prove hours of personal assistance for the PCH. A quote for equipment may prove price, but not necessarily the functional need. A UK benefit award may support the existence of a condition, but the French decision-maker still needs the French statutory connection between the condition and the requested right. A well-organised dossier makes those connections visible.

II. How do you challenge a French MDPH refusal?

A. How to file the RAPO within two months and obtain the missing record

The first formal challenge is the RAPO, short for recours administratif préalable obligatoire, meaning mandatory prior administrative appeal. For a refusal of an AAH or PCH decision made by the CDAPH, it must be dealt with before the court route. The current Service-Public AAH procedure states that the RAPO must be made within two months from receipt of the contested decision, and that the decision must be attached. Treat the two-month period as a hard deadline even if the notification is unclear or the file is still incomplete. Send a protective appeal first and supplement it with evidence if necessary.

The address and route should follow the notification. Do not assume that a general email to a caseworker is enough. Article R. 241-36 of the Code of Social Action and Families requires the prior appeal to be sent to the MDPH by a means giving it a certain date. The official wording is “par tout moyen lui conférant date certaine”. It also describes a letter addressed to the CDAPH which made the contested decision and a copy of the decision, or the acknowledgement of receipt that gave rise to an implied decision. Use the MDPH’s own appeal address where one is given, send the appeal in a traceable way and keep the complete PDF, proof of dispatch and proof of delivery.

The RAPO should not be a second application containing the same sentence. It should identify the error in the refusal and state the outcome sought. A useful opening contains:

• your full identity, French address, date of birth and MDPH reference;
• the date and title of the notification challenged;
• the benefit or rate refused, reduced or limited;
• a clear request, such as recognition of the AAH under Article L. 821-1 or Article L. 821-2, or approval of the specified PCH elements;
• the reasons the decision is wrong or incomplete; and
• a numbered list of the supporting documents.

Then build the argument around the refusal’s actual reason. If the refusal says that you lack regular residence, lead with the WARP or permit, renewal proof and residence chronology. If the refusal says the disability rate is below 80%, address the applicable 50–79% route and the RSDAE instead of repeating the diagnosis. If the rate or functional assessment is disputed, identify the activities and work demands that were omitted or misunderstood. If PCH hours or equipment were reduced, provide a task-by-task calculation, professional report, quote and explanation of what happens without the requested support. If the refusal is based on resources, separate the CAF calculation from the CDAPH disability decision and attach the underlying figures.

Ask for the decision-making material early. Request the multidisciplinary assessment, the functional evaluation, the proposed personalised compensation plan and the documents or observations on which the contested rate or need was based. The purpose is not to demand that the MDPH disclose every internal opinion without limit. It is to identify an objective omission, a wrong date, an incomplete medical history, an inaccurate description of daily life or a mismatch between the request and the plan.

The Conseil d’État decision of 30 September 2025, no. 497566, concerned MDPH records and requests for correction. The decision distinguishes objective or incomplete personal data from subjective assessments. It refers to the right to correct “les données à caractère personnel la concernant qui sont inexactes”, meaning inaccurate personal data concerning the individual, while explaining that a subjective professional assessment is not automatically rewritten simply because the person disagrees with it. Apply that distinction strategically: challenge a wrong medication, date, address, diagnosis or omitted factual document as an objective defect, and challenge a professional conclusion by showing why the underlying facts or method do not support it.

The RAPO should include a short chronology. A British resident’s chronology may contain the date of arrival in France, the status document used, the date of the MDPH application, the medical assessments, the notification date, the date the appeal was sent and every subsequent contact. If the person has moved between departments, explain where the application was made and when the file was transferred. The chronology helps prevent a residence question, a medical question and a payment question from being merged into one unexplained refusal.

Conciliation is available in addition to the appeal route. Article L. 146-10 of the Code of Social Action and Families allows a person who considers that a CDAPH decision infringes their rights to request the intervention of a qualified person to propose conciliation. The current version is important: it states that starting conciliation “interrompt les délais de recours”, meaning it interrupts the appeal periods. Do not rely on an old template which simply says that conciliation pauses the clock without checking the current text and the date on which the procedure was opened. In any event, do not use conciliation as a reason to ignore the two-month RAPO deadline; preserve the deadline unless the MDPH confirms the legal effect in writing.

The CDAPH must examine the RAPO under the rules used for an initial application. That is the effect of Article R. 241-39 of the Code of Social Action and Families. Supply the missing evidence in a form that can be assessed: translated medical records, a functional statement, a work-impact table, a PCH schedule, quotes and residence documents. A letter saying “please reconsider” without addressing the reason for refusal gives the reviewing team little to work with.

The silence period must also be monitored. Under Article R. 241-41 of the Code of Social Action and Families, silence for more than two months after the mandatory prior appeal was sent to the MDPH is a rejection. The official text says “vaut décision de rejet”. Record the date the MDPH received the RAPO, mark the end of the two-month period and do not wait indefinitely for an informal telephone answer. If a decision arrives later, keep both the date of the implied decision and the date of the later letter.

An appeal can be supplemented, but supplementation is not a substitute for filing on time. Send the core RAPO before the deadline even if a specialist appointment is still pending. State which report is awaited, when it is expected and that it will be sent as a supplement. Keep proof that the supplement was linked to the original reference. If a new development makes the first application materially different, a new MDPH application may also be appropriate, but it does not erase the deadline for challenging the refusal already received.

B. How to bring the case before the tribunal judiciaire when the RAPO fails

If the RAPO is expressly refused or deemed refused, the next question is jurisdiction and time. For an AAH or PCH dispute, the relevant route is generally the tribunal judiciaire, the French judicial court, through its social division known as the pôle social. Read the appeal instructions on the notification carefully, because not every MDPH decision follows the same route. Article L. 241-9 of the Code of Social Action and Families allocates certain CDAPH disputes to specially designated judicial courts and distinguishes some administrative-court matters, particularly decisions concerning professional orientation or the status of disabled worker.

In its decision of 8 November 2019, no. 412440, the Conseil d’État held that decisions covered by Article L. 241-9 are capable of challenge before the judicial authority. The decision uses the phrase “sont susceptibles de recours devant l’autorité judiciaire”. Its facts concerned an educational orientation dispute rather than an adult AAH claim, so it should not be cited as if it decided a British resident’s benefit entitlement. Its procedural value is the allocation of disputes: identify the decision being challenged and use the route stated by the applicable statute and notification.

The court file should be complete enough for a judge to understand the case without reconstructing it from scattered emails. Assemble:

1. the original MDPH application and medical certificate;
2. the notification of refusal, reduction or limited duration;
3. the RAPO and proof of its delivery date;
4. the CDAPH’s RAPO response, or the calculation showing when silence became an implied rejection;
5. the WARP, residence permit or renewal evidence and the residence chronology;
6. the medical evidence, with translations and a dated explanation of functional impact;
7. employment, absence, adjustment and occupational evidence for an AAH claim based on the RSDAE;
8. the task schedule, professional assessments, quotes and costs for a PCH claim;
9. any request for the MDPH evaluation record and the response or absence of response; and
10. a short statement of the precise order requested from the court.

A court challenge should not merely say that the first decision was unfair. Identify the legal and evidential route to the result. For an AAH claim under Article L. 821-1, say why the evidence supports the required disability rate. For an AAH claim under Article L. 821-2, explain both the rate and the substantial and lasting restriction on access to employment. For a PCH claim, identify each compensation element and quantify the need. For a residence refusal, show the document and legal status which the MDPH or paying body overlooked. If the decision contains several refusals, address each one separately.

The judge may order a medical consultation or expert assessment where the dispute turns on the rate or functional consequences. The Colmar case cited above shows how a court can assess medical evidence rather than treating the initial MDPH rate as untouchable. An expert report is not a guarantee and should be tested against the date of the contested decision, the applicable assessment rules and the actual daily limitations. Provide the expert with the complete history, including records which are favourable and unfavourable to the claim.

The court route is also where a British applicant should distinguish an eligibility dispute from a payment dispute. The CDAPH may grant the AAH while the CAF later refuses to pay, applies an incorrect income figure or stops payments. Those are not necessarily challenged in the same letter. A CAF or MSA (the agricultural social-security fund) decision can involve its own prior complaint to the relevant appeal body. The Cour de cassation decision of 25 September 2025, no. 24-14.447, concerned the procedural effect of a prior complaint to a social-security body and confirmed the importance of the prior decision before the court route. It is a useful warning not to file a single undifferentiated appeal against both a CDAPH refusal and a later CAF calculation.

The same caution appears in the Cour de cassation decision of 9 April 2026, no. 23-22.695, which concerned an AAH payment dispute and the consequences of an implied rejection. The Court required the lower court to verify whether the claimant had been informed of the time limit and the way to challenge an implied rejection. This does not remove the MDPH RAPO deadline. It does show why every notice must be saved and why a cross-border claimant should not assume that a silent CAF or MDPH file has the same procedural consequences.

If the RAPO is refused because the evidence was incomplete, the court file should explain what was available at the time and why the additional evidence clarifies rather than invents the disability. If the condition has worsened after the CDAPH decision, say so and consider whether a new application is needed alongside the litigation. A court appeal is directed at the legality and merits of the contested decision; it is not always the fastest way to obtain recognition of a wholly new medical situation.

Urgency should be documented, not asserted. A loss of personal assistance, an unsafe home, inability to pay for essential equipment or an immediate interruption of income can justify asking the relevant bodies and court about urgent measures, but the remedy depends on the right being claimed and the procedural route. For PCH applicants, the statutory scheme includes rules for an emergency provisional award in particular circumstances. Keep invoices, unpaid bills, care schedules, medical warnings and evidence of the immediate risk. “This is urgent” is weaker than a dated explanation of what will happen next week without the requested support.

Legal aid may be relevant for a person with limited resources. Keep proof of household income, pensions and expenses and ask the court or the official legal-aid service which form applies. A lawyer is not a replacement for the evidence: the most useful instructions contain the full notification, the original MDPH file, the RAPO proof and a clear chronology. For a British resident, instructing a lawyer early can also prevent a translation or jurisdiction mistake from consuming the short appeal period.

Paris and Île-de-France do not create a different national AAH or PCH test, but the court and MDPH responsible for the person’s actual residence matter. A person living in Paris should identify the competent MDPH and the local judicial court from the address used in the notification. A person moving between France and the UK should avoid sending documents to a former department without explaining the move and the date on which the residence changed. Keep one address for correspondence and update the MDPH, CAF and court separately if the move occurs during the procedure.

The final practical test is whether a third party can answer five questions from the file: what status does the applicant have in France; what exact benefit or rate was requested; what exact reason did the decision-maker give for refusing it; what evidence answers that reason; and on what date must the next appeal be filed? If one answer is missing, the file is not ready. If all five are clear, the RAPO or court can focus on the substance rather than spending its limited time finding basic documents.

Conclusion

Brexit does not turn a disabled British resident in France into an automatic outsider to the French disability system. It does make residence status and documentary proof central. The MDPH and CDAPH assess the disability and the requested right; the CAF or another paying body may then assess resources and payment. The AAH requires the applicable disability route, including the RSDAE where the rate is between 50% and 79%. The PCH requires a stable and regular French residence and a carefully quantified compensation need. A UK benefit decision can support the evidence, but it does not replace the French legal tests.

When a refusal arrives, record the receipt date, request the assessment record, file a reasoned RAPO within two months and preserve proof of delivery. Address residence, rate, employment impact, resources and compensation needs as separate questions. If the RAPO is expressly or implicitly rejected, calculate the next two-month period and bring the correct dispute before the tribunal judiciaire or the competent court identified by the notification. Keep the CDAPH eligibility dispute separate from a later CAF payment dispute.

Need a quick opinion on your case

We offer a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.

We can review your MDPH refusal, residence evidence and appeal timetable. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use the contact form.