DWP Proposing To Scrutinize Bank Accounts?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

M0nica

I agree with GSM The new rules will only be a very extension to ritghts the government already have.

Bear on mind if you are really of such interest to the government that they want to do a thorough scan of how you have spent your money over years, it is probably MI5 or MI6 that will be handling your case and they will have a huge file on you with much more information about everything you do, where you go and who you associate with, and probably have details 20 years of your bank expenditutre on file already.

Look over your soldier, see that innocent youth in a hoodie on a scooter, he could be shadowing you, monitoring your cash expenditure. Was that a Lottery ticket you bought? Where was that letter being posted to? Why did you return those trousers to next. Be afraid, very afraid.

There is no need for sarcasm.

As I said, I am not paranoid about these things, and am not particularly careful to 'hide' anything, as I don't do anything remotely illegal. My point is that what is legal now may not be in ten years, and whilst MI5 can't possibly have huge files on everyone, if junior civil servants can use AI to scrutinise accounts they could easily find all sorts of things that would categorise people who could be targeted.

I've posted before about a time when I took part in market research for Tesco. A group of people were invited to a local hotel and paid £50 for an hour or so answering questions about our experiences of shopping online. The other women there were uncannily like me. They were the same age, lived in similar houses, had similar occupations, the same aged children and so on. We even dressed alike. We had been gathered together based simply on what we bought in one supermarket. I was amused rather than unsettled, but could opt out of having a Tesco card at any time.

The point is that we just don't know who might be targeted and why if a future government wants to do so. We do know that this government operates by turning different demographics against one another. What is to say that a future government won't target lefty feminists or tory voting Daily Mail readers? Or any other group that doesn't fit their idea of 'good citizens'?

First they came for the communists.

We are talking about civil servants - they work in government departments but are not ‘this government’.

Germanshepherdsmum

Still have to look at results though.

I doubt it. From what I gather currently they will accuse - or turn people down - first and then let tribunals do the rest. Of course there are people who cannot deal with the gaslighting so just drop out.

They will use the computers conclusion and, rather like the sub-postmasters, the recipients will then have to prove their innocence.

Like the scorpion that is the nature of this government. They are vicious people who cannot resist hurting others even when it is not in their own interests.

AI will do that.
Post Office staff know only too well how that works.

Still have to look at results though.

Germanshepherdsmum

I really don’t understand some scenarios presented - such as being able to see if you belong to a political party or where you shop. How much time do think civil servants have to trawl through accounts? They will be looking for undeclared income and assets.

It won't need civil servants to trawl Germanshepherdsmum. It's 2024; they use computers.

shoulder, not soldier

I agree with GSM The new rules will only be a very extension to ritghts the government already have.

Bear on mind if you are really of such interest to the government that they want to do a thorough scan of how you have spent your money over years, it is probably MI5 or MI6 that will be handling your case and they will have a huge file on you with much more information about everything you do, where you go and who you associate with, and probably have details 20 years of your bank expenditutre on file already.

Look over your soldier, see that innocent youth in a hoodie on a scooter, he could be shadowing you, monitoring your cash expenditure. Was that a Lottery ticket you bought? Where was that letter being posted to? Why did you return those trousers to next. Be afraid, very afraid.

I really don’t understand some scenarios presented - such as being able to see if you belong to a political party or where you shop. How much time do think civil servants have to trawl through accounts? They will be looking for undeclared income and assets.

I agree DAR. It is very worrying. The whole concept of a right to privacy seems to be under threat - first the NHS selling our data and now this.

I 'have nothing to hide', which is so often trotted out as meaning that I shouldn't mind my life being an open book, but I do value my privacy, and am very aware that what needs to be hidden can change in a heartbeat. Will the fact that I used to have a subscription to the Labour Party on DD be used against me, or that I contributed to certain charities that have fallen from grace, for instance? I'm not paranoid about things like this - I have a Nectar card, and link all sorts of expenditure to my email address and IP, fully aware that this makes me identifiable, but most of that is protected by GDPR, meaning I can opt out at any time, and I'm willing to trade a risk of privacy being compromised for the convenience of online shopping. A blanket right to snoop is very different, IMO.

I suspect that the ability to check the accounts of those receiving SP will be to ensure that there are no 'disposal of assets' before claiming pension credit. So people who have worked all their lives and saved money won't be able to future-proof their houses with those savings if their income is low enough to bring them into pension credit without risking being denied the benefits they have paid for if they are deemed to have deliberately spent the money.

I know there are those who will say that if they 'can afford' to make their lives easier with home modifications for older age they shouldn't be claiming, but surely even they can see how unjust it is to scrutinise people's finances like that, particularly at a time when they aren't even claiming means-tested benefits.

That's just one possible scenario. I don't like the road it could be taking us down.

Surely you can see there is a difference M0nica. Until this law was passed, only accounts where the DWP or HMRC had reasonable suspicion could be accessed. Now it appears that they can ask for a blanket download of everyone's. Yes, they have chosen to use it only for means-tested benefits so far but even MPs see issues with the State Pension. The government has said it is constructed in this way is because that "it might be useful one day".

Sir Chris Bryant, saw things entirely different. “The House of Commons Library makes it absolutely clear that the Bill, if taken forward in the way that the Government are proposing at the moment, does allow the Government to look at people in receipt of state pensions.”1

Although I could see it actually being useful to some, to pass the responsibility for capturing changes in other incomes to the DWP, I do feel this should be done with their permission, not on a blanket basis. I does seem that the DWP have put themselves above GDPR rules (a Brexit benefit?) or decided the general law does not apply to anyone who has any transaction with government.

I know people hate me saying this but we do have examples of a government sliding laws past while telling people it only affects those they have been taught to hate - people claiming benefuts in this case. These laws are then used on the whole population. This does seem rather "nazi" to me.

1. www.freelanceinformer.com/news/ministers-rushed-through-amendment-that-gives-government-access-to-bank-accounts-of-anyone-claiming-a-state-pension-and-benefits/

But having the right to look into bank accounts - which the Inland Revenue already has, is not the same as checking on entitlement and other income of State Pensioners. However this ability could be a way of checking on elder abuse and fraud, where family or 'friends' of an old person could have changed the destination account of the pension, or by continuing to claim it in their name, after they have died.

Sorry should say State pension

Monica
What I posted before might not have been official but I thi k this is what Steven Timms is saying will happen to everyone who gets a state 6

Oh no! I hope the NZ govt doesn't start getting any ideas like that!
I suppose converting the pension to cash as soon as you get it might maintain a bit of freedome!

Hetty58

I don't see why people would object - if they have nothing to hide. HMRC already have powers to look into bank accounts, so why not DWP? I knew somebody who, mistakenly, claimed Pension Credit for decades- simply through not understanding the system. Mistakes and fraud should be investigated, surely?

HMRC have not yet got the powers to ask for a monthly download for every taxpayer - although that too may come.

As I have said above we need to change the rhetoric on this and show how it can help.

The reporting on this has been very confusing but I trust the Work and Benefits site and they agree with Monica's last post.

I think I may have linked this before but it's a very clear report a is worth a read.

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/almost-9-million-claimant-bank-accounts-to-be-put-under-continuous-surveillance

My main opposition to this is more to how it is being used as yet another wedge issue when it could be seen as helpful.

As MOnica has described many refuse to apply for Pension Credit but they can also, having been awarded it, be very confused by what they have agreed to. As an example, people on benefits must report any change in their income. At one time, if you had small private pensions the DWP would calculate the annual change on this - and they were usually spot on. Why can't they use this new power to pick up these changes as they happen and, with the agreement of thec claimant, take the anxiety out of it.

At the moment, almost 9 million claimants would be caught in the surveillance net, including:

5.8 million universal credit claimants
1.6 million employment and support allowance claimants
1.4 million pension credit claimants
Any bank failing to collect and pass on data to the DWP will be subject to heavy fines.

The new system will begin to be rolled out in 2025, though all banks may not be fully involved before 2030.

veejay the picture you show is not an official government document. It is one written by a private individual, claiming to be a financial expert and it is wrong.

The state pension is not means tested, how much you receive is based on your contribution record and it is the government that decides that based on its own records of payments it has made. You cannot cheat on it. That the government makes mistakes and both underpays and overpays and then tries to get excess payments back, is well known.

Pension Credit is means tested. However in 10 years as a benefit adviser for older people, I did not meet one case of someone trying to defraud the system. My main experience was of having clients refused Attendance Allowance and then being granted it at higher rate on appeal.

Too many people make judgements about peoples suitability for AA based on seeing them walking around outside. If you had met one of clients walking down the road arm in arm with her DH, you would imagine she had nothing wrong with her. In fact, among other problems, she had severe Meuniers's disease that causes profound dizziness and at times it was so severe she could not get out of bed for days and sometimes weeks on end.

One day in the kitchen trying to prepare a meal, she staggered against the cooker, fell forward and her wig caught fire (she also had alopaecia) and nearly burnt the house down. Fortunately she had a wonderful loving husband, as soon as he heard her cry he was in the kitchen, pulled her to safety and put out the fire. Yet, as I said, see her outside on a good day and there seemed nothing wrong.

I don't see why people would object - if they have nothing to hide. HMRC already have powers to look into bank accounts, so why not DWP? I knew somebody who, mistakenly, claimed Pension Credit for decades- simply through not understanding the system. Mistakes and fraud should be investigated, surely?

DAR
Thank you
I will ring the bank back.
again on monday
I am an appointee to speak for him
Also to those who say state pension isn't being investigated
I have screenshot an article which says it is
If I can manage to.post it
I know they can get into your accounts because my son has one he thought was closed it turns out he ou has 6p in it but the interviewer
Said what about the account that ends in ××××numbers
So they already know more than they are letting on he asked son to send details of that one
Tjem said its OK
I will take your word for it because he already knew

most of what everyone is getting worked up about has been happening for decades.

Banks have to inform the Tax authorities of everyone getting paid interest on bank savings and other accounts, Public companies inform them of dividend payments, if you have savings and investments with any UK based company they already make returns to the Inland Revenue. Your employer/pension payer also informs the revenue of details of your earnings .

A lot of benfit misclaims are found this way. Not all of it is deliberate. One lady I went to help when she was asked to repay Pension Credit.

When I investigated it seemed that she had spoken to someone from the Pension Agency, who had asked her about building society and bank savings. which questions she had truthfully answered, but she also had a savings bond elsewhere and she did not tell the enquirer because they hadn't asked. the lady was in constant pain so her understanding and attention levels were low at the best of times.

Tax fraud can be very sophisticated and its investigation resource-heavy. All fraud should be investigated but unless the DWP regularly make checks on benefits claimants I don’t know how benefits fraud can be detected unless there is a tip-off.

I am not sure of more recent figures but fraudulent claims for DWP amounted to around 1.5% a few years ago . Much higher figures for tax fraud. Yes, both are wrong, but it seems that the weakest, most vulnerable are pursued more vigorously.

I do agree but often an easy target or someone who has perhaps made a mistake in claiming is targeted and those who are intentionally defrauding the system blatantly get away with it.