DWP Proposing To Scrutinize Bank Accounts?

Could you give the time of ex-dancer's post, please Georgesgran. I can't seem to find it.

OMG - it’s theexwife.

I am so very sorry to name the wrong poster!

Unreserved apologies.

As I said - I hope I had misunderstood the post.

I have only recently been awarded AA and was surprised at how quickly the decision came through. It has set me thinking these past few days though,
having read posts from various sources, but I would have no objection to my finances being scrutinised should it ever become mandatory. Having completed the necessary forms, I would imagine it's quite difficult to receive an award without supportive documentation or the input of a GP so I am trying to relax about things until I am assessed in a years time.
I'm just thinking out loud really.

Just to reassure you, AA, like PIP and DLA, are not means-tested benefits, so there is no need for any check on your bank statements. The extra money is meant to help with the additional costs of disability, though there are no stipulations as to how it is spent, nobody asks or needs to know. I guess many people use the money to help with general living costs and travel to appointments. The means-tested benefits are not going to make anyone rich, as they are scarcely enough to live on.

crazyH

Vampirequeen - yes , “unfair” being the operative word. My poor friend, who couldn’t walk 10 steps before getting breathless, had her application
declined and my other friend who travels the world with her “disability” receives DLA etc. She has private pensions too. The former has now sadly passed away.
Regardless, I also think these benefits should be means tested .

PIP allows me to get out of the house and pay extra expenses that come with being ill. I don't have a physical disability. I can move easily and, if was was able, could travel the world but I still qualify for PIP due to my mental health conditions. Are you saying that I shouldn't get it because I don't have a physical condition? Means testing would stop a lot of disabled people from qualifying. PIP is designed to help us live a more normal life. If you means test it then you take away the lifeline from many people. If I didn't get PIP my condition would deteriorate and I would end up in hospital which would cost far more than paying me PIP. Also my personal suffering would increase beyond imagination. I'm not alone in this. Means testing would condemn millions of us to purgatory or even hell.

Georgesgran

As I said - I hope I had misunderstood the post.

I think you did

I saw the article I flagged some weeks ago but didn't post it until this thread was started as I could guess where it would go. It does help if people read them and base their opinions on facts rather than overblown MSM fiction.

So, some facts.

1. The government - yes, this far-right, one that believes the poor should be poor and the rich should be rich and that poverty is entirely your own fault and wealth entirely from your own efforts - undertook a survey of public perceptions of fraud, error and debt. Not facts - they know those won't please the far right believers, but opinions.

2. From this they are testing possible legal changes (via MSM) based on this survey - not the facts they already have the data on. Obviously, they would do this as that's is what populist governments do.

3. For the purposes of the research, DWP customers were defined as people claiming at least one of:
Universal Credit
Jobseekers Allowance/New Style Jobseekers Allowance
Income Support
Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)/New Style Employment and Support Allowance
Pension Credit
Carer’s Allowance
Attendance Allowance
Personal Independence Payment or Disability Living Allowance (for themselves or a child).

4. People claiming Tax Credits, Housing Benefit or the State Pension were not counted as DWP customers unless they also claimed one of the benefits listed above.

It is easy to get the facts and save yourself going down a rabbit-hole. If you wait for someone to do it for you, you tend to have to accept getting their opinions as well.

DaisyAnneReturns

Populist followers will always react with their emotions not their brain Urmstongran. That's why we get questions like "Are you happy for your tax to pay for a fraudster’s lifestyle?".

That's pure emotion considering the miniscule amount of benefit fraud by comparison, for example, to tax avoidance and evasion. I wonder which, drawn back into the Treasury, would make a difference to schools, the NHS and the cost of living?

But not for you, my friend. The Tories give you a group to be angry about and they point you at that group saying "hate these people, think of them all as bad and we will make it all better". And just where has that got the person who judges the world by the populists faux information and votes with their emotions? Has it made the country better off or even happier? No?

That's okay. They will soon find another group for people to hate; to absorb your emotions so you cannot aim it at the real culprits - the populists who have had power over this country for 13 years.

|You have said exactly what I am thinking. Classic tactics by this despicable government and their lackey tabloids. Get a story out there, don't worry about whether it is true or not, then watch as the faithful wind each other into a frenzy about 'them'. Yes, I am perfectly happy for my taxes to pay for those in need, GSM, and if there are a few who play the system, well so be it. I am however, not happy for my taxes to pay for the likes of Michelle Mone and her ilk who stole from all of us.

Well, if it makes people already on pensions and those coming up to pension age consider how they would feel if their bank accounts were scrutinised, perhaps they will be less likely to support the scrutiny of those on benefits.

I could understand if there is good reason to assume someone is defrauding the system, but I think that where crime is suspected the authorities already have a right to investigate. If they snoop and are found to be wrong then IMO they should have to explain the grounds on which they accessed the account in the first place - it is very intrusive.

It’s all done with computers, likely AI these days, HMRC do it all the time with tax and VAT looking for unusual patterns of income and spending. If an anomaly is flagged up it is investigated, they are looking for benefit recipients with hidden bank accounts, or unexplained spending.

Beware, if they do suspect fraud they will send you an estimated demand for payment, you then have to prove them wrong, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

I understand it is for those who claim Pension Credit.
If a person is not cheating then there is no need to worry about it.
It's about time fraudsters were caught and punished.
I have worked for what I have and resent those who scive and make false claims.

The idea that people have nothing to worry about if they are doing no wrong is fatally flawed, as it opens the door to all manner of breaches of privacy and freedom.

If anyone has taken out a loan in recent years your spending will have been scrutinised. Finance companies no longer just rely on your salary.
You could be earning £100,000 a year, but they want to see that you’re not spending £100,000 a year.

Urmstongran

Apparently 20% of Mancunians are claiming sick pay! One in five people. Seriously? That’s a shocking number of people. Topped by Liverpudlians at 25%. This country needs its citizens to fill all these vacant jobs and get working again. No wonder our country is flatlining. We can’t afford these high levels. Plus hotels to house migrants.

What is the source of that claim?

I Googled and couldn't find anything to support it.

This seems to support what Urms says, growstuff.
www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/lep/1925185547/printable.aspx

Upsetting hearing this. My son is seriously ill, long term until he, hopefully, gets a lung transplant. I do almost all the shopping and spending as he lives at home and we look after him. He avoids crowded shops in case he picks up an infection. He used to keep a tally of what I spent and every so often send me a cash sum or pay a large bill of some sort to cover it. After reading the proposed changes I now try and shop for him separately so it's itemized on on the receipt, just in case he's challenged, and then use his bank card - which of course is illegal and makes it look as if he's capable of going shopping, which he isn't. Feel we can't win. He claims benefits in his own right and is finally comfortable - obviously by being dependent on us - and only because we can afford to pay for things. He has no home of his own, no car, owns very little in his own right, hasn't started earning, forging s career or contributing to a pension, he lives very frugally in fact. Would this be considered an 'income'? If so, are we as pensioners supposed to financially keep an adult son? All this to catch a few criminals who seriously abuse the system. People with disabilities have enough to worry about without being further persecuted.

I had to produce 6 months of bank statements when my husband finially claimed AA…..he should’ve claimed it for 10 years , but wouldn’t! Filled in a form that would’ve floored a lesser person , with only one mistake ,which took just a quick fone call to correct, and was given the thumbs up over the fone! He received the higher benefit .m..because I needed to look after him 24/7. The lady on fone told me I’d lost 10 years of benefits….i asked if it was backdated but it wasn’t!! No check was made on my husbands disability but I did give them permission to contact his gp.

Saggi

I had to produce 6 months of bank statements when my husband finially claimed AA…..he should’ve claimed it for 10 years , but wouldn’t! Filled in a form that would’ve floored a lesser person , with only one mistake ,which took just a quick fone call to correct, and was given the thumbs up over the fone! He received the higher benefit .m..because I needed to look after him 24/7. The lady on fone told me I’d lost 10 years of benefits….i asked if it was backdated but it wasn’t!! No check was made on my husbands disability but I did give them permission to contact his gp.

I cannot understand why you had to produce bank statements for your husband's AA claim, Saggi as it is not means tested.

Not at all wellbeck- the DLA in a childs case IS PAID TO THE PARENT- they are in charge of claim- so NO financial abuse there- the holiday was a special one as BOTH my younger sons are disabled and it was somewhere both had longed to visit and often spoke about but they had felt they could not manage with their disability so to encourage them, especially the youngest, to at least try to acheive their dreams, we chose & booked this whilst we could afford and whilst my son was in a bit better health as it was summer weather- also it encouraged him 'out of the house' as basically he was very reluctant to even leave his bedroom aside from school and it gave him much needed confidence back that he could do 'normal' things like going on holiday like everyone else can- that showed BOTH my sons its a normal thing to do- even with disabilities/medical problems.Why should we have our account snooped on by DWP- and so what if some on disability benefits are a bit better at spending less than others? Why be scrutinised for it? My sons neither smoke nor drink but would rather save up for a nice trip or some nice clothes? Why is that a wrong thing to do? DWP have got their bloody priorities wrong but then again its the tories idea to be snooping.

DWP benefits by number of claimants at February 2023
Change to table and accessible view
Number of claimants
State Pension
12,635,000
Universal Credit
5,836,000
Personal Independence Payment *
2,960,000
Housing Benefit
2,440,000
Employment and Support Allowance
1,628,000
Attendance Allowance
1,585,000
Pension Credit
1,370,000
Carer’s Allowance
1,359,000
Disability Living Allowance *
1,216,000
Income Support
153,000
Jobseeker’s Allowance
93,000

Wellbeck why would you suggest that its 'financial abuse' just because i said it was DLA- actually the money we used for the holiday was partly my own money in my own right and partly my elder sons (nearly 17) as they had owed him PIP and thus owed me carers allowance for the same length of time for looking after him (so NOT the younger childs money at all) - we BOTH decided to pool our backpay to fund this trip for all 3 of us! The tribunal was for younger child but as they turned him down (i think because they didnt want us 'squandering'
it on a holiday again) - even though he had been on DLA since birth to 12yrs so clearly had physical/medical problems!- i then continued to subsidize anything he needed out of my own money over 3 & a half years till old enough to apply for PIP in his own right.

Neither of my sons 'lack capacity' wellbeck- but they do have a physical disability and other medical conditions that entail me being a carer for both (but cannot claim or be paid carers allowance for both- only for 1) which is also then deducted from my own benefit- so im in effect caring for them both for no money really..in fact more is deducted than i get in CA as its paid 13 4wks in a year, but im paid monthly at 12 times a year! So no living it up for me either.

I wasn't asked to submit any bank statements when applying for AA as it's not, as mentioned above, a means tested benefit.

So why should we all have our bank accounts snooped on and have to justify what we buy/spend it on? Now i know why a lot of folk with the post office accounts just used to ask to withdraw it all at once when i was in post office queue behnd them!- And why government have cancelled the post office accounts too to make folk have a bank account.!