DWP Proposing To Scrutinize Bank Accounts?

Germanshepherdsmum

The bill as currently drafted and approved does not apply to all benefits. Have you read it? I have. The relevant provisions apply only to means-tested benefits and the DWP can only require bank account details to be provided for the purpose of identifying cases which merit further investigation to establish whether means-tested benefits have been or are being paid according to the relevant statutory provisions (ie whether the recipient is entitled). Therefore the DWP will have power to monitor the accounts of people in receipt of pension credit but not the accounts of those receiving only the state pension.

That was true until last week, when, amongst 240 last minute amendments, amendments to Clause 34 permitted scrutiny, without notice, of the bank accounts of anyone and everyone in receipt of child benefit and the state pension. The Minister (see Hansard, November 29th 2023) has confirmed this in the Commons and stated that the government don’t intend to use these powers. Later, there was a tweak to that to say they won’t be used ‘for a few years’.

Therefore the DWP will have power to monitor the accounts of people in receipt of pension credit but not the accounts of those receiving only the state pension.
That's what I was getting at, but people keep saying that 'pensioners' will be subject to scrutiny.

Not that it makes much difference, really. As I said upthread, it would be good if those who are outraged at the idea of it happening to them spared a thought for those to whom it does apply and were outraged on their behalf, but it rarely works that way.

Germanshepherdsmum

The bill as currently drafted and approved does not apply to all benefits. Have you read it? I have. The relevant provisions apply only to means-tested benefits and the DWP can only require bank account details to be provided for the purpose of identifying cases which merit further investigation to establish whether means-tested benefits have been or are being paid according to the relevant statutory provisions (ie whether the recipient is entitled). Therefore the DWP will have power to monitor the accounts of people in receipt of pension credit but not the accounts of those receiving only the state pension.

As I don't believe this is your area of law GSM, I prefer to tack "facts" from thise whoever area it is or those advised by those whose area it is.

I notice you offer no evidence to back up the version you are trying to convince prople of.

those whose area

Might they also check pensioner’s bank statements for a wider audience, ie their adult children who receive benefits?

I heard (years ago) of a couple who ‘hid’ money in their 4 parents bank accounts for them to open ISAs - so the couple ended up with 6 ISA accounts that way.

I have read the latest version Siope and also the discussions reported in Hansard. I have set out above how the new provisions are circumscribed. Child benefit is now in effect means tested as entitlement is linked to household income. The accounts of state pensioners in receipt of pension credit can be monitored as that benefit is means tested. This amendment is about the prevention of fraud and ascertaining that people in receipt of means tested benefits are entitled to receive those benefits.

They will be able to check ‘linked accounts’ for this reason Urms.

DAR, I have many years’ experience of reading and interpreting statutes, and not only specifically in relation to property law which you (frequently ) erroneously like to infer is all I am qualified to speak about. One does not need to be a specialist in benefits law in order to read and understand a bill or statute relating to it. If you would like facts, you can download the bill here. See Schedule 11 in particular. You will also need to check the relevant provisions of the statutes which it amends.
bills.parliament.uk/bills/3430

"One" can also choose to access information from the source anyone finds they trust. GSM. Or are the fascists in the Tory Party going to take that civil right away too?

The primary source is always the best and most trustworthy, don’t you think? At least, that’s the source I was trained to consult, be it statute or judgment of the court.

Urmstongran

Might they also check pensioner’s bank statements for a wider audience, ie their adult children who receive benefits?

I heard (years ago) of a couple who ‘hid’ money in their 4 parents bank accounts for them to open ISAs - so the couple ended up with 6 ISA accounts that way.

One of the reasons for wanting Pensioner information would be to turn it into a commodity that could be sold, Urmstongran.

Did you not see what I said above about the purpose for which the bill allows accounts to be accessed DAR? Purely to detect fraud. And maybe you should also study the data protection provisions too - far more numerous than those about benefits.

Just to be clear, GSM, you are saying the Minister lied to Parliament? Twice? I mean, nothing about this government leads me to believe they are truthful, but governments have fallen due to Ministers misleading the House, and I am surprised no opposition politicians have raised the matter.

Also, my interpretation of some of the amendments (you will know which from your reading) is that they require banks to regularly and routinely trawl bank accounts, in order that fraudulent or inconsistent levels of income/savings can be identified, rather than that they can only be accessed if fraud is suspected. Can you signpost me to where this is disproved, please?

The accounts of state pensioners in receipt of pension credit can be accessed. Accounts can be accessed in order to see whether investigation is merited, rather than as at present when an investigation has already begun.

The new law turns our sense of justice on its head. Under the new plans, banks will be forced to run monthly or even weekly checks to see if any “red flags” are picked up. This treats people as considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

I can think of no modern democracy that can treat people as guilty in this way. The police may not do this. Why do some of you want to join groups such as the Nazis who tried to do this or will you, when we are finally rescued from this appallingly undemocratic government, come out on the streets claiming you "didn't know".

Fortunately for everyone else, it is all down here in black and white.

I fail to see anything wrong with banks monitoring the accounts of those on means tested benefits for possible red flags which merit further investigation by the DWP. Fraud happens. And MPs from all parties have voted in favour of this, so what’s undemocratic about it?

What’s this about some of us wanting to join groups such as the Nazis?

Then you woukd also accept all tax payers would be "monitored" for the same reason - fraud happens.

Good luck with that.

Do you think HMRC don’t do that? They have very extensive powers and many more prosecutions take place than are reported. And I couldn’t care less because, as I have already said, I have nothing whatsoever to hide.

Yes. But as with benefits, they cannot go on a fishing trip. They can only do it when they have enough evidencece to do so. Which, I am sure, you are well aware of.

Stop squirming. You are at least know that in this country you are considered innocent, until proved otherwise.

I actually couldn't care less what you think - literally. What I do care about is our democracy.

You would be surprised DAR. I have a good friend who had a senior position in the Inquiry Branch. I could, but obviously won’t, tell you some interesting stories. Suffice it to say that you have no idea what they do.

I have no idea why you think I’m squirming. You talked of all taxpayers’ accounts being monitored for fraud and wished me good luck. There is only one implication there and it’s unpleasant and defamatory. I said I didn’t care - I didn’t say what I think.

I have already said that the successful passage of a bill demonstrates democracy in action. Why do you think otherwise?

And while you’re there - I’m still waiting for answers to the following questions I asked you arising from statements made by you:

1. What is ‘wealth income’?

2. What do you mean by saying that some of us ‘want to join groups such as the Nazis’?

I notice that you have a tendency to avoid answering awkward questions about some of your posts.

GSM, I decided prople like you are better ignored fairly near the beginning of this thread, but manners got the better of me and I answered you.

I was right the first time. You keep backing a far-right undemocratic state and talking drivel coached as legal knowledge, and I will keep ignoring your posts.

That way we can both be happy.

Doodledog

crazyH

What ???? We can spend our SP - I wish they’ll delve into the physical abilities of those receiving DLA /AA.

I speak as an able-bodied person who is not yet in receipt of a SP, but I think that comment is cruel and unfair. Disabled people, many of whom are ill, or have physical conditions that are not going to improve, have to undergo stringent tests and often humiliating interviews on a regular basis to get the benefits towards which they have contributed in NI payments.

Why anyone would want to make their lives even harder is beyond me.

There's absolutely no assessment for people claiming AA like there is for PIP. In my experience ( having helped over 400 people to claim in the past 2 years) it is pretty easily awarded.

I look forward to your ignoring all my posts DAR, though I suspect you won’t.

Germanshepherdsmum

Do you think HMRC don’t do that? They have very extensive powers and many more prosecutions take place than are reported. And I couldn’t care less because, as I have already said, I have nothing whatsoever to hide.

The vast majority don’t even get to prosecution, it’s all settled before, it’s up to your accountant to prove the taxman wrong.
If you go to court costs are massive, so the usual best option is to settle, even if you think you are right.

I think before long legal "trawling" of bank accounts will be commonplace, whether a person is on means tested benefits or not.

I am sure it will only be the "little people" that are held to account by the government though.