DWP Proposing To Scrutinize Bank Accounts?

Parts of the DWP, in common with parts of HMRC, already have legal powers to scrutinise bank accounts should they suspect fraud is taking place.

Yet another click-bait headline to set people off.

Last week the Government "sneeked" an amendment into their Data Protection Bill which allows the to monitor the bank accounts of people who are not even suspected of crimes.

There appears to be no formal process. There does seem to besome suggestions that this will allow the government to also monitor the bank accounts of people in receipt of State Pension.

Is this in order to make the State Pension a means tested benefit? Can you think of any other reason?

They can only do this because of Brexit.

www.retailbankerinternational.com/news/bank-spying-clause-added-to-data-protection-and-digital-information-bill/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ8Zk2j8NT0

X post GSM

Pension Credit Nannan2 is an extra benefit made to people already receiving their (DWP) pensions and very little else.
It would be possible to make a claim, however, if additional income wasn’t obvious - eg being paid in cash for other work, such as gardening, window cleaning, odd jobs - all gained by word of mouth and not declared.

X post Doodledog.

You can make a false pension credit claim by not declaring how much money you have Nannan. Simply being old enough to receive the state pension doesn’t entitle you to claim.

Nannan2

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE A FALSE PENSION CREDIT CLAIM?? Either you are old enough to be a pensioner- and thus be able to claim or you arent?- simple enough.

No. A pension is based on age and contributions, but pension credit is based on income and/or savings. They are very different.

We won't all have our bank accounts snooped on. Have you read the thread? People on means-tested benefits may have their accounts scrutinised in case they are fraudulently claiming (presumably by not declaring savings or income). I don't like it, but it isn't happening yet, and it's definitely not the same as everyone having people snooping into their bank accounts.

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE A FALSE PENSION CREDIT CLAIM?? Either you are old enough to be a pensioner- and thus be able to claim or you arent?- simple enough.

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.!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.