Gransnet forums

News & politics

DWP to get powers of arrest, search and seizure

(105 Posts)
DaisyAnne Sat 04-Jun-22 09:38:03

The DWP is to get the power to arrest claimants, search premises and seize evidence as well as being able to fine claimants where they do not have enough evidence to bring a criminal case for fraud, the government has announced.

The new measures, many of which will not be possible to introduce without an Act of Parliament, are aimed primarily at cutting fraud in Universal credit (UC).

In total, the DWP are to spend £200 million a year on the new initiative, which will see 1,400 more staff in frontline counter-fraud teams plus a new 2,000 strong team solely for checking universal credit claims.

The sweeping new powers will mean that designated DWP staff will be able to arrest claimants, search premises and seize any evidence they find without needing to use the police. The DWP say this will put them on a par with HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA).

There will also be new powers for the DWP to force other organisations, especially banks, to provide data about claimants on a much wider scale than is currently legally allowed.

At the moment the DWP can only require organisations to give them information about named individuals where there is already a suspicion of fraud. The DWP want much broader powers to access information.

They say that a “small test” has been run with a bank to assess the potential of using a feed of banking data to identify possible fraud and error, “with very encouraging results”.

The DWP will be able to impose civil penalties on claimants based on a percentage of any overpayment, where the DWP does not have enough evidence to prosecute. This will be in addition to having to repay the whole amount of the benefit the DWP consider to have been fraudulently obtained.

The DWP already have the power to impose civil penalties, but they have to have evidence sufficient to meet the standard for criminal prosecution before they can do so. Under the new proposals, a lower level of evidence would be needed in order for the department to impose a penalty.

The DWP will also be able to impose penalties on organisations which the it considers are “promoting benefit fraud schemes online, creators and sellers of fraud toolkits on social media or someone supplying fake ID.”

This article is from the Benefits and Work site.

DaisyAnne Mon 06-Jun-22 16:24:43

Maudi

Plenty of jobs to be had, might not be your dream job but no excuse not to have one.

I imagine some are thinking it isn't worth it if it costs more to work than you get paid.

Germanshepherdsmum Mon 06-Jun-22 16:23:27

I believe they are recruiting additional staff to combat fraud Humduh, not using those who already help people get jobs or claim benefits.

DaisyAnne Mon 06-Jun-22 16:22:56

Germanshepherdsmum

I thought I’d made it clear that it wasn’t.

It could easily be me that misread it GSM. However, that isn't even hearsay, is it. Just rather malicious gossip.

Maudi Mon 06-Jun-22 16:05:22

Plenty of jobs to be had, might not be your dream job but no excuse not to have one.

Humduh Mon 06-Jun-22 15:39:20

They are supposed to help the unemployed into work

Germanshepherdsmum Mon 06-Jun-22 10:26:30

Eh?

Humduh Mon 06-Jun-22 10:24:56

Bloody hell. How on earth will we ever get jobs when fraud is the focus

Germanshepherdsmum Mon 06-Jun-22 08:53:10

I thought I’d made it clear that it wasn’t.

DaisyAnne Sun 05-Jun-22 22:39:41

Germanshepherdsmum

DaisyAnne

Anecdotal evidence GSM or, as I am sure you would say in court, hearsay.

If this is true (and I don't doubt you believe it is) then they are already liable under the current law. All it takes is those in the know, to report them and they will be investigated.

Isn't it your duty to do that?

No it isn’t Daisy. As you correctly say, my evidence is hearsay but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what the first hand witness told me, having seen for myself the mismatch between lifestyle and income.

So it wasn't the person you believe to be doing it who told you?

DiamondLily Sat 04-Jun-22 15:44:16

Claimant fraud was not that high, but, during the initial stages of Covid, fewer checks were made with Universal Credit, and there were a lot more fraudulent claims.

As happened with furlough and "grants" - checks, in the rush, just weren't carried out properly.

Pensioner fraud is generally low, and sickness/disability fraud has never been very high, despite the myths from right wing newspapers.?

The highest frauds were around a change of circumstances not being reported (usually someone moves in with a new partner and doesn't tell them), which affects payments and the housing element, or where someone is working "off record" and claiming a benefit as not working.

DWP error, now lumped in with fraud, has always been pretty high.

They will spend the money on new "initiatives", because it plays well to the public, and they see prosecutions as having a deterrent effect.

growstuff Sat 04-Jun-22 15:33:08

So you think that 20% of claims are fraudulent (unless you think pensioners are crooks). The figure don't add up.

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 04-Jun-22 15:28:06

See figures above.

Chocolatelovinggran Sat 04-Jun-22 15:14:52

Spending £200 million? Do they have evidence that this can be recouped from fraudulent claimants?
Taxpayers might want to know if their money is being invested wisely in this programme.

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 04-Jun-22 14:02:59

Excellent.

DiamondLily Sat 04-Jun-22 13:59:05

I worked at the DWP (many years ago), and have "worked" with disability advocacy, around sickness/disability benefits, (voluntary) since.

All I will say about "hiding" money, is that putting them in separate accounts won't work now for very long. Assuming it's in the same name, of course.

The Revenue link to the DWP now, via the taxation system, is applied to all banks/building societies, , and National Insurance.

A link will flag up, sooner or later.

And then that person takes the risk of being prosecuted for benefit fraud, and definitely having to pay back any overpayment.

With the cross matching of finances now, it honestly isn't worth the risk.

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 04-Jun-22 13:41:48

It would be very obvious that the information emanated from the person who told me. I wouldn’t put them in that position.

Dinahmo Sat 04-Jun-22 13:38:36

Germanshepherdsmum

I know of one person who receives benefits but has a very considerable amount of inherited money held in cash (well in excess of the benefits threshold and not declared for IHT) and two bank accounts - one to produce when required and one kept secret. If you met the person you’d never suspect it.

In that case, why not report them? It can be done anonymously.

Dinahmo Sat 04-Jun-22 13:36:47

GagaJo

I'll apologise now. I can feel rants coming on.

Decimate industry. Allow zero hours contract. Change the benefit system to one that leaves people hungry and unable to meet bills. Bleed the tax payer dry through embezzlement of taxes. And then allow the persecution of the unemployed/under employed.

Surely it would be better to spend the money ON the poor instead of hounding them?

No rant from me. I agree with you.

FarNorth Sat 04-Jun-22 13:18:08

Running piss-ups does seem to be their forté.

Georgesgran Sat 04-Jun-22 12:09:18

GSM - I have a friend - big house, his and her gas-guzzlers, she is ‘employed’ in her husband’s factory, but barely knows where it is etc. She has 2 sons, both 40’s. One has never worked a day in his life and is allegedly mentally ill, while the other has had several jobs but doesn’t keep them - he last worked about 4 years ago and they are both in receipt of every benefit they can get.
When their grandmother died, she had left them substantial amounts, but as it would affect their benefits, my friend ‘oversees’ their money and hands it out as and when. The younger is currently in Turkey, having been to Portugal in April.
Another friend and I did report the mentally ill son to DVLA, when he acquired a car, as his medication prevented him driving and his Mother had lied to the insurance company.

Perhaps I’m naive, but I suppose it takes some pressure off the Val ready overstretched Police.

growstuff Sat 04-Jun-22 11:56:15

JaneJudge

oh great so as well as having to sit through pip assessments and filling of endless forms and fit for work assessments at the job centre, my dd with a severe disability now may have the DWP turning up at her home angry
Local authorities already do quite extensive financial checks on those with disabilities for contribution to care assessment
I don't need to be told it wont affect those with disabilities, it really will - all of us with experience know it will. They couldn't run a piss up during a pandemic with a suitcase and a cheese selection...oh hang on

Oh! I expect she'll be subjected to a lie detector test! angry

growstuff Sat 04-Jun-22 11:54:42

Spending in 2020-21 on Universal Credit was £38.2 billion. Some of that included the temporary £20pw during the pandemic, so was slightly inflated. Pensions and other benefits for the elderly and disabled make up the vast majority of other spending.

If there have been £8.4 billion in overpayments and all of it involves Universal Credit, it doesn't really seem credible that nearly 20% of UC claims are the result of fraud. So, presumably, the elderly and disabled are responsible for some of it (according to the government hmm).

JaneJudge Sat 04-Jun-22 11:49:07

oh great so as well as having to sit through pip assessments and filling of endless forms and fit for work assessments at the job centre, my dd with a severe disability now may have the DWP turning up at her home angry
Local authorities already do quite extensive financial checks on those with disabilities for contribution to care assessment
I don't need to be told it wont affect those with disabilities, it really will - all of us with experience know it will. They couldn't run a piss up during a pandemic with a suitcase and a cheese selection...oh hang on

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 04-Jun-22 11:42:06

DaisyAnne

Anecdotal evidence GSM or, as I am sure you would say in court, hearsay.

If this is true (and I don't doubt you believe it is) then they are already liable under the current law. All it takes is those in the know, to report them and they will be investigated.

Isn't it your duty to do that?

No it isn’t Daisy. As you correctly say, my evidence is hearsay but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what the first hand witness told me, having seen for myself the mismatch between lifestyle and income.

FarNorth Sat 04-Jun-22 10:55:38

Germanshepherdsmum

I know of one person who receives benefits but has a very considerable amount of inherited money held in cash (well in excess of the benefits threshold and not declared for IHT) and two bank accounts - one to produce when required and one kept secret. If you met the person you’d never suspect it.

I don't blame someone for hiding money like that, given the likelihood that they could be left with no income at any time because of DWP incompetence or/and vindictive policies.