As the DWP steers a bill to give it access to 9 million claimants’ bank accounts through parliament, it is already pushing for additional powers of arrest, search and seizure. In effect, the DWP is aiming to have its own anti-fraud police force and to be able to impose huge fines without going to court. But should such plans go ahead?
Lessons from recent history
The current Post Office scandal is clear evidence of what happens when such powers are misused and there are some worrying parallels between the behaviour of the Post Office and the DWP, as we noted earlier this month in Post Office Horizon software originally aimed at claimants.
And there is no doubt that the DWP are serious about getting these powers.
In a May 2022 report entitled ‘Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System’ the DWP said that “we plan to create new powers so our officers will be able to undertake arrests and apply to search and seize evidence in criminal investigations, when parliamentary time allows. This will enable them to act in a timely fashion, without always having to rely on police resources.”
Remember, state pensions, which are a benefit, will come under this law. Even though the say they will only access the accounts of those on income related benefits they will have a legal right to access all the information on your account.
If you have been watching the Post Office Inquiry it is obvious that many of those "policing" were under qualified and/or under trained. At times they had large cuts in staff. The DWP are already understaffed and all too often staff override or ignore evidence. It is also obvious that the first loyalty when Horizon was found wanting was to the Post Office brand and not to justice. Why would that be any different in the DWP?
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/would-you-feel-safe-with-a-dwp-%E2%80%98police-force%E2%80%99?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Benefits+and+Work&utm_content=V2+January+2024+newsletter
Do you want tax evaders and benefit fraudsters to be caught? This is a step in the right direction.
Rather than reading consultations and commentaries, I urge you to study the Bill.
Germanshepherdsmum
Do you want tax evaders and benefit fraudsters to be caught? This is a step in the right direction.
Rather than reading consultations and commentaries, I urge you to study the Bill.
Can’t engage with this any more. You’re either not reading my posts properly or not understanding them. It’s exhausting. I’m out.
The point is that to comply with rules regarding means-tested benefits, during the life of the claim, anything over and above what you have declared as income to DWP has to be declared as it is received. Pammie1
It isn't income. Income is obtained through work or wealth. This money is a present. I imagine the claimant will have always received presents at Christmas, Birthdays and other times of celebration.
If the DWP wants to show the claimant is receiving over and above "what was declared" they should have a question on the application asking ^What was the value of the presents you received last year for a) Christmas, b) your Birthday and c) any other occasion? If they do not ask for these figures then they cannot gauge what is "over and above".
It seems that those running the DWP are misinterpreting their role, just as the management mishandled the governance of Post Office Limited. It seems the government has encouraged a deprecating cultural view of claimants, just as POL did of Postmasters. Sadly, it seems we live in a country where the view that most of our citizens are good, law-abiding people is seen to be "woke" or whatever word bandwagon the right has now jumped on. So the government has encouraged a culture of guilt 'till you prove yourself innocent- as do some GN members.
DaisyAnneReturns
^The point is that to comply with rules regarding means-tested benefits, during the life of the claim, anything over and above what you have declared as income to DWP has to be declared as it is received.^ Pammie1
It isn't income. Income is obtained through work or wealth. This money is a present. I imagine the claimant will have always received presents at Christmas, Birthdays and other times of celebration.
If the DWP wants to show the claimant is receiving over and above "what was declared" they should have a question on the application asking ^What was the value of the presents you received last year for a) Christmas, b) your Birthday and c) any other occasion? If they do not ask for these figures then they cannot gauge what is "over and above".
It seems that those running the DWP are misinterpreting their role, just as the management mishandled the governance of Post Office Limited. It seems the government has encouraged a deprecating cultural view of claimants, just as POL did of Postmasters. Sadly, it seems we live in a country where the view that most of our citizens are good, law-abiding people is seen to be "woke" or whatever word bandwagon the right has now jumped on. So the government has encouraged a culture of guilt 'till you prove yourself innocent- as do some GN members.
There is no misinterpretation of the rules. The rules are clear. The claimant agrees that during the life of the claim, they will advise DWP of any money received over and above what they have declared as income at the start. You don’t seem to understand that means tested benefit is tailored to an individuals’ income and savings, and each claim is different. If the claimant receives any kind of payment in a particular week, then that will render his claim inaccurate for that week and there will be an overpayment as a result.
On declaring such payments, DWP will decide if the nature of the payment received counts as income and affects benefit - not everything will, but that does not absolve the claimant of the responsibility to declare them - that is what they have contracted to do in return for benefit.
To be clear, I am not in favour of this bill in any way, shape or form - it’s an invasion of privacy. But means tested benefit is income based - always has been - and claimants are obligated to report any changes of this nature, and it’s up to DWP to decide if and how benefit is affected.
Watching national news last night, there were two now grown up children, the boy aged nine was taken away from his mother and put into care, the daughter over 16 left in hostel accommodation, all because the Post Office hounded their young mother, who was hard working, to an early death. the daughter sobbed all the way through I just wanted to put my arms round them both, I cried with her, This is a terrible injustice, they deserve their mothers name cleared and all the money they had from her returned to those children plus a big pay out. I hope some one takes on their case. I wish I were a lawyer at times like this.
I do wonder what has happened to this country Allsorts. It seems the bullies are winning rather than being taught not to bully.
Pammie thank you for your patience. I realise you are very much a bystander in this. But you are giving us an insight into the training DWP workers have. I did understand you are not in favour of the Big Brother law that brings us so much closer to the totalitarianism, surveillance and dystopia of Oceania.
However, I didn't say there was a misinterpretation of the rules. I said, "It seems that those running the DWP are misinterpreting their role, just as the management mishandled the governance of Post Office Limited".
They seem to be running their organisation on the assumption that everyone is committing fraud. Nothing to see here. Nothing wrong with the contract. We are not perverting the law. These people, as a group, are known to act fraudulently. It's all about 'our' money.
This is just the sort of impression the Post Office gave with their Nothing to see here. Nothing wrong with the software. We are not perverting the law. These people, as a group, are known to be thieves. It's all about 'our' money.
Yesterday I was out with friends. I brought up this subject. I have to say they were all horrified about what I reported about presents. One friend pointed out that she likes to help with school uniforms at the beginning of the school year and with school trips (expensive!) and sends the money to her son's account. What, she asked, would happen if he was on universal credit?
When I got home, I thought I needed to check the form (you can download it) and see what people signed up for when applying for Pension Credit.
Your declaration
I agree that the information I have given is complete and correct
While I am receiving Pension Credit I will report changes to my circumstances straight away by calling the Department for Work and Pensions.
If I give wrong or incomplete information, or I do not report changes straight away, I may:
• be prosecuted
• need to pay a financial penalty
• have my Pension credit reduced or stopped
• be paid too much Pension Credit and have to pay the money back.
Nowhere in the form are presents mentioned. Therefore "presents" cannot be a "change of circumstance". It is therefore not something you have agreed to report or been made aware that you should.
I think the idea that normal Christmas, birthday etc presents have to be reported has been whipped up on this thread. However, someone regularly giving you cash could amount to a change of circumstances, could it not? It depends on the sums involved.
I suppose the definition of normal is open to interpretation, too.
How much is a normal amount as a gift?
It will vary from one person to another won’t it?
Yes.
Hope the AI will recognise that.
DaisyAnneReturns
Pammie thank you for your patience. I realise you are very much a bystander in this. But you are giving us an insight into the training DWP workers have. I did understand you are not in favour of the Big Brother law that brings us so much closer to the totalitarianism, surveillance and dystopia of Oceania.
However, I didn't say there was a misinterpretation of the rules. I said, "It seems that those running the DWP are misinterpreting their role, just as the management mishandled the governance of Post Office Limited".
They seem to be running their organisation on the assumption that everyone is committing fraud. Nothing to see here. Nothing wrong with the contract. We are not perverting the law. These people, as a group, are known to act fraudulently. It's all about 'our' money.
This is just the sort of impression the Post Office gave with their Nothing to see here. Nothing wrong with the software. We are not perverting the law. These people, as a group, are known to be thieves. It's all about 'our' money.
Yesterday I was out with friends. I brought up this subject. I have to say they were all horrified about what I reported about presents. One friend pointed out that she likes to help with school uniforms at the beginning of the school year and with school trips (expensive!) and sends the money to her son's account. What, she asked, would happen if he was on universal credit?
When I got home, I thought I needed to check the form (you can download it) and see what people signed up for when applying for Pension Credit.
Your declaration
I agree that the information I have given is complete and correct
While I am receiving Pension Credit I will report changes to my circumstances straight away by calling the Department for Work and Pensions.
If I give wrong or incomplete information, or I do not report changes straight away, I may:
• be prosecuted
• need to pay a financial penalty
• have my Pension credit reduced or stopped
• be paid too much Pension Credit and have to pay the money back.
Nowhere in the form are presents mentioned. Therefore "presents" cannot be a "change of circumstance". It is therefore not something you have agreed to report or been made aware that you should.
Presents are not mentioned because that would be a misinterpretation. I have worked as a claims processor and the paperwork that is sent out with benefit advice leaves claimants of means tested benefits in no doubt that sums of money received, for whatever reason, must be reported to DWP while you are claiming a benefit which is dependent on income/savings. It’s not up to the claimant to decide what does and doesn’t need to be reported - it all does, and DWP decide what counts as income and what doesn’t. You might think a £20 payment, for example, showing up on a bank statement wouldn’t be significant enough for DWP to bother with. As a one off and if explained as a birthday gift or something, it probably wouldn’t. But if other similar payments have been picked up it may well indicate undeclared work or similar, so they have to satisfy themselves that it isn’t an indicator of fraud.
The point is that these things usually come to light anyway - more so since the advent of online banking and these types of transfers showing up more and more on banking records routinely requested by DWP. If they’re not reported, and are picked up on routine checks, the claimants’ benefit is likely to be stopped until DWP satisfy themselves as to what the payment was for and whether it should be counted as income - as well as the faff of any overpayment being deducted from future benefit. It’s more trouble than it’s worth to the claimant and easier to report everything. And once again, not saying I agree with the system, or that benefit claimants shouldn’t receive cash gifts, just that they need to comply to avoid bigger problems.
And I agree to some extent with what you say about the way DWP policy is shifting, but it’s nothing new for the department to do everything it can to make sure that claims for benefit are honest. Unfortunately, the new bill will treat all claimants with suspicion until their banking records prove otherwise. But that’s not down to DWP or the staff involved. They follow the policy and instruction of the government of the day. And as far as I can see I wouldn’t trust the government of this day as far as I could throw any of them !!
It wasn't "whipped up," as you chose to call it Germanshepherdsmum, but I expect nothing else from you.
As far as I can see, applicants do not agree to declare all money or gifts.
I suggested a Universal Pension Allowance, only to be met by a rather snide comment intended, presumably, to silence me. I believe the law to be draconian and undemocratic. I am prepared to argue that point.
We have had a Universal Child Allowance, and it worked. A cost-benefit analysis would show that the current system is incredibly expensive. It is only going to get more so. Will DWP workers then be gaoled on how much they can claw back? All this to attack a group that we, or our families, could find themselves in during a lifetime. On the other hand, it is easy to apportion cost and benefit through a universal system and the tax system.
Pammie I hear where you are coming from. It makes me very sad that you can agree with the "poor law" style system you describe.
Germanshepherdsmum
I think the idea that normal Christmas, birthday etc presents have to be reported has been whipped up on this thread. However, someone regularly giving you cash could amount to a change of circumstances, could it not? It depends on the sums involved.
The odd £20 or so here and there, explained as a gift by the claimant probably wouldn’t be treated as income, I agree. But failing to disclose would come back to bite the claimant if the payment showed up on routine checks along with several other similar payments, because that’s a red flag. A poster upthread mentioned someone sending her son payments to help out with their childrens’ school uniforms and school trips. That’s a perfect example of what we’re talking about here, because if the parent was claiming UC, they would be expected to declare it in their online journal so that impact on benefit could be assessed in time to avoid overpayment. They would risk having benefit stopped pending investigation if they don’t. When the monitoring of claimant bank accounts starts, these are the things that are going to trip people up quite innocently.
DaisyAnneReturns
Pammie I hear where you are coming from. It makes me very sad that you can agree with the "poor law" style system you describe.
Don’t be sad DaisyAnne. I don’t agree with it - some of it’s draconian and it needs reform. But neither do I agree with claiming benefit according to existing law and not adhering to the rules - it’s a social contract and whether or not you agree with the terms and conditions is irrelevant.
Unless claimant obligations are made clearer in terms of what should be declared and what constitutes fraud (whether or not intended) when the new law goes into effect, the DWP are going to be swamped with data on potential fraudulent activity - most of it low level, as discussed here. Like a lot of the legislation introduced by this government, it’s back of an envelope policy - hasn’t been thought through properly and has been tinkered with in terms of broad amendments not consulted on. So it follows that DWP probably haven’t been allocated proper resources with which to deal with the slew of information coming their way, and on which they will be tasked with significantly reducing fraud.
These were parents whose ACs are not on benefits Pammie so where shocked by the system.
They DWP will, as you say, "trip" people up. But only those people who use their bank accounts in this way. What I think advisor's, friends and family will need to do is to suggest those on Pension Credit send a letter each month highlighting any and every payment and saying what it was for - just in case.
But, as I understand it the DWP are understaffed so when would they get round to dealing with it? Also it draws us all into the bystander effect or bystander culture, which discourages individuals from intervening against a bully or bullying state.
As far as legacy benefits are concerned, eg ESA, my understanding is that the various changes of circumstances which need to be reported do not include one off gifts eg birthday. Changes to regular income, yes, eg pension income, bursaries, earnings etc. must all be reported.
But a one-off sum eg a gift or an inheritance, does not need to be reported unless it pushes their savings over £6000.
I understand this is different from Universal Credit. The government have stated that they are targeting UC claimants with the proposed new powers.
I totally agree Cabbie. I think there will thousands who know they should update regular income and going over the under 6,000, 10,000 or 16,000, whichever applied to the original claim.
DaisyAnneReturns
These were parents whose ACs are not on benefits Pammie so where shocked by the system.
They DWP will, as you say, "trip" people up. But only those people who use their bank accounts in this way. What I think advisor's, friends and family will need to do is to suggest those on Pension Credit send a letter each month highlighting any and every payment and saying what it was for - just in case.
But, as I understand it the DWP are understaffed so when would they get round to dealing with it? Also it draws us all into the bystander effect or bystander culture, which discourages individuals from intervening against a bully or bullying state.
It’s the understaffing angle that’s worrying, because if a claimants’ account is flagged up there could be a significant amount of time between benefit being suspended and the conclusion of any investigation.
I'm afraid this is a government of very extreme ideas, none of which carries a plan with it, Pammie
I feel so sorry for anyone who hascto work in the conditions they create.
Cabbie21
As far as legacy benefits are concerned, eg ESA, my understanding is that the various changes of circumstances which need to be reported do not include one off gifts eg birthday. Changes to regular income, yes, eg pension income, bursaries, earnings etc. must all be reported.
But a one-off sum eg a gift or an inheritance, does not need to be reported unless it pushes their savings over £6000.
I understand this is different from Universal Credit. The government have stated that they are targeting UC claimants with the proposed new powers.
To be honest I thought that this was established upthread somewhere, so to clarify. If you are on means tested benefits the obligation to report cash gifts depends on whether they take you over the savings threshold. If not, it doesn’t impact benefit. However, the caveat is that if payment can be viewed as income it doesn't matter whether it takes you over the threshold or not. If it can be viewed as income, it should be reported. And UC is different. Because there is a journal facility cash payments should be reported as received because benefit is calculated on all income. DWP will decide on whether any payment declared should be treated as income.
I sent a request for some clarification on the bill to my MP before Christmas, and got an email yesterday.
It may up to twelve months for the bill to clear the Lords and they’re expecting it to be batted back and forth with amendments. If/when passed, the AI and reporting systems for the legislation will be in line with DWP payment cycles and will be tested in 2025, with full roll out beginning in 2030.
The original intention was for the monitoring of claimant accounts receiving means tested benefits including ESA, UC, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit. The banks will use AI with the criteria determined by DWP to indicate fraudulent activity or ‘error’, initially concentrating on two areas - receipts taking the claimant over savings thresholds and accounts which have been used abroad for more than four weeks.
Last minute changes considerably widen the scope so that in future DWP can demand data from other agencies - including non financial institutions - in order to identify other types of fraud. And it allows for monitoring to be extended to non means tested benefits including state pension and disability benefits. Monitoring also extends to anyone “linked” to the receipt of a benefit, without specifying exactly what a link entails.
For me, the most worrying part is the underhand nature of the introduction of the changes, which confer broadly drawn powers for DWP to potentially investigate all benefit claimants - including state pension recipients. I think the Lords need to ask questions around why the DWP feel it’s necessary to monitor those whose benefits are not affected by income or savings. The ‘linking’ of those connected with benefit claimants also needs further explanation. Potentially partners, ex partners, parents/children and possibly even landlords could be monitored simply for their connection to the claimant. It also calls into question how those acting as appointees for relatives who can’t manage their own accounts will be treated - DWP routinely pay the persons’ benefits into appointees’ accounts. There is no clarification as to how this will work.
This should get a lot more publicity, so that the monitoring of those who are not on means-tested benefits can be resisted. I assume that the linked relationship thing is to check that 'household income' is as stated?
By 2030 most people will be on the new pension, which is not based on household income, and will supposedly replace pension credit, so there is even less of a reason for state pensioners to come under this legislation unless the plan is to means test it by then. I think that this should be a warning to us all.
I have emailed my MP to see what he has to say about the intrusive nature of the new powers and about the possibility of means-testing the State Pension.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
