After the Post Office scandal, do you feel safe with a DWP "police force"?

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'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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !!

Yes.
Hope the AI will recognise that.

It will vary from one person to another won’t it?

I suppose the definition of normal is open to interpretation, too.
How much is a normal amount as a gift?

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.

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 do wonder what has happened to this country Allsorts. It seems the bullies are winning rather than being taught not to bully.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I agree with what you say as regards the second bank account Pammiel. The DWP are not empowered to go searching for other bank accounts at present, and data protection law as it currently stands means the bank is not able to divulge information to them without a court order. Hence some provisions of this new Bill, as data protection law seriously impedes investigations.

So data protection law should protect everyone except benefit claimants ?

Germanshepherdsmum

You will, then, have seen the strict purposes for which monitoring of accounts can be required. If you are a member of a disability campaign group I would also suggest that you are not reading and analysing without bias.

What I’ve seen is that the consultations didn’t include one single word about extending the legislation beyond means tested benefits and that the amendments have been sneaked in knowing that there wasn’t enough time for proper debate. In exactly the same way as amendments to disability benefits bills are sneaked in under the radar after consultation and have left thousands of disabled people much worse off as a result. Not biased at all - just weary of watching very vulnerable people being shafted and benefit claimants being treated like cattle.

Well if, as you suggest, accounts will only be looked at if someone is suspected of fraud, they will be picked up then. If, on the other hand, accounts of innocent people are routinely scrutinised, there will be less time for actual detective work to be done.

I am not condoning fraud - far from it. I just think that this is about more than that.