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

What of the skilled fraudsters with undisclosed accounts? How, if the law remained unchanged, would they be detected? The answer is that, unless someone reported them, they would continue to go undetected.

It should be (or remain) the case that accounts can be accessed only if the investigators can show that they have good reason to do so. A bit like the police getting a search warrant. That would mean that if someone is claiming a means-tested benefit and has been reported as having been given a birthday present their pleasure in that can be spoilt, and the likelihood of their getting future gifts of money that might relieve the drudgery of living on benefits be reduced, as well as so that a pensioner who is claiming pension credit but also earning money is caught and penalised.

Of course we don't know the figures for those who aren't caught, but my guess is that the majority of people fiddling the system are not on means-tested benefits at all, and are probably well under the age where they can claim pension credit. What could possibly differentiate a tax avoiding person with several businesses from a pensioner on benefits that would make the government target the latter rather than the former?🤔

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.

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.

Germanshepherdsmum

I would strongly suggest that you read the Bill rather than biased and scaremongering commentaries.

I have done. As part of a disability campaign group I’ve had access to consultations and am aware of the contents, and the details of the amendments being proposed. I see nothing to suggest I’m biased or scaremongering.

veejay

GSM,yes they do no one reported my son's accounts .it could be because the had already sent Statements from he other 2 but they definitely do.
Obviously you don't want to believe what the DWP do.
I know someone else this is happening to,and no reason for anyone to report them
They have nothing to hide neither did my son,

The likelihood is that DWP are aware of the other accounts because bank transfers made to and from these accounts to the one declared to DWP have been picked up from routine checks on statements. Once DWP are aware of them, they will then request back dated statements to check on funds held, and if those funds exceed the permitted amount, the claimant will likely be called in for interview under caution to explain why they haven’t declared them.

I would strongly suggest that you read the Bill rather than biased and scaremongering commentaries.

Germanshepherdsmum

The Bill will target tax evasion as well as benefit fraud. Benefits which are not means tested may require a change in circumstances to be reported. That change may be detected through monitoring of bank accounts.

For none means tested benefits, there are very few changes of circumstances that need to be reported - change of name/marital status, change of address, or for disabled claimants a change of GP or improvement/deterioration of their physical condition. None of which would be detected via the monitoring of bank accounts. All that will happen is that people already marginalised will be pushed to the limit by constant, unwarranted intervention in their already difficult lives. I suspect that one of the intentions behind this legislation is to deter people from claiming the benefits to which they are entitled, because they are afraid of the extent to which the government intends to invade their privacy.

Doodledog

I agree Pammie. It’s nothing to do with whether people have anything to hide, but I gave up trying to say so ages ago as banging your head against a wall only feels good when you stop. If someone has done an amateur psychology diagnosis and declared you ‘paranoid’ they really aren’t listening, so there is no point in continuing.

Yep, beginning to realise that. I love the way some posters here seem to think that the DWP could somehow morph into a lovely benevolent Father Christmas type entity, with the best interests of claimants at the heart of the operation - one post in particular struck me as particularly naive in thinking that there are armies of claims processors out there, just waiting to step in to ensure fairness to all !!

I was a benefit advisor before retirement and having seen first hand the various ways in which disabled and very vulnerable claimants are callously treated during the assessment for benefits I can attest to the fact that nothing could be further from the truth.

I for one, shudder at the prospect of the DWP being given what amounts to police powers independently of law enforcement agencies. It’s unwarranted, and I don’t for a second buy into the idea that it’s purely to root out fraud.

If nothing else, this thread proves that we have learned nothing from the Post Office scandal. I find it alarming that so many people are giving tacit approval to legislation intent on dehumanising entire cohorts of the population and depriving them of their right to privacy, and are confident, to the point of smugness, that no-one will be harmed because data will only be used for the stated purpose. Even more alarming is the fact that they are prepared to trust all this to a government which has proved time and time again that it is not to be trusted.

Given the huge backlog in claims, reviews and appeals, I am not sure how the DWP is going to cope with its existing workload, let alone further investigations. The same goes for HMRC and HMCTS.

The Bill will target tax evasion as well as benefit fraud. Benefits which are not means tested may require a change in circumstances to be reported. That change may be detected through monitoring of bank accounts.

Iam64

I know I’m not saying anything new here but, tax avoidance is a much bigger problem than benefit fraud. I don’t defend benefit fraud but share the concern that ordinary people, who are already struggling financially may well get even more unnecessary and damaging stress.

If you really want to know how much is hidden watch a documentary on Netflix called The Spiders Web.
Its staggering 😡

I agree Pammie. It’s nothing to do with whether people have anything to hide, but I gave up trying to say so ages ago as banging your head against a wall only feels good when you stop. If someone has done an amateur psychology diagnosis and declared you ‘paranoid’ they really aren’t listening, so there is no point in continuing.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Pammiel*, the power to monitor my accounts because I receive the SP doesn’t mean that it will happen. But if it does, I really am not concerned. I claim no benefits other than the SP and my accountant ensures that I pay my taxes in full. However people who claim benefits based on the SP, such as pension credit, obviously need to be monitored to ensure that they are, and remain, entitled. The reason for inclusion of those in receipt of the SP amongst those whose accounts may be monitored is surely obvious - a claim for pension credit can only be made by someone entitled to the SP.

The point is, that there are a lot of benefits covered by the bill, which are not means tested and to which claimants are entitled regardless of other income, so why are they included ?

The question we need to ask is why would the government introduce the bill as a means of detecting fraud via the monitoring of those claimants in receipt of income related benefits, and then try to sneak through under the radar, amendments widening the scope by including pretty much all claimants, including state pension recipients ? I get that you’re not concerned because you’re not doing anything wrong, but I think the concern is more as to the real reason this bill is being pushed through. Because to my mind, fraud detection isn’t the whole story here - far from it.

DaisyAnneReturns

Why are you making yourself some sort of moderator on this thread Germanshepherdsmum?

Different people join and leave threads. Sometimes a point bears repeating or it is being expanded upon. Everyone bar you seems actually interested in the posts. Berating other members, who want to discuss this very important act by the government really doesn't seem to be in the spirit of GN.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you mean.

Pammiel, the power to monitor my accounts because I receive the SP doesn’t mean that it will happen. But if it does, I really am not concerned. I claim no benefits other than the SP and my accountant ensures that I pay my taxes in full. However people who claim benefits based on the SP, such as pension credit, obviously need to be monitored to ensure that they are, and remain, entitled. The reason for inclusion of those in receipt of the SP amongst those whose accounts may be monitored is surely obvious - a claim for pension credit can only be made by someone entitled to the SP.

Why are you making yourself some sort of moderator on this thread Germanshepherdsmum?

Different people join and leave threads. Sometimes a point bears repeating or it is being expanded upon. Everyone bar you seems actually interested in the posts. Berating other members, who want to discuss this very important act by the government really doesn't seem to be in the spirit of GN.

Iam64

I know I’m not saying anything new here but, tax avoidance is a much bigger problem than benefit fraud. I don’t defend benefit fraud but share the concern that ordinary people, who are already struggling financially may well get even more unnecessary and damaging stress.

Problem is, it’s easier to go after small scale Joe Bloggs because he hasn’t got expensive accountants and lawyers in his corner. And he doesn’t donate large sums to his political party of choice.

I know I’m not saying anything new here but, tax avoidance is a much bigger problem than benefit fraud. I don’t defend benefit fraud but share the concern that ordinary people, who are already struggling financially may well get even more unnecessary and damaging stress.

Germanshepherdsmum

It depends how much they are sent doesn’t it? If you are accepting taxpayers’ money there are rules to comply with. It’s nothing about being guilty until proven innocent, but what may look like a change of circumstances has to be explained.

The majority of benefit claimants are tax payers too you know. The welfare system is based on the ability to pay in when you can, so that you can take out when you need to. And a lot of benefits, such as ESA and UC, and even carers allowance is taxable. So even while claiming they are contributing.

Germanshepherdsmum

Of course you wouldn’t have to declare a gift of money for income tax purposes, but if you were claiming benefits it might count as a reportable change of circumstances if a significant amount.

Incidentally all my income is now unearned, consisting of pensions, interest on investments, dividends and some capital gains. The same applies to anyone here who is no longer working.

But if you’re in receipt of state pension you will be monitored and your details supplied to DWP on demand. Since state pension isn’t subject to means testing can you answer your own question as to how DWP would have the slightest interest in those claiming it, given that it’s confirmed that they are to be included in the data trawl ?

DaisyAnneReturns

Thank you Pammie. That sounds worse than I thought. It sounds huge.

The VAT chap sounds like some of the Post Office Managers recently interviewed. It was interesting that the writer mentioned birthday presents as one of the things that can massively complicate matters.

I still find it odd, although I'm sure it's correct, that they count as income. I don't remember having to declare or pay tax on birthday/Christmas presents when working, so I can't rationalise someone having birthday/Christmas presents treated as income when receiving benefits.

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. Not everything will be counted as income and deducted from benefit - common sense applies and if money for a birthday/christmas gift is declared as such, in most cases it would be accepted and not counted as income. But it’s the obligation to declare that’s important here, so that DWP are aware and can decide how it’s to be treated. This bill makes it more difficult for claimants because if the payments are picked up during the four week benefit cycle, as this article suggests, that may not give the claimant time to declare. So it may generate an enquiry into what the payment is for.

The earlier thread made it entirely clear that the provisions of the Bill did not apply only to means tested benefits. There was much discussion and I said then, and I have repeated here, that I have read the draft Bill. Do you want me to post links to the draft Bill and all the legislation to which it refers? That is the evidence, but you can look it up for yourself. As well as the earlier thread. Amendments have not been sneaked in under the radar. If ‘most people here’ think it only applies to means tested benefits (where’s your evidence for that?) they, like you, haven’t been paying attention.

Germanshepherdsmum

There is no reason why they shouldn’t, for instance, be given a gift voucher. Nobody is saying they can’t have a present but obviously it’s best not to arouse suspicion isn’t it?

FGS. It’s singling out benefit claimants - most of whom are not doing anything wrong. It’s a complete invasion of privacy on the premise of rooting out fraud when it’s nothing of the sort. The government are testing the water to see how far they can take surveillance of this nature. If we allow this, it’s only the start. Government need to be reminded that they work for us, not the other way around. It’s about control.

Germanshepherdsmum

Didn’t you realise it doesn’t only cover means-tested benefits? This is not news, it was covered in a previous thread.

I knew it didn’t apply to just means tested benefits but no point in posting that here without evidence to back it up. The point is, that the government has sneaked in amendments under the radar, and most people here think it only applies to those on means tested benefits.