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

The are not accepting taxpayers money. They are claiming on their own insurance.

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.

But they can't behave like so many do (in my world) and be sent money to make their own choice of present. It is assumed they will defraud the system. Guilty 'till found innocent at least by some.

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?

I still feel very sorry for the poor devil's who are not able to receive a Christmas (or birthday) present.

I don’t work for the DWP but obviously what they are looking for is a change in circumstances.

Germanshepherdsmum are you saying receiving money for presents only need reporting if they are over a certain amount. Does the DWP tell the claimant what that amount is, or do they have to guess? What if they have proof of purchase of the gift? Would that mean they don't get treated like a fraudster and don't need to report it, or does that depend on what the gift is?

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.

Oldnproud

Germanshepherdsmum

Pray tell me how the DWP would have the slightest interest in someone in receipt of no benefits other than the State Pension.

???

There has been talk of them letting companies use the harvested data - much as was suggested about using our NHS data.

There has also been the suggestion that this could allow them to demand the data from loyalty cards, which again could be sold.

Could this be another Tories and their pals get rich quick scheme?

Income is commonly used to describe money earned by a person or company in exchange for goods, services, property, or labor.

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.

What’s the problem?

Germanshepherdsmum

Pray tell me how the DWP would have the slightest interest in someone in receipt of no benefits other than the State Pension.

???

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

Copied below is an article I found on an accountancy website. The information contained in it is alarming, to say the least. We’re not just talking about the accounts of claimants who are claiming means tested benefits - the legislation extends to millions of people included those in receipt of child benefit, disability benefits and state pension. So it’s becoming clearer that the intention behind this bill is not just fraud detection, it’s wholesale surveillance.

ntil 23 November 2023 that was. On 23rd November 2023, in the last gasp in the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill through Parliament, the government presented 124 pages of amendments. There was almost no Parliamentary time allocated to discuss any of that proposed legislation, but included in it, starting at page 98, was a provision that impacts every benefit claimant, regardless of whether it’s means tested, everyone in receipt of state pension and every practicing accountant and many of their clients quite significantly.

On that page a new clause 121DB was added to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, saying: “Schedule 3B makes provision about a power for the Secretary of State to obtain account information.”

If passed (and that is not certain, as the Lords are likely to have a great deal to say about this, if given the chance) the new Schedule 3B empowers the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who administers social security, to compel banks to provide any data that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) demands so that it might search for fraud and error on the part of benefit claimants.

Crucially, this is not an investigative power taken so that fraud might be pursued when there is reasonable belief and prior evidence that it might be taking place. Instead, this is a general power, permitting the DWP to request that banks that receive such payments provide information on the bank accounts of all benefit recipients on a regular and recurring basis.

State pensioners are included.

It was suggested at first that the power would be used to demand information on the bank accounts of universal credit, pension credit and employment and support allowance claimants. That is approximately 8.8m people. But then Stephen Timms, a veteran Labour MP, realised that the power extended to everyone in receipt of a state pension as well, and raised the issue in the Commons.

The amendments extend the right to collect data to another 11m or so people (having allowed for those already claiming pension credit). Other benefits are also covered. Child and disability benefits will likely be on that list.

Extraordinarily, most of these covered by the new provision will be in receipt of benefits that are not earnings-related when it comes to determining entitlement. Given that many disability benefits also seem to be covered, many are also not linked to savings. Well over 10m people will have their bank account details sent to the government under this legislation on a regular basis, even though the data supplied cannot in any way impact their entitlement to the benefit that they are paid

Almost 9m more will be subject to routine scrutiny of their financial affairs even though they are completely honest.

And this really will mean routine scrutiny. The expectation is that data might be demanded every four weeks to coincide with DWP payment cycles and Universal Credit declaration periods. Data collection could start from 2025 and artificial intelligence (AI) will likely be used to process the information collected.

The result will be that maybe half the tax-paying population might now have their bank accounts subject to regular scrutiny. No doubt the DWP thinks this an easy exercise. Anyone who has ever seen the bank statements of a client who mixes personal and business affairs will know what a nightmare this is. Birthday presents, personal repayments (for example, because of shared costs on a night out or holiday) and transfers to and from savings accounts, can massively complicate matters. Clients who also draw funds from their businesses in lumpy amounts can also create payment patterns that the DWP will routinely detect.

Commonplace incomprehension

And, on their part, incomprehension is far too commonplace when it comes to such matters. I can always remember the VAT inspector who once added up all the deposits in a client’s accounts and solemnly declared she had an income of more than twice the amount declared. In reality, this was all down to her desperate desire to earn interest, meaning money went on and off deposit frequently, but the VAT inspector was adamant for a long time that this could not be the case, until being forced into submission. Expect no more understanding from a DWP AI bot, and in the meantime do expect enquiries, withheld benefits and distraught clients.

There can be no justification for this draconian power, but it sailed through the Commons. Any accountant with a client claiming benefits is going to need to warn their clients about this issue if this provision becomes law. The risks are high for failing to do so, as will be those for failing to keep absolutely meticulous records. Clients will need to know.

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,

Pammie1

DaisyAnneReturns

So do the elderly generally know Pammie1. I know my mother wouldn't have "got it" - she wouldn't have claimed out of fear of getting it wrong. Luckily she didn't need to. She did get some disability benefits but I looked after that side of things as she was much older then.

Probably not. But I remember sending in routine bank statements for my FiL - routine request from DWP in relation to his pension credit claim. He was 85 at the time, and across the statements were several standing orders to a post office savings account he had overlooked when we did his claim. DWP wrote to him explaining the situation and asking for details of the account and when I rang to explain what had happened they were lovely, saying that as soon as they got details of the amount in the account they would do any necessary adjustment of his pension credit, and no further action would be taken. I really don’t think it would reflect well on DWP to take confused and elderly pensioners to court, or to be issuing fines in these circumstances because they would have a very hard time proving ‘intent’.

Most people are and want to be helpful.

Your FiL was in the sort of position I was commenting on the other day. I suggested they could use this law in a good way. They could start by asking people if they would like to allow the DWP to have access monthly and update any changes. That would return a sense of agency to the claimant, and the DWP could pick up changes, etc., very quickly. The worried pensioner/anxious person is then relieved of that worry. I would have thought AI could be programmed to send a monthly letter updating the claimant.

They don't know unless someone tells them. I know from experience of someone claiming benefit on the basis of disclosing only one account, and other accounts coming to light after a report, that the DWP don’t have knowledge of other accounts unless someone has reported them. It’s not satisfactory to have to rely on snitches to catch fraudsters.

The DWP know exactly how many bank accounts you have.,my son forgot one as it hadn't been used for a long time and the person interviewing him asked about account whatever the account no was.
As it happened it only had 6p in it .so was discounted.but they knew there was another one and discounted it,without my son having to send a bank statement so they already knew it was a dead account,

For some reason I can’t quote your posts Pammiel, but as regards cash in hand jobs this would show up in expenditure patterns monitored by AI. Monitoring of loyalty cards might (I don’t know) show what you’re spending your money on; an unsupported single parent with no income other than benefits would not be buying luxury items unless they were receiving undisclosed support from elsewhere.

Some ‘overlook’ other accounts, Pammiel, others deliberately conceal them. Obviously in your FIL’s case it was the former and DWP accepted that. For those who deliberately fail to disclose, it is in the interest of all of us as taxpayers that they are found out.

See your post of 15.06 re sad(dest) DAR.

Germanshepherdsmum

Indeed Pammiel, the rules are not being changed but the means of detecting fraud and tax evasion are being significantly improved thanks to new technology.

I’m reserving judgement on whether we should be ‘thanking’ the new technology. It remains to be seen. The government have an appalling record when it comes to the pricing and quality of the technology they source for their departments, and I’m just not convinced that the AI will be appropriately programmed. I suspect it will be a dog’s dinner and yet another waste of tax payers money.

TurtleDove

I only have my state pension and a small private pension for which I pay tax at source so I am not bothered, but to be honest, I do think it is a fair way of doing it because I know that there are people doing 'jobs on the side for cash in hand' while they are getting their full state penson which as you know, because of the freeze on the tax allowance and the triple lock rise, will put many pensioners above the tax threshold with the cash in hand they earn, so they should be declaring it for tax purposes, unless they are sticking the cash they get in hand in a glass bottle under the mattress.

But to be honest, the government take and take and take just because they know where we live and have records on us whilst people of no abode get benefits which cannot be traced as they don't have bank accounts. Does it really pay to be honest. I do not think so.

I’m having a hard time figuring out why you think DWP would pay out benefits to homeless people if they couldn’t trace them. There are conditions you have to satisfy in order to claim benefits while homeless. If DWP tried to contact someone homeless about their benefits or job search and there was no response, benefit would be suspended.

HousePlantQueen

Germanshepherdsmum

If they have no fixed abode how do they receive their benefits?

Obviously they don't. Its the mysterious "them" again. I am also trying to figure out how cash in hand would appear in a bank account.

Because some people are daft enough to do work on the side and take payment via bank transfer.