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

Germanshepherdsmum

I am not rubbing my hands with glee, nor have I twisted anything. I have emphasised the purpose of the draft legislation and that it is intended to give greater powers to detect fraud. The current data protection legislation does not allow the sort of searching and monitoring which enable fraud to be detected.

Honestly, if you think that the sole purpose of this legislation is simply to increase powers to detect fraud, you’re over simplifying. DWP are already seeking powers to use other information in the same way - store shopping cards, supermarket loyalty cards, online shopping accounts. All of these can track spending and when put together with the banking legislation can provide an overall picture of what income people have and how they spend it. You really need to stop and ask yourself why they want this information. It’s an insidious creep and an invasion of privacy and they’re not being clear as to how this data will be used.

Germanshepherdsmum

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

Homeless people can use the address of a trusted friend or relative to register for benefits - they can even use a hostel or homeless shelter, or their local JobCentre. If they don’t behave a bank account they can set up payments through the Payment Exception Service. Payments are put straight on to a card, voucher or text. You then take that to your nearest PayPoint outlet to collect the money. JobCentre can also assist homeless claimants to open a bank account.

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’.

Germanshepherdsmum

I am not rubbing my hands with glee, nor have I twisted anything. I have emphasised the purpose of the draft legislation and that it is intended to give greater powers to detect fraud. The current data protection legislation does not allow the sort of searching and monitoring which enable fraud to be detected.

So why put is that ‘sad’ or is it a good thing?

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.

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

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 am not rubbing my hands with glee, nor have I twisted anything. I have emphasised the purpose of the draft legislation and that it is intended to give greater powers to detect fraud. The current data protection legislation does not allow the sort of searching and monitoring which enable fraud to be detected.

Germanshepherdsmum

If X applies for a means-tested benefit and supplies in support details of their account number 1, but the AI trawl reveals the existence of account number 2 which makes X far better off than they claimed, is that ‘sad’ or is it a good thing?

People do deliberately keep one account which shows them to be pretty poor, and another one or more where the real money is. I have seen it happen. Unless they are so daft as to transfer money to account number 1 from another, how would the DWP know about the fraud in the absence of a report? This, and detection of regular payments arising from undeclared employment, are what AI can find in seconds using the new powers.

I can almost see you rubbing your hands with glee. You know that's not what was upsetting me hut you have to twist it, don't you.

Sorry - misread. I think they can check that out when someone applies.

Only if they have reasonable suspicion JaneJudge.

I thought they already looked for other accounts, without using AI?

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.

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.

If X applies for a means-tested benefit and supplies in support details of their account number 1, but the AI trawl reveals the existence of account number 2 which makes X far better off than they claimed, is that ‘sad’ or is it a good thing?

People do deliberately keep one account which shows them to be pretty poor, and another one or more where the real money is. I have seen it happen. Unless they are so daft as to transfer money to account number 1 from another, how would the DWP know about the fraud in the absence of a report? This, and detection of regular payments arising from undeclared employment, are what AI can find in seconds using the new powers.

DaisyAnneReturns

Germanshepherdsmum

Nobody would find themselves in court because a relative had sent them a present of money because they would be able to ask the relative to confirm the situation. Of course if it was a significant sum they should have declared it. But they would be fined and have their benefit suspended or adjusted, depending on the amount in question. A prosecution for fraud requires proof of an intention to defraud.

That's alright then. I'll carry on not having to worry about these things and just hope all those on Pension Credit are aware - obviously some won't be, and some may have been once but possibly not now.

I really think it's the saddest thing I've heard for ages and with this government that takes dome doing.

But it’s nothing new DaisyAnne. These rules have applied to means tested benefits since their inception.

Germanshepherdsmum

Nobody would find themselves in court because a relative had sent them a present of money because they would be able to ask the relative to confirm the situation. Of course if it was a significant sum they should have declared it. But they would be fined and have their benefit suspended or adjusted, depending on the amount in question. A prosecution for fraud requires proof of an intention to defraud.

Yes, I think people are misunderstanding - as you say, it’s intent to defraud that has to be proved.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of benefit claimants aren’t really fully aware of their obligations when claiming means tested benefits - understandable because for most, it’s a stressful time and may be linked to losing their job or other life events. They declare income at the start of the claim and lose sight of the fact that any payment over and above that declaration renders their claim inaccurate and needs to be declared so that DWP can make any necessary adjustment and avoid overpayment. Much easier that way than waiting until it’s picked up by checks and being summoned to explain !!

Germanshepherdsmum

Nobody would find themselves in court because a relative had sent them a present of money because they would be able to ask the relative to confirm the situation. Of course if it was a significant sum they should have declared it. But they would be fined and have their benefit suspended or adjusted, depending on the amount in question. A prosecution for fraud requires proof of an intention to defraud.

That's alright then. I'll carry on not having to worry about these things and just hope all those on Pension Credit are aware - obviously some won't be, and some may have been once but possibly not now.

I really think it's the saddest thing I've heard for ages and with this government that takes dome doing.

It's not necessarily about courts, it is the stress of the dreaded brown envelope through the door asking for 5 years of bank statements, giving appointments that people must attend, etc.

Germanshepherdsmum

Fraud may be occurring without the DWP suspecting it. I have mentioned before the production of statements from one bank account when claiming means-tested benefits, whilst the claimant has another undisclosed account containing much more money. How would the DWP ever know about that unless someone reported the claimant or the social life seen on social media could not be supported by the disclosed assets? The use of AI to trawl all accounts in claimants’ names would bring the other account to light. It needs to be remembered that the introduction of bank account monitoring is intended not only to capture benefit fraud, but tax evasion.

Just as an aside to my last post GSM, DWP periodically ask claimants on means tested benefits for bank statements so they can carry out routine checks, and I’ve seen my fair share of people caught out by transfers made from one bank account to another - online banking makes this routine for most people. DWP pick up the other account from the statement and then ask the claimant for details of funding held in it. Unfortunately, since Covid, DWP don’t appear to be checking in this way as often as they did. Perhaps an alternative to the proposals, would be an increase in this kind of scrutiny.

Germanshepherdsmum

I for one don’t receive a State pension which I could live on - it’s the old pension with considerable deductions for years of being contracted out. But it would be wholly wrong for my pension to be increased to something which I could live on, let alone a figure including all income related benefits, because I also have a private pension and an occupational pension and not inconsiderable assets. I am by no means alone there. So the concept of a SP sufficient to live on plus a figure for benefits, regardless of whether they are needed, would surely involve means testing, as with the current system of pension credit. And can you imagine how much tax ‘those getting a higher income’ would have to pay? Two reasons why it’s a total non starter.

It would be taxed off the other end Germanshepherdsmum

Why would that make you worse off?

Nobody would find themselves in court because a relative had sent them a present of money because they would be able to ask the relative to confirm the situation. Of course if it was a significant sum they should have declared it. But they would be fined and have their benefit suspended or adjusted, depending on the amount in question. A prosecution for fraud requires proof of an intention to defraud.

I'm sure you are right Pammie1 but with those able to get Pension Credit getting older and older I do wonder how many little old people are going to find themselves in court because a relative abroad sent the money instead of a present.

I have always encouraged people to apply for benefits if they were entitled to them. One case like this plastered all over the papers with the accompanying accusatory finger pointing and the numbers claiming Pension Credit could plummet once again.

What a horrible world this seems to have become.

I for one don’t receive a State pension which I could live on - it’s the old pension with considerable deductions for years of being contracted out. But it would be wholly wrong for my pension to be increased to something which I could live on, let alone a figure including all income related benefits, because I also have a private pension and an occupational pension and not inconsiderable assets. I am by no means alone there. So the concept of a SP sufficient to live on plus a figure for benefits, regardless of whether they are needed, would surely involve means testing, as with the current system of pension credit. And can you imagine how much tax ‘those getting a higher income’ would have to pay? Two reasons why it’s a total non starter.

What I'm saying could very well be wrong, DaisyAnne
I never, ever want to see dwp information again, so I haven't checked my sources.
Still, I march valiantly forward, unwilling to let the facts get in the way.