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

MissAdventure

It clearly states on the pip form that it goes to AN ASSESSOR, who makes the decision.

No, it says the application form, along with any medical evidence the claimant submits, will go to an assessor, who will make the decision as to whether any further evidence or a face to face assessment is necessary. Then an assessment report is submitted by the assessor to the DWP decision maker, who then makes the benefit decision based on the report.

What I find odd, is the number of posters who think it’s fine and dandy to treat benefit claimants as guilty until proven innocent - which is what this invasion of privacy actually amounts to - and the huge ramifications should it pass into law.

My neighbours son is a benefits fraud officer, he spends time on social media looking at peoples lifestyles as part of investigations, there are often photos of people doing sport or exercise yet claiming limited mobility and those that spend all day on line and yet state they could not do a job that would involve them working from home online.

There used to someone on here that said she had agoraphobia and mobility issues and claimed PIP and was cross that it was being stopped out of the blue without speaking to her.
. On here she would say about places she had been and activities that she had done, she had probably also put things on Facebook etc,

AGAA4

It's true that the DWP are "under the cosh" from the government who want everyone in work.
There is a highly trained team of experienced people who assess claims and who will defy government if necessary and come down on the side of the claimant.
DWP is a huge organisation and like many of these large organisations will make mistakes.
If you want to attribute blame then it should be the government who take it as they really don't want anybody on benefits.
Like many other areas this government has failed in it's failing in this.

In the case of disability and sickness benefits there is no such safeguard. Disability assessors - not doctors - assess disabled/sick people and DWP decision makers decide on benefit awards based on their reports. These ‘disability analysts’ are recruited from NHS and given a few days training - doesn’t make them ‘highly trained’. And it’s not a case of making mistakes - these benefits are designed so that as few claimants as possible qualify. The huge numbers of claimants who are successful at tribunal after being denied benefit attests to how the whole procedure is weighted against the claimant and is a waste of tax payers money which could be entirely avoided if the claimant was treated fairly to start with.

Pammie1

What I find odd, is the number of posters who think it’s fine and dandy to treat benefit claimants as guilty until proven innocent - which is what this invasion of privacy actually amounts to - and the huge ramifications should it pass into law.

I haven't seen any posts saying claimants were guilty.

Theexwife

My neighbours son is a benefits fraud officer, he spends time on social media looking at peoples lifestyles as part of investigations, there are often photos of people doing sport or exercise yet claiming limited mobility and those that spend all day on line and yet state they could not do a job that would involve them working from home online.

There used to someone on here that said she had agoraphobia and mobility issues and claimed PIP and was cross that it was being stopped out of the blue without speaking to her.
. On here she would say about places she had been and activities that she had done, she had probably also put things on Facebook etc,

They do look at social media - facebook in particular - but it’s not routinely done unless they already suspect fraud and it’s part of an ongoing investigation. DWP are aware that when looking at social media evidence they have to be 100% sure of their facts because it’s easy to take things out of context. For example. There was one well publicised case of a PIP claimant who was wheelchair bound appearing in a FB post standing up. She had her benefit suspended and was interviewed under caution. It was a wedding photograph and when they examined it properly they realised that she was propped up against a table and the group of friends surrounding her were supporting her because she didn’t want the wheelchair to be in the photograph. Not everything is as it seems.

I think the implication is that people are "pulling a fast one" unless they can prove otherwise.
And if they do, they won't be without causing them stress, anxiety and downright fear.

For those who have anxiety issues, it doesn't bear thinking about, and I used to be somewhat less than sympathetic myself to their plight.

We have all paid into the system, so we all have an interest in not having it abused.

AGAA4

Pammie1

What I find odd, is the number of posters who think it’s fine and dandy to treat benefit claimants as guilty until proven innocent - which is what this invasion of privacy actually amounts to - and the huge ramifications should it pass into law.

I haven't seen any posts saying claimants were guilty.

I didn’t say there were. Invading the privacy of citizens by monitoring their bank accounts on the premise of preventing fraud, by its’ very nature, assumes that they are guilty until proven innocent by surveillence. The ramifications for all of us, claimant or not, are enormous and alarming.

Pammie1 so what you are saying is that benefit fraud should not be investigated. That people should be allowed to carry on claiming illegally to the detrimental of all?
It's the fraudsters who have caused the scrutiny of people's incomes and lifestyles and they shouldn't get away with it.

AGAA4

It's true that the DWP are "under the cosh" from the government who want everyone in work.
There is a highly trained team of experienced people who assess claims and who will defy government if necessary and come down on the side of the claimant.
DWP is a huge organisation and like many of these large organisations will make mistakes.
If you want to attribute blame then it should be the government who take it as they really don't want anybody on benefits.
Like many other areas this government has failed in it's failing in this.

If it was the case that claims assessors routinely come down on the side of the claimant, to the point where they defy government, can you explain how it’s the case that CAB and other advocacy agencies are overwhelmed with claimants needing help with appeals because they’ve been wrongly denied benefits ?

80 percent of claimants who go to tribunal are then awarded the claim; often before it's even gone that far.

AGAA4

Pammie1 so what you are saying is that benefit fraud should not be investigated. That people should be allowed to carry on claiming illegally to the detrimental of all?
It's the fraudsters who have caused the scrutiny of people's incomes and lifestyles and they shouldn't get away with it.

Of course I’m not saying that fraud shouldn’t be investigated. But there are robust procedures in place to detect and deal with fraud now. These can be built on without invading the privacy of others. Where DWP suspect wrongdoing they can already access claimant bank accounts. What we don’t need is yet another organisation acting as a law unto itself without recourse to the police or CPS - that leaves the claimant pretty much in the same predicament as the wrongly accused postmaster. And given the track record of DWP, it’s hardly surprising that claimants are fearful of this move. And it’s just the start. If this goes through unchallenged, it’s only a matter of time before we’re all under scrutiny. And the old adage ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’ doesn’t apply here. As many a wrongly accused benefit claimant will tell you.

Without seeing the cases how do you know they have been 'wrongly denied benefits'.

MissAdventure

DaisyAnne
Someone posted earlier in the thread the dwps stance on receiving money.
I don't make the rules...

I didn't think you did MissAdventure. I just wondered if what you were saying was correct. I just can't see how they could take the value of someone's Christmas present into account.

I can only imagine someone in my position. All my family, except my daughter, live in other countries. We never send presents. The money goes backwards and forwards, sometimes to the person, sometimes to another family member to buy the present and the same happens with theirs to me.

So are you saying that if someone in my position was on Pension Credit, they would lose some or all of it? While on the other hand the person who lives next door, say, who might have family down the road, who swap actual presents on Christmas day, doesn't have money taken off them?

Now that really is bizarre.

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.

MissAdventure

80 percent of claimants who go to tribunal are then awarded the claim; often before it's even gone that far.

The DWP are routinely reprimanded for allowing dodgy cases to proceed, which are then thrown out of tribunal. Sometimes even then they will delay benefit being put into payment by appealing the decision. But as a benefit advisor I came across many a situation where DWP would receive tribunal papers and then immediately write to the claimant advising that the appeal had been cancelled and a backdated benefit award made. Once DWP receive tribunal paperwork and it’s clear that the claimant intends to go ahead, they re-examine the claim from the viewpoint of the strength of their case. I can only imagine the numbers of claimants - usually vulnerable from mental health or cognitive conditions - who decide that appealing is too stressful, and who simply give up and accept an unfair decision. It’s benefit savings by the back door.

AGAA4

Without seeing the cases how do you know they have been 'wrongly denied benefits'.

Experience as a benefit adviser.

For those who have commented, I did not "call the DWP nazis" I do wish you would read what is actually said before you leap to taking offence.

However, to clarify, I am of the opinion thst there are those who fit that description in the government. I also don't think those running the DWP are doing their jobs - just as those running the Post Office Investigations and prosecutions side were not doing theirs.

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.

I wouldn’t disagree with the reasoning behind the move, but it depends on whether you consider that sacrificing the right of privacy and the premise of ‘ guilty until proven innocent’ is worth the return in detecting higher levels of fraud. I don’t, and I think that given their track record, the level of powers which will be given to DWP by this bill, proves that we’re not learning from past mistakes - which is what this thread has highlighted.

The world has been turned on its head.

If everyone received a pension they could live on - the total of all the income related benefits. And if everyone working had to receive as a minimum the total of the benefit they could other wise be entitled to there would be no benefit fraud.

You could then tax this off those now getting a higher income. The DWP workers who would otherwise be redundant could become HMRC workers catching the huge frauds that are possible on tax.

DaisyAnneReturns

MissAdventure

DaisyAnne
Someone posted earlier in the thread the dwps stance on receiving money.
I don't make the rules...

I didn't think you did MissAdventure. I just wondered if what you were saying was correct. I just can't see how they could take the value of someone's Christmas present into account.

I can only imagine someone in my position. All my family, except my daughter, live in other countries. We never send presents. The money goes backwards and forwards, sometimes to the person, sometimes to another family member to buy the present and the same happens with theirs to me.

So are you saying that if someone in my position was on Pension Credit, they would lose some or all of it? While on the other hand the person who lives next door, say, who might have family down the road, who swap actual presents on Christmas day, doesn't have money taken off them?

Now that really is bizarre.

It’s not bizzare, it’s actually part of the rights and responsibilities contract undertaken when you claim benefits. A means tested benefit claim is based on what you declare to be your regular income and it’s stated very clearly that you are expected to declare any and all additional payments made over the life of the claim.

And someone in a similar position to yourself, who sends and receives bank transfer payments for whatever reason - especially if those payments are coming to and from abroad - would be asked to explain them. The point is, you have an obligation to report the payments and what they were for, because they are over and above what you have declared to be your income when you made your claim. DWP will then decide if they are counted as income and deducted from benefit.

Receiving a physical gift is not the same as receiving the cash to pay for it into a bank account, if you are claiming a means tested an income based benefit. If you declare the payments, then fine, you’re not doing anything wrong. If you don’t and they’re picked up on routine checks then you will be asked to explain.

I wouldn’t disagree with the reasoning behind the move, but it depends on whether you consider that sacrificing the right of privacy and the premise of ‘ guilty until proven innocent’ is worth the return in detecting higher levels of fraud. I don’t, and I think that given their track record, the level of powers which will be given to DWP by this bill, proves that we’re not learning from past mistakes - which is what this thread has highlighted. [*Pammie1*]

I couldn't agree more. I wish that could be turned into a question and asked of candidates in the up-comimg election.

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.

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.

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.