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

That is how means-testing usually works. I think it is cruel, and keeps people ‘in their place’, as money that is saved is clawed back to keep them below the threshold.

Regarding savings thresholds again, is it the case that if a means-tested benefit recipient with no personal savings chooses to live extremely frugally in order to save some of their benefit for, say, a new washing machine or cooker, and that saving takes them over the savings threshold, they are liable to be investigated, or have benefit reduced until they are back below their savings threshold?

That's how I read it too, Pammie. The powers are being given to the DWP, unless I've misunderstood. There was nothing I remember about restrictions on with whom they share the data they gather, though.

I've had a read receipt from my MP and will post when I get a reply to my questions about why the DWP needs access to the accounts of people not on means-tested benefits.

Germanshepherdsmum

The power to monitor accounts is being given to HMRC Pammiel. Have you read the draft Bill?

Yes, I’ve read the draft Bill and as far as I can see it doesn’t confer any new powers to HMRC. Data is routinely shared between DWP and HMRC, so obviously they will benefit from the Bill in terms of detailed information they will receive from enhanced DWP monitoring.

Doodledog

I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I think that if someone is on benefits but gets a lucky break that takes them slightly above the threshold (eg a small premium bond win or a birthday present) they should be able to save it for a rainy day without penalty. Of course if they win a million pounds it’s different, but a couple of hundred pounds shouldn’t count against them. I hate the mean-spiritedness of ‘she can afford xyz’ that reduces everything to basics. Why shouldn’t someone on a low income be allowed to save if they can? It’s dehumanising to force them back into poverty as soon as they get their head above water.

Sorry - didn’t make myself clear. I meant banging my head against the wall of stubbornness on this thread. After over ten years experience as a benefit advisor, I’ve seen first hand how the system keeps the poorest down and I’m at a loss as to why people don’t apply some critical thinking about what is actually at the heart of this latest legislation, or why they are so happy to sign it off into the hands of a government who have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted.

But I agree with what you say. I’ve always thought means testing is a race to the bottom. In most cases the difference between qualifying for support or not is only a few pounds, and savings thresholds are set very low.

The power to monitor accounts is being given to HMRC Pammiel. Have you read the draft Bill?

I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I think that if someone is on benefits but gets a lucky break that takes them slightly above the threshold (eg a small premium bond win or a birthday present) they should be able to save it for a rainy day without penalty. Of course if they win a million pounds it’s different, but a couple of hundred pounds shouldn’t count against them. I hate the mean-spiritedness of ‘she can afford xyz’ that reduces everything to basics. Why shouldn’t someone on a low income be allowed to save if they can? It’s dehumanising to force them back into poverty as soon as they get their head above water.

Doodledog

I understand you perfectly, Oldnproud.

Whilst I understand that benefits are intended for people who can't afford to support themselves, I do feel that means testing is designed to keep people poor, and penalises those who save.

Can I ask you a question @Doodledog ? At what point do I stop banging my head against the wall ?

Germanshepherdsmum

Exactly, DiamondLily. I really don’t understand the furore about this. It has to be remembered that these provisions are also designed to catch tax evaders - some of whom will be in receipt of the State pension.

There isn’t anything in the legislation that mentions tax evasion. It’s DWP who will be given these powers, but I’ve no doubt that HMRC will follow. The ‘furore’ as you put it, is that the government have drawn this legislation so broadly that it gives them the power to do pretty much whatever they want in the future, regarding who they monitor and what for. This government have proved over and over again that they are not to be trusted - why would you trust them to monitor your financial affairs ?

DiamondLily

They will have access to all bank accounts, but unless a person is on any sort of means tested benefit, it won’t be of any interest to them.

Anyone on any means tested benefit needs to check out the rules regarding savings, income etc.

If that’s what you think, good luck with that. If only means tested benefit is of interest, why have the government made provision to include all benefits, including state pension and legislated not only for monitoring what funds we have, but also how we spend them. Like I said, critical thinking is totally absent.

Exactly, DiamondLily. I really don’t understand the furore about this. It has to be remembered that these provisions are also designed to catch tax evaders - some of whom will be in receipt of the State pension.

They will have access to all bank accounts, but unless a person is on any sort of means tested benefit, it won’t be of any interest to them.

Anyone on any means tested benefit needs to check out the rules regarding savings, income etc.

I understand you perfectly, Oldnproud.

Whilst I understand that benefits are intended for people who can't afford to support themselves, I do feel that means testing is designed to keep people poor, and penalises those who save.

Germanshepherdsmum

However, the State pension has increased considerably over that time.

Yes, it has, but with respect. GSM, I think you might be missing my point.

The sort of expenses I was referring to can't really be paid for out of the monthly State pension. They need to be saved for, but the failure to increase the threshold over the last 15 years means that in real terms claimants can now save far less than they could back then without being penalised (having their Pension Credit payments reduced).
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well, but I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say.

However, the State pension has increased considerably over that time.

Those thresholds haven't been raised for a long time, either, have they?

Take pension credit - I dont think the amount you can have in savings before it affects how much you get has increased for nearly 15 years, when it was increased to £10,000.

To put that into perspective, you could buy a brand new car for around £7,000 back then. You would have to pay twice that now for the same model!

I am not sure how much the cost of essential household appliances, house repairs etc., has increased over that time, but there's no doubt that they have all risen substantially too.

If it could be guaranteed that such unavoidable expenses came at well-spaced intervals, then the £10,000 threshold might just about be ok (especially for those lucky enough to live in places where a reliable car isn't a necessity), but we all know that that is what happens in real life.

Surely it is time that this threshold was increased.

Thankyou Pammie. Yes, people will need much clearer advice. What if government cost of living payments, for example, take claimants over the savings threshold?

Delila

What is the position regarding things like Premium Bond winnings or interest on savings? Should they be declared as a change in circumstances? Some pension credit recipients do have savings.

If it takes the claimant over the savings threshold it should be declared, but a lot depends on what DWP would view as income resulting in reduction of benefit. I think if they’re going to introduce AI systems to monitor, then when and what to report as a change of circumstance needs to be a lot clearer than it is now.

Pammie1

Pammie1

Doodledog

This should get a lot more publicity, so that the monitoring of those who are not on means-tested benefits can be resisted. I assume that the linked relationship thing is to check that 'household income' is as stated?

By 2030 most people will be on the new pension, which is not based on household income, and will supposedly replace pension credit, so there is even less of a reason for state pensioners to come under this legislation unless the plan is to means test it by then. I think that this should be a warning to us all.

This is why I find it disturbing that so many people are in favour of the legislation. I think the monitoring of claimants’ accounts is just the start.

We’re all sleepwalking into government interference into our finances - what we earn and how we spend it. Some critical thinking should be applied and we should all be contacting our MP’s to ask these questions, and to remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.

The recent revelations around Michael Mathewson’ expenses and his subsequent resignation proves the hypocrisy of MP’s gleefully voting to treat all benefit claimants as guilty until proven innocent, whilst resisting any move to monitor their own finances. It’s all public money and what’s sauce for the goose………………..

Sorry, that should read Michael Mathewson’s expenses.

Or even Michael Matheson. Bloody autocorrect !!

Pammie1

Doodledog

This should get a lot more publicity, so that the monitoring of those who are not on means-tested benefits can be resisted. I assume that the linked relationship thing is to check that 'household income' is as stated?

By 2030 most people will be on the new pension, which is not based on household income, and will supposedly replace pension credit, so there is even less of a reason for state pensioners to come under this legislation unless the plan is to means test it by then. I think that this should be a warning to us all.

This is why I find it disturbing that so many people are in favour of the legislation. I think the monitoring of claimants’ accounts is just the start.

We’re all sleepwalking into government interference into our finances - what we earn and how we spend it. Some critical thinking should be applied and we should all be contacting our MP’s to ask these questions, and to remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.

The recent revelations around Michael Mathewson’ expenses and his subsequent resignation proves the hypocrisy of MP’s gleefully voting to treat all benefit claimants as guilty until proven innocent, whilst resisting any move to monitor their own finances. It’s all public money and what’s sauce for the goose………………..

Sorry, that should read Michael Mathewson’s expenses.

Doodledog

This should get a lot more publicity, so that the monitoring of those who are not on means-tested benefits can be resisted. I assume that the linked relationship thing is to check that 'household income' is as stated?

By 2030 most people will be on the new pension, which is not based on household income, and will supposedly replace pension credit, so there is even less of a reason for state pensioners to come under this legislation unless the plan is to means test it by then. I think that this should be a warning to us all.

This is why I find it disturbing that so many people are in favour of the legislation. I think the monitoring of claimants’ accounts is just the start.

We’re all sleepwalking into government interference into our finances - what we earn and how we spend it. Some critical thinking should be applied and we should all be contacting our MP’s to ask these questions, and to remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.

The recent revelations around Michael Mathewson’ expenses and his subsequent resignation proves the hypocrisy of MP’s gleefully voting to treat all benefit claimants as guilty until proven innocent, whilst resisting any move to monitor their own finances. It’s all public money and what’s sauce for the goose………………..

What is the position regarding things like Premium Bond winnings or interest on savings? Should they be declared as a change in circumstances? Some pension credit recipients do have savings.

I have emailed my MP to see what he has to say about the intrusive nature of the new powers and about the possibility of means-testing the State Pension.

This should get a lot more publicity, so that the monitoring of those who are not on means-tested benefits can be resisted. I assume that the linked relationship thing is to check that 'household income' is as stated?

By 2030 most people will be on the new pension, which is not based on household income, and will supposedly replace pension credit, so there is even less of a reason for state pensioners to come under this legislation unless the plan is to means test it by then. I think that this should be a warning to us all.

I sent a request for some clarification on the bill to my MP before Christmas, and got an email yesterday.

It may up to twelve months for the bill to clear the Lords and they’re expecting it to be batted back and forth with amendments. If/when passed, the AI and reporting systems for the legislation will be in line with DWP payment cycles and will be tested in 2025, with full roll out beginning in 2030.

The original intention was for the monitoring of claimant accounts receiving means tested benefits including ESA, UC, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit. The banks will use AI with the criteria determined by DWP to indicate fraudulent activity or ‘error’, initially concentrating on two areas - receipts taking the claimant over savings thresholds and accounts which have been used abroad for more than four weeks.

Last minute changes considerably widen the scope so that in future DWP can demand data from other agencies - including non financial institutions - in order to identify other types of fraud. And it allows for monitoring to be extended to non means tested benefits including state pension and disability benefits. Monitoring also extends to anyone “linked” to the receipt of a benefit, without specifying exactly what a link entails.

For me, the most worrying part is the underhand nature of the introduction of the changes, which confer broadly drawn powers for DWP to potentially investigate all benefit claimants - including state pension recipients. I think the Lords need to ask questions around why the DWP feel it’s necessary to monitor those whose benefits are not affected by income or savings. The ‘linking’ of those connected with benefit claimants also needs further explanation. Potentially partners, ex partners, parents/children and possibly even landlords could be monitored simply for their connection to the claimant. It also calls into question how those acting as appointees for relatives who can’t manage their own accounts will be treated - DWP routinely pay the persons’ benefits into appointees’ accounts. There is no clarification as to how this will work.