DWP planning home visits to check benefits
- Thread starter Theisticle
- Start date
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
http://www.tvlicensingannualreview.co.uk/facts-and-figures/
I'm trusting them to calculate evasion on a reasonable basis, but the maths, the basic research and the assumptions wouldn't be too hard.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Especially when compared to the scale of tax evasion etc and the money which could be recovered there
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Yes, this is yet more expensive scapegoat theatre
I think he did!
This is hideous! Turning up unannounced (one assumes - what if you have to go out? What if you tell them no thanks not today?) is outragous, demanding to come in and see your bank statements and what have you? I'm not even sure I have two forms of ID!
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Did you even read the OP? You can reschedule if you need to.
I wonder (he says tempting fate) if this is even real. Whether it's just something solely intended to put the wind up people. Turning up at people's doorsteps, unannounced? How can that work? Demanding that you, in your property, identify yourself?
Why do they need to see bank statements? Check up on your spending habits?
FFS!
Why do they need to see bank statements? Check up on your spending habits?
FFS!
YOu really think that if a pair of DWP goons arrive unnaounced it will go in your favour if you refuse by telling them to leave and reschedule? What happens when they turn up announced a few days later? You did read the part where it says they aren't obliged to even give prior notice!
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
without wishing to justify any particular viewpoint here, it's more about spotting undeclared imcome
I would be, and am, deepl;y unfomrotable with giving them access to my bank statements. Showing them something and having them scrutinise it for this or that is bang out of order. How would they necessarily know whether something is the result of a job you shoudln't be doing?
I imagine it's more fag packet mathematics: they will have projected an amount saved based on how many people they estimate they can harass of benefits and then offset the cost of sending people to doorstep.
It's IDS economics.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
as I tell all cold callers, I don't do business on the doorstep. Good day to you sir. I SAID GOOD DAY'
this even extends to robert peels ruffians unless they have a proper order.
this even extends to robert peels ruffians unless they have a proper order.
Reschedule a surprise assessment outreach visit? This seems conceptually flawed.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Awesome Wells
Is your position, broadly, that absolutely all claims for benefits should be taken on trust, and that there should be no process at all (no matter how triggered) for entitlement assessment? It's a point of view, I suppose, and no more barking than opt-in citizen's wage.
Is your position, broadly, that absolutely all claims for benefits should be taken on trust, and that there should be no process at all (no matter how triggered) for entitlement assessment? It's a point of view, I suppose, and no more barking than opt-in citizen's wage.
I reckon it's more to do with checking if your balance is above the 8 grand threshold where it begins to affect your entitlement. Not that I'm supporting the idea of home visit spot checks.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Yes, I suspect that they want to see who answers the door as much as anything, and of course they have to offer the right to reschedule.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
you're already required to show proof of savings / 'capital' in respect of means tested benefits, and that means showing bank statements etc when you first claim and every so often when you renew.
and ultimately, if a benefit is dependent on having an income below X / savings below Y / not having a job, then is it entirely unreasonable for the system to check rather than take people's word for it?
although i'm inclined to think that most of the (few) people who have got an undeclared job would either do it cash in hand or have a bank account they make sure that the DWP etc don't find out about...
What if you're out all day pounding the streets, looking for work, attending the job centre, drinking heavily in the park? I would hate my reluctance or inability to answer the front door during business hours to be taken as a sign I was committing fraud. I don't have a problem of course, with providing bank statements when claiming or claim's are reviewed. I am not at home to random callers though. I don't even answer my landline during the day if I'm there to hear it.
because the dwp always play fair.
maybe i'm overly paranoid (it's one of my more attractive qualities) but i don't see them being amenable to being told to go away and reschedule after travelling all the way to your door.
TBH isn't there a privacy issue? ESA claimants will include those that are vulnerable - even shy ffs. You can't expect people to just invite strangers from the DWP in at the drop of a hat.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That would pretty much correspond to the procedure for the self-employed and other Hard Working Small Business People IME. I was never asked to provide a single jot of information, even before the Tories went and cut whatever % it was of HMRC, at which point it just became a complete joke. But I think we can all recognise a clear political and ideological motive here.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
I agree with you; #11.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Yes, but it's not going to be a question of savings - benefit fraud is relatively tiny, and even given the fact that this is probably 50-100% empty threats and intimidation, the difference it makes would be minimal. It does however make claimants more miserable, and demonstrate that the Tories are keen on making claimants more miserable, as well as boosting the connection between claiming benefits and being fraudulent. Those are political and ideological motives rather than (directly) financial.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
That might be true if this is a new initiative which is going to affect large numbers of claimants; less so if it's an existing power which is deployed sparingly and which happens to have been written up on gov.uk and noticed by some liberty fetishists.
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
Perhaps Theisticle is more likely to be on the sharp end of this policy than you are.
As someone who claims housing benefit and is likely to need to for some years yet, I can say that I am frightened by the idea. Well, not so much frightened as angry, to be honest.
I've just done my annual review form for housing benefit, wherein I told them honestly enough about a payrise of a few pounds a week which I had a few months ago. Of course as soon as I told them they immediately suspended payments and required to see x number of payslips, my P60, proof of how much child maintenance my kids' dad is paying, bank statements for the last y months, proof of what colour pants I was wearing when I filed the claim etc etc. They gave me a month to provide this information, some of which I didn't even possess yet (payslip for June); in the meantime I suddenly and unexpectedly had to find all of my rent myself (with two days' notice, as the letter came shortly before my rent was due). Then they sent me another threatening letter which I came home from work to on the day I had posted it all off, twelve days before their deadline, telling me that they hadn't received a reply yet and that I now had to send it all within 5 days of the date of that letter, and listing all the ways in which you are required by legislation to tell them of any changes in income, and how it is in my best interests to comply etc etc. And saying that if I didn't send it in 'it is likely we will not be able to pay you any benefit', which I know to be a nonsense as at most they've overpaid me by £100 since November. Basically an outright threat.
And now, they might not just send me obnoxious threatening letters that keep me awake at night worrying about how I'll pay the rent on the house I share with my children, they might come unannounced to my house and demand to sit on my sofa and rifle through my paperwork, the paperwork which I've already shown them when I claimed and to which they have access already, in my own private space, in front of my children, with my neighbours peeking round their door? Fuck that for a game of soldiers.
Last edited:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I don't really know the provenance of this story, but it would certainly fit modern policy initiatives if it had been recently announced or re-announced.
What with the hipster tide sloshing East from Hoxton, round here we have artisanal burglars now.
They have been doing this on and off for many years , there used to be the 'Benefit Integrity Project around 1990, but believe it or not protests by disabled people stopped that, shouldn't forget Blunkett wanted cameras installed in disabled people's homes, ostensibly for safety, but not really, its the holy grail for the state to have access to the persons home, it should be robustly challenged.
V/P should be able to add to this.
V/P should be able to add to this.
And do they have any right to ask any questions of anyone who does not admit to being the claimant?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Speaking as someone who works for DWP, has done for the past 12 years, I must admit i'm laughing at that. I've seen people sanctioned because they were minutes late to see the wanker they have to sign on with. Where claims are closed if they haven't received a letter from the 'Benefit Integrity Centre' who have sent an A2 annual review form. And then being told well they didn't reply to the A2, ie the form they didn't recieve. Kafkaesque doesn't quite cover it....
Similar threads
- Poll
