Au contraire they doubtless get a pat on the back.I recently helped a friend get a PiP award she got the lower rate despite being severely disabled.Now the DWP have taken the covid era twenty pounds per week away she is back where she started and convinced that her PiP award is being set off against her UC claim.
DWP staff to be given powers of arrest for benefit fraud
- Thread starter LeytonCatLady
- Start date
poppy60
pollyemptypockets
A sad reflection on the DWP.I have heard about 20% get their money after a mandatory reconsideration notice and 80% after it goes to appeal,Which can take a year to be to be considered.As for staff getting it wrong,most likely dealt in house and you never hear anything about that.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
You thinking that the idea of benefit assessments are to make sure people get what they're entitled to? How quaint.
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
Sadly, Sasaferrato , I think that this pattern is just part of a policy of making claiming anything that anyone is entitled to as difficult & hostile as possible.
[I've been told by someone fairly senior in the system that their office got an official bollocking some months ago, purely because they were not refusing enough claims, nor sanctioning a sufficient proportion of the UC claimants ...]
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Actually, given the huge number of cases overturned, I would argue that it goes far beyond the actions of individual staff. The real inquiry needs to be into the ethos and values of DWP, and how it is that their processes appear to have such poor results. Of course, since that is very much deliberate policy from the very top, no such inquiry is ever going to happen within the current political structure.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
When UC was being mooted I can remember Hague on the telly saying it meant re-assessing everyone which meant they would all get what they were entitled to and it would save 20% on the bill. There's a logical fallacy straightaway there. WIthout doing the assessment first how can you know you're going to save 20%? You might do better perhaps you might save 25-30%? or you might discover that it costs you 20% more.
It was fairly obvious that the saving 20% was the primary objective and that giving everyone what they needed was a secondary one. Nice if you could do it but save the 20% first.
It was fairly obvious that the saving 20% was the primary objective and that giving everyone what they needed was a secondary one. Nice if you could do it but save the 20% first.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
TBH, I think that if this lot could find a way not to pay ANY benefits, they'd bloody well do it. The idea of paying anyone money beyond minimum wage on zero hours contracts is anathema to them. And I'm not even sure about "minimum wage"
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
UC looked, on the face of it, like a very good idea: rather than have a mish-mash of interlocking benefits, put the whole lot together and organise it in a more streamlined way. But there were two problems:
- IT implementation - this was clearly going to be a vastly complex system, and government IT projects have a pretty consistent track record of going off the rails, even for comparatively simple systems: the chances of this working smoothly from the outset was at the "non-existent" end of the range of smallness, particularly given the unrealistically short implementation deadlines, and clearly inept management of the project from the very start.
- Government intentions - it became very clear, very early on, that a primary goal of implementing UC was to reduce the amount of benefits being paid to individuals. Not through fraud reduction, or operational efficiency, but purely and simply to use UC as a way of muddying the waters sufficiently as to enable them to slip real-terms benefits reductions in under the radar.
The idea that they should now, on top of this, be handed sweeping powers - and a consequent lack of oversight - to go after claimants, in the light of the number of cases where they have done this without such powers and been proven to have acted unreasonably, is a terrifying one.
ETA: and not to mention the plausible deniability created - and amply used - by the separation of assessments and evaluation of those assessments by using third-party companies who, nonetheless, were clearly incentivised to reject as many claims as possible.
Last edited:
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
DWP could soon look through your bank account and track your spending
The DWP is currently working on legislative measures to help reduce levels of fraud, error and debt in the benefits system
www.mirror.co.uk
It's been at least three years now they've been threatening this! I don't know how they can demand banks run routine checks without breaching GDPR. As for what we spend our money on, they can fuck off, it's none of their business. As if someone committing that level of serious fraud would be stupid enough to keep it in their account that's linked to their UC claim anyway.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
Housing Benefit fraud investigators & Housing fraud investigators have had the power to interview people under caution for many years (I was first aware of it in the 90s) I don't think they have power of arrest , they pass the evidence to the police who do the rest.
Throbbing Angel
this is no longer a place of honour
They never arrested anyone when I worked for a Council (until earlier this year) but regularly interviewed people under caution and recorded the interviews (audio only) - they always asked us to turn off the CCTV in the interview room when this was happening (it was motion activated). I'm not entirely sure why, but we always did it.
Same with Environmental Health & Protection interviewing people under caution IMHO.
Did the powers of arrest thing for DWP staff ever happen??
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
Looking at the wording of the article, not yet. "Currently, DWP staff must ask for individual details of a bank account if there is reason to believe there is fraud"; and "the proposed powers would oblige banks to run regular checks on claimants' accounts and hand the data over to the government." They haven't done this yet, presumably because it would require major changes to Data Protection law.
Also they're claiming they did a survey and that "most people" are in favour of this. What's the betting they were manipulative in the way they asked people?
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
They can probably access bank accounts now on a case by case basis if they have sufficient justification but it would likely rely on banks cooperating. If the new legislation gives them a statutory right of access that basically forces banks to cooperate and provide information. That is, they wouldn't need to really justify their request each time.DWP could soon look through your bank account and track your spending
The DWP is currently working on legislative measures to help reduce levels of fraud, error and debt in the benefits system
It's been at least three years now they've been threatening this! I don't know how they can demand banks run routine checks without breaching GDPR. As for what we spend our money on, they can fuck off, it's none of their business. As if someone committing that level of serious fraud would be stupid enough to keep it in their account that's linked to their UC claim anyway.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
I know that Housing fraud investigators can access bank records - they use it to establish a 'financial footprint'. So if your council flat is in Brixton, but your card is used every day in Edgware - they would think that you don't spend a lot of time in your flat - they would also do this for people claiming succession of a tenancy - so if you claim you lived with your gran for 10 years but your spending is mostly 20 miles away, it is not likely that you do actually live with your gran.
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
This is just going to lead to a rise in more people sticking to cash. Not to hide wrongdoing, but so these nosy cunts can't scrutinise where you got your shopping and start judging and lecturing you. I can just see it - "Why are you wasting your money in Sainsbury's when Lidl will have the same things cheaper?" "Why did you go to Thornton's for luxury chocolate when you're supposed to be skint?" These bastards abuse. Hopefully it won't come to pass, because if they could bypass Data Protection that easily, they would have done by now. But even now, they can randomly flag your account for a "compliance interview" and ask you to bring your bank statements. So yeah, if you're on benefits, I'd advise to use cash where you can so as not to give these wankers more power than necessary.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
People are broadly in favour of other people losing benefits they don't get themselves or other people paying taxes they themselves don't expect to pay.From the mirror article it says.
No wonder most people were in favour of it.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
.
yep - although I don't think the Housing Investigators are interested in what people spend - just where they spend it to establish where they are most likely living.
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
True, but that could end up being a byproduct if routine bank checks became legal.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
This checking accounts seems mondo dodgy to me and whiffs of something that is a gut reaction that has not been properly thought through (big surprise there
)
How is it going to work? Will the DWP call up the bank saying "We think Joe Bloggs is fiddling his benefits can you do a monthly scan of his spending to check where he spends his dosh?"
Or even worse will the DWP be able to get a regular report on anyone who claims any benefits?
The first one smacks of police(ing) state and will no doubt end up keeping lawyers busy especially if the standard of proof the DWP needs to supply to the banks is low and they get the name wrong.
The second is even wilder, checking on millions of people will cost a lot of money in itself to do (computer time ain't free) probably a sizable chunk if not than what it might save and I can't see the banks not demanding re-imbursement.
I was surprised to learn not too long ago that actually about one half of the population receive some form of benefit. For a lot of them it's relatively trivial like bus passes or child benefits (the £40 a week my daughter gets for her sons is trivial set against her husband's salary). Are they going to scan everyone or just pick on certain types of UC claimants? (yay discrimination)
) How is it going to work? Will the DWP call up the bank saying "We think Joe Bloggs is fiddling his benefits can you do a monthly scan of his spending to check where he spends his dosh?"
Or even worse will the DWP be able to get a regular report on anyone who claims any benefits?
The first one smacks of police(ing) state and will no doubt end up keeping lawyers busy especially if the standard of proof the DWP needs to supply to the banks is low and they get the name wrong.
The second is even wilder, checking on millions of people will cost a lot of money in itself to do (computer time ain't free) probably a sizable chunk if not than what it might save and I can't see the banks not demanding re-imbursement.
I was surprised to learn not too long ago that actually about one half of the population receive some form of benefit. For a lot of them it's relatively trivial like bus passes or child benefits (the £40 a week my daughter gets for her sons is trivial set against her husband's salary). Are they going to scan everyone or just pick on certain types of UC claimants? (yay discrimination)
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
Are banks really going to allow this?
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
More to the point, will GDPR allow it?
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
Data protection legislation doesn't say 'you can't do x' as its just a framework that sets the parameters of how controllers must behave to act lawfully. Essentially it's the responsibility of the controller to demonstrate compliance, especially if the ICO contact them regarding complaints or someone sues them.
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
No way do the majority of non-benefit-receiving people want those on benefits to lose them. There are of course people who think like that and would happily see people, including disabled and long-term sick people, literally starve but they are not the majority.
Elpenor
a clown’s heart and a mandolin
With open banking they kind of already do, but that’s for commercial reasons, as opposed to state investigatory powers
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Get rid of? No, you're right. But the last poll I saw suggested 49% thought the government should give out less benefits, handily outnumbering both those in favour of status quo and more money (because undecided was a good chunk). They may as well want them to starve. I'm afraid the general populace is founded on a bedrock of pure cuntitude.
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
I'm not sure - I'd be interested (no, tbh I'd dread) to see that, including what question exactly was asked, but I don't believe the majority of people are that nasty.
There's been a massive push to demonise those in receipt of benefits and yeah I think a lot of people believe there's this huge chunk of society pretending to be ill or lazy or whatever, not really understanding how difficult that money is to claim, or what it's like living with the worry of losing it, trying to budget, the stigma etc. So I think how the question's worded would make a big difference to people's answers.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
I read an article that suggested DWP staff were also going to be able to check benefit claimants' travel history via their passports.
The thing is, going on holiday in the UK is often way more expensive than going on a cheap package holiday to Costa del Wherever. Ages ago, I was looking at train fares to Cornwall (to visit a friend/babysit so they could go to a gig), and the ticket price was extortionately expensive. In fact, I look up flights and it would have been cheaper to fly to Casablanca or Copenhagen than catch the train to Cornwall.
So people will be prevented from going on a cheap package holiday for spite, but they won't be able to afford to go on holiday in the UK.
The thing is, going on holiday in the UK is often way more expensive than going on a cheap package holiday to Costa del Wherever. Ages ago, I was looking at train fares to Cornwall (to visit a friend/babysit so they could go to a gig), and the ticket price was extortionately expensive. In fact, I look up flights and it would have been cheaper to fly to Casablanca or Copenhagen than catch the train to Cornwall.
So people will be prevented from going on a cheap package holiday for spite, but they won't be able to afford to go on holiday in the UK.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
When I worked in Housing Benefit (from 90-95) HB claimants had to submit bank statements to prove what their income was, and if assessors saw payments to or from other accounts , they would ask what these payments were for and what accounts they were to or from. I assume this was also part of the claim process for the dole (then) Income Support & now Universal credit.
