DWP will monitor all JSA, UC and ESA claimants bank accounts

This was inevitable I suppose:

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/almost-9-million-claimant-bank-accounts-to-be-put-under-continuous-surveillance

Article in full:

"The DWP is to begin continuous surveillance of the bank accounts of all pension credit, universal credit and employment and support allowance claimants using powers under a bill currently going through Parliament. The department have said that they intend to use their new power to force any third party to pass on data to them more widely in the future.

The power to compel third parties into providing any data that the DWP wants in order to search for fraud and error is being conferred in last minute amendments slipped into the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which has now passed its third reading in the Commons and moved to the Lords.

Initially the DWP say that they will use their powers to oblige the UK’s top 15 banks to monitor the accounts of all means-tested benefits claimants and report every time an account goes over the capital limit or is used abroad for more than four weeks.

Because every DWP payment into a bank account has an identifying code attached to it, all banks know exactly which of their customers is on benefits and which benefits they receive.

Setting up software to automatically send details to the DWP of every claimant account that goes over the capital limit or is used abroad for more than four weeks will be very straightforward for banks.

The DWP say that each identified claim will be investigated in the normal way and that penalties will not be automatically imposed.

At the moment, almost 9 million claimants would be caught in the surveillance net, including:

5.8 million universal credit claimants
1.6 million employment and support allowance claimants
1.4 million pension credit claimants
Any bank failing to collect and pass on data to the DWP will be subject to heavy fines.

The new system will begin to be rolled out in 2025, though all banks may not be fully involved before 2030.

The DWP estimates that it will cost around £30 million a year for them to investigate potential fraud identified by the new system, but that they will save £500 million a year through reduced fraud and error.

They also estimate that over the first ten years, the new powers will result in 74,000 prosecution cases and 2,500 custodial sentences.

There is no doubt that the DWP intend to use these new powers much more widely. The impact assessment for the new powers says that:

“The power is not limited to a specific type of data or type of institution/Third-Party to allow us to fight new fraud and error issues as they emerge and engage with new institutions as efficient opportunities become available to us.”

Later, the same document says:

“This measure is drafted broadly . . . to enable DWP to apply this measure to non-financial organisations in future if it is deemed appropriate and proportionate”

The new surveillance powers for the DWP appear to enjoy cross party support. Only 51 MPs voted against the amendment, with 30 of those being SNP and just 7 each from Labour and the Lib Dems.

Anyone who imagines that the DWP will use such sweeping powers reasonably and proportionately probably hasn’t ever claimed benefits.

And they probably also don’t remember the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which was brought in to combat terrorism and organised crime and ended up being used to spy on dog walkers, pigeon feeders and people putting out their wheelie bins too early.

Capital and abroad fraud account for less than 15% of benefits fraud and error. The DWP will want to delve into many other aspects of claimants lives in order to identify the other 85%. This is, beyond doubt, the thin end of a very thick wedge."

I assumed they did this anyway.

The Catwoman wrote:I assumed they did this anyway.

Nothing new already happened years ago, just to scare the public, taking away the main news of how shit the tories are doing with net migration.
isn't like I'm claiming millions of pounds in benefits living in a 10-bedroom house like Buckingham Palace; the biggest benefits fraudsters are the Royals, and the fucking MPs look into their bank accounts. This system is broken poor people getting onto the spotlight news. They already know everything about me. My days of work hours, wages, etc. Why I recently told my restart advisor to fuck off your not having enough information is enough. What some information? What time did I have a shit last night? And shower write that down in my action plan. 

They like the idea of ''look over here sheeple,'' its the curtain twitchers again taking all your hard earn money in the form of benefits and selling 2nd hand stuff on eBay etc.

I think some of these powers are sort of new. They have had powers to force banks to disclose details of accounts when a fraud investigation is underway, they've done account matching for years, and they do randomly ask people to submit bank statements so they can look at balances and transactions. The difference now is all bank accounts will be reported on regardless of whether a fraud investigation is underway. It isn't just balances in what people traditionally think of as bank accounts that they can take an interest in. I do believe they take an interest in PayPal accounts. Even balances with things like online bookmakers can get you into trouble if it looks like you are using them to keep your bank balance within the capital thresholds.

I don't know if I'm overthinking this, but banks are notoriously risk averse and generally begrudge non-profitable customers. Under these DWP laws, banks will be subject to big fines if they don't comply with their duty to report bank balances. I wonder if some banks will regard some benefit claimants as too much bother to have as customers.

Ignatius wrote:I think some of these powers are sort of new. They have had powers to force banks to disclose details of accounts when a fraud investigation is underway, they've done account matching for years, and they do randomly ask people to submit bank statements so they can look at balances and transactions. The difference now is all bank accounts will be reported on regardless of whether a fraud investigation is underway. It isn't just balances in what people traditionally think of as bank accounts that they can take an interest in. I do believe they take an interest in PayPal accounts. Even balances with things like online bookmakers can get you into trouble if it looks like you are using them to keep your bank balance within the capital thresholds.

I don't know if I'm overthinking this, but banks are notoriously risk averse and generally begrudge non-profitable customers. Under these DWP laws, banks will be subject to big fines if they don't comply with their duty to report bank balances. I wonder if some banks will regard some benefit claimants as too much bother to have as customers.

What next GPS live report to your local job centre, like Google Maps timeline? Some roaches are already asking if you received any birthday money. Fucking ridiculous complete invasion into my private life, better off installing a CCTV outside every unemployed property and watching them 24/7. Universal credit claims are already becoming. Stupid, they are asking to take a selfie outside your house and upload it to your journal for proof. A proof dated letter with your address is enough evidence.

You are allowed to receive gifts. They are normally disregarded as income and you are not expected to inform the WC. Can you imagine the chaos if we all report our Christmas presents in a few weeks?

Once digital currency is introduced, that could lead to banks on behalf of the DWP, blocking any spending that people on benefits want to make - such as on alcohol and other "non-essentials" like going to a cafe for a pot of tea etc. You will find that when you try to pay for the tea, your bank will refuse the payment.

I'm stocking up now.

and report every time an account goes over the capital limit

What do they mean by this? The capital limit is £16k. Anything between £6k and £16k is subject to a rate of £1 per every £250 there is. There are also capital disregards such as a bereavement payment lump sum, monthly bereavement pay of £100 per month, the cost of living payment, back payment of things like PIP. How will the bank know if there are capital disregards or not?

I was under the impression when total capital reaches £5,500 you were to inform them, even though no deductions are made until £6,000. Certainly, the time I was "asked" to submit bank statements that was what the WC told me.

Know Your Customer legislation means bank compliance departments will know the origin of all payments marked DWP and presumably DWP capital thresholds so i'm not sure why Banks need this new tool. You are correct, Absolut that a bank will not be able to tell if a payment would be disregarded. That will be for someone at the overpressed DWP to determine.

Ignatius wrote:I was under the impression when total capital reaches £5,500 you were to inform them, even though no deductions are made until £6,000. Certainly, the time I was "asked" to submit bank statements that was what the WC told me.

There is nothing in legislation that states one must declare from £5,500 onwards. It's simply a suggestion that it's best to keep an eye on whether any monthly UC payment by the end of the month in which it is received hasn't been spent and it pushes savings over the 6k limit.

Under JSA it's incredibly difficult to get current figures to them, but under UC you simply declare it in your journal, which I admit is much better than having to take print outs into the JCP.

Ignatius wrote:You are correct, Absolut that a bank will not be able to tell if a payment would be disregarded. That will be for someone at the overpressed DWP to determine.

I had to declare that I received a £2.5k bereavement payment. It's bizarre having to declare back to the DWP something they put in my bank account and which is disregarded for 12 months.

You can save £6000 and after that they start deducting to £16000 when they stop you from getting any benefits.
They have made the banks responsible for telling the DWP and not the other way around. The banks have to tell the HMRC and DWP when the limits are hit.(actually, they have made this automatic now)
Otherwise, if I had any measly savings at 60 years old that might exceed £6000 then they would deduct me.  
Luckily as things are paid into my partner account and I do not have any accounts myself then everything is covered

Remember the election could be soon so it's all stick, stick, stick, and not much carrot. It's to muster public hate votes against disabled scroungers. It's the season of the sticks. (Has anybody seen any carrots?) its unusual that Channel 5 has not started with there poverty porn yet!

https://youtu.be/iWG6apzIWAk?season of the stick

Channel 5 too busy showing Christmas films. Poverty porn will likely resume in the new year.

Hopefully banks software will have some way of knowing when the assessment period ends and income is not capital until then. Otherwise all those people who go over a threshold on payday but by assessment day are below thresholds will add to the DWP backlogs of work.

That the DWP want to snoop into bank accounts linked to claimants is very sinister. Even hard working tax payers won't be safe if they've ever paid into a scrounger's bank account.

Sorry, who's bank accounts are they looking into?

Everybody's accounts will have to be checked to make it fair. It take time especially if they want it done every 6 week.

There is a bank code that Identifies every benefit transaction though.
That would be discrimination in the ECHR though. would it not?

jobberpw.

That wine is all going the wrong way, hun???

It's ok, it's just like going shopping these days. all backward.
not funny.

A bottle of gin going the other way would be a shock to you though.

Yes, I can no longer afford the real thing,or, not so much these days so stare at the Gif image to remember the good times. It never runs out. I have one for a pint of Guinness too .

I seem to remember that they deduct something like £1 for every £250 you are over £6,000, up to £16,000 which is when you don't get a penny off them.  My failing memory also remembers something about a trigger at banks if you go over £5,750 and claim benefits.

The banks will be able to "monitor" our account rather easily.  All they need to do is tell their computer from the 1960s is that when a benefit is paid into somebody's account, the computer then needs to see if they are over the limit - £5,750 might put a marker on the account and £6,000 would be a "let the DWP know about this sponger".

This is driving me to using cash again.  Get paid, leave enough in to cover the direct debits, withdraw the rest out.  If you're lucky enough to have a penny left over before your next pay day, stuff it under the mattress.

https://www.scope.org.uk/advice-and-support/how-savings-affect-means-tested-benefits/

If your savings are:

• under £6,000, your benefit claim is not affected by your savings
  
• between £6,000 and £16,000, you lose some of your benefit payment
  
• more than £16,000, you’re not eligible
  

Every £250 over £6,000 counts as if you had:

• £4.35 of monthly income for Universal Credit
  
• £1 of weekly income for Income-based JSA, Income-related ESA, Income Support and Housing Benefit
  

For example, you claim Income-related ESA and have £7,000 in savings.

The first £6,000 is ignored. Every £250 of the remaining £1,000 counts as £1 of weekly income.

This means £4 comes off your weekly ESA payment.

Feel I'll be safe. Take me 25 years to get to 16k, and be long gone by then.

jobberpw wrote:Feel I'll be safe. Take me 25 years to get to 16k, and be long gone by then.

Don't be such a downer, Jobberpw. We're all going to live on and on and on once we are on UC. The "entitled to" UC calculator asks you to enter your age - the age ranges offered are from 16 to 120!

If only we could reach 120, and in good health. Then have time for a decent state pension inflation linked of course in line with some , who can choose to retire at 50, but prefer us all to nearly kill o urselves into old age working as its all good for us.

jobberpw wrote:If only we could reach 120, and in good health. Then have time for a decent state pension inflation linked of course in line with some , who can choose to retire at 50, but prefer us all to nearly kill o urselves into old age working as its all good for us.

Not sure we would need a pension after we are over 120 years old, the cold will have killed us all, or the heat. Sorry forgot about the lack of heat through the new heat pumps that are going to be made compulsory like the disaster that is smart meters!!!
They are all free though! Apart from heat sumps that only work in houses covered in greenhouses in Finland!!!


We all know the triple lock pension is now bendable depending on the current events and the cost of the capitalist crisis that they formed.
YES, YOUr GUARANTEED THE BEST INTEREST RATE OUT OF THE 3 OPTIONS. Unless we fuck up and can't afford that. Sorry. We did not account for that so please fuck off

Let's guess who will get a pay rise, linked to inflation next year???

Hope youve upgraded your boiler Oneman. And bought 100 solar panels for the garden. Anyone reaching 100 + maybe nice and warm by then depending on their current age. Summers could begin in January but feel i will miss those. Still, what i need is a good old 12 hour shift in the birdseye warehouse, working for nothing, but doing the right thing.Rah! rah! rah!

Ignatius. The "entitled to" UC calculator asks you to enter your age - the age ranges offered are from 16 to 120!

You could only imagine the fuse the DWP would blow. If Ms Jeanne Calment, came through the doors. . "Sorry but the system only goes to 120 year's of age, so we need to close your claim!"....

 
"The oldest person ever whose age has been independently verified is Jeanne Calment (1875–1997) of France, who lived to the age of 122 years and 164 days".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people