To think this “crackdown” on benefit fraud is absolutely pathetic

Tax avoidance is legal. Fraud is illegal.
In reality
"The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)"
Tax revenue should be wisely and efficiently spent so benefit fraud should be correctly dealt with just as any other fraudulent activity.

But you tell the DWP as I did on Friday 1st October 2021 that I was not entitled to the monthly universal credit which was pending for payout 7 days later (I have witnesses and proof of the conversation which my family were in hysteric’s over and honestly kept asking if I’d received wages it was that bad as which I had) my employer was simply late at the time notifying HMRC of payday which caused Universal Credit to become alive and want to randomly pay out. I was not listened to once on the day by DWP call centre staff.

Only when a PIP form went in 17 months later ironically (which I have never heard back from in now 8 months) I am then being asked to repay a DWP mistake - after making a lump sump payment toward the £400 odd with NO penalty I hate to disappoint you I today pay £10 a month just in time to avoid any further action such as attachment of earnings, I’m sorry but DWP aren’t victims and yes I will be asking where my information in regards to a PIP application made 8 months ago went.

Murdoch isn’t British and doesn’t live in the U.K. why would he pay tax here?

The government already has to power it needs to look at your account. @Rosscameasdoody is not scaremongering. There is already an agreed contract in place with DWP for AI to do these checks. Nor is it new to stop payments. Nor is it against your human rights as the basic powers to check are in legislation already which is compatible with the Human Rights Act.

She is not scaremongering. She is pointing out accurately that all the Government is doing is to extend the power to do this via AI. And that is already legal to do. It is just that AI is going to be much faster and effective in making these assessments than civil servants and it is cheaper.

Is it fair or kind is another matter.

You've never claimed benefits have you?

Is your argument because group A do something wrong we shouldn't find out if group B are doing something wrong?

They aren’t proposing this for both though, only for the population that aren’t their rich buddies, only for the population who can least afford any interruption to their income, only for those who can’t afford legal action against the government. Oddly enough if you’re rich and defrauding the government it’s not considered so serious that your human rights are compromised - if you’re poor however…

This!

Nobody is saying it’s not wrong.

The constant focus on it (even their own figures say fraud and error is 0.1%) is disproportionate.

And the repeated changes made supposedly to make it harder for these small amount of people take it away from people who need it because of the difficulties they face.

I rather that benefits goes to the people who really need it. Benefit fraud is wrong. Why is this so difficult to understand? They are taking away from the disabled and genuine cases. No wonder why it gets harder and harder to get them.

Rosscameasdoody
The legislation is being put in place, and AI makes it easier to implement. It’s already being done now to a certain extent because the agreement between benefit claimants and DWP involves the acceptance that DWP will share and collect information about you between various agencies. This is just an extension of that.

"You've made countless posts on this thread along the same sinister lines. Please be responsible and post links to where you're getting this detailed, government 'fait accomplis' narrative from, because there are a lot of medically anxious MN users reading. You sound like you know what you're talking about, so please show your sources for this unsettling scenario."

She's correct. That legislation came in a while back. Chip chip chip. It's a gradual erosion of privacy and civil liberties. They try to sneak it in before anyone realises what has happened.

The government is proposing making the work capability assessment harder to meet (the bar is already extremely low - it assesses your ability to ANY job so for example one if the "tests" currently is whether you can press a button or turn the pages of a book).

The justification is that people can now all work from home and that employers are now really flexible to disabled workers and can implement a multitude of reasonable adjustments so that basically almost everyone can work. As disabled people know, the reality is far from the truth! And only office work of a certain type can really be completed from home. If you are not capable of office work then home working is not an option for you at all. The changes do not account for the types of work that are actually available on the job market nor does it take account if an individual's capability (and by that I mean job skills, education and intelligence). You will either meet the test or don't, and if not you will get required to attend regular work coach appointments, complete work related activities and/or actively seek work (which involves applying for a certain number of jobs and evidencing you have done so. Essentially ill and disabled people will be forced to look for work and complete activities beyond their capabilities as issues related to mobilising, getting out and about and incontinence will no longer be considered or you'll get fewer points for them.

The changes proposed are:

• Removing the mobilising activity entirely or changing it by bringing the distances to 20 metres down from 50 metres or reducing the points awarded for the mobilising activity. Remember that mobilising is not about people in wheelchairs. You don't have to walk the distance. Mobilising the required distances in a wheelchair currently means you won't get any points. People who have trouble mobilising are often dealing with lung conditions/breathlessness/chronic pain/chronic fatigue etc.

• Removing the getting about activity or reduce the points awarded for that activity. The getting about activity is part of the assessment of someone's mental, cognitive or intellectual functions. So can you work out how to get somewhere or your own. Can you go somewhere but only accompanied because of overwhelm or anxiety etc.

• Removing the coping with social engagement activity or reducing the points awarded for it. Because when you work from home obviously you never have to engage with anyone at work. As you know Teams and Zoom don't exist. Sorry for the sarcasm but it's fucking ridiculous. Anyhow again people usually score points in this activity if they have certain anxiety disorders or autism.

• Removing the "absence or loss of bladder control" activity or amend it so that you have to experience symptoms daily rather than weekly (presumably because they think people can schedule their incontinence for their days off). Or reduce the points awarded for this activity. I think they think that proper can work from home next to their own toilet where they can clean up if needed. But as already mentioned there aren't actually that many working from home jobs (most are hybrid if not 100% in the office) and not all jobs can be done at home anyway.

• Changing the substantial risk category. This category is for people who would not otherwise meet the criteria but if they were not found to have a Limited Capability for Work or Limited Capability for Work Related Activity this would cause a substantial risk to them or someone else. This for example might be where someone is at significant risk of a heart attack and is awaiting surgery. Doctors have said they are not well enough to work and/or complete Work Related Activity so they might therefore qualify under substantial risk. Government want to make it harder for people to get found to have a LCWRA in this circumstance either by changing the rules or by removing this altogether and therefore by making people complete activities, when their doctors have said are too unwell to do any activity. This one concerns me the most tbh.

They are intending to bring this in in 2025.

I actually think this about reducing the number of people who are in the LCWRA group. The numbers of people in this group has increase in the last couple of years, and people in this group get more money (as they are the most ill/disabled). The criteria and assessment hasn't changed in this period. But rather than looking at why people are getting more unwell (I suspect covid has had a big impact (long Covid, mental health) along with the cost of living crisis (again mental health but also ill health from poor living standard I suspect) they see just going to make it harder for the ill and disabled by making it harder for them to qualify for benefits and by reducing their income.

In addition to this (in was actually announced prior to this change but won't come in for a few years yet) they want to get rid of the WCA altogether and just have the test that applies to PIP. This makes no sense as the WCA is about the ability to work and PIP is available to both people in or out of work if they meet the criteria. PIP is also WAY harder to get. Not just because of the criteria but because the process is set up to put people off. Usually people do not get the points they are entitled to at initial assessment and they have to appeal which takes months and months and involves going before a judge! Which is understandably just too much for many people when they are sick physically or mentally. The WCA does ime tend to have fairer outcomes currently and fewer claims have to be challenged/appealed. Probably what the Tories don't like. We can't make it too fair for the poor, sick and disabled now can we!

Which is the same as the minimum wage now.

I read a news article about a woman who had her benefits stopped because the DWP thought she had a live in partner. The evidence? Bank transactions from a 'Martin McColl'. That is a shop chain! She had to prove that it was a shop and not a real person.

That phrase really hits the nail on head of what the issue is here. Not sure when that dates from but obviously old; depressing that nothing ever bloody changes!!!

God I don't. I don't want the government monitoring my bank account! You are way too trusting! We are a way too over monitored society as it is with the technology we have now. That's only going to get worse if we don't watch out.

People don't like feeling monitored. Just look at the push back people give at the idea of security cameras inside friend's homes, or people who don't like staying in holiday cottages with the owner too close by. It's not that any of them are thinking of anything wrong, they aren't. And I'm not. I do things by the book generally. But the feeling of being constantly monitored is oppressive and it feels like an invasion of privacy.

What will actually happen is they'll pick up on some claimants who have genuinely made a mistake (because benefit rules are really complex and really misunderstood), and hence make their lives hell over a few pounds they've made a mistake with. Or they'll pick up on "suspicious" account activity that isn't actually anything nefarious. These people will then be investigated. And usually their benefits will be suspended while this is happening. This process takes months and months. Is extremely stressful and while they are going through that they'll have no money to live on so will have to rely on charitable grants if they can access them and energy vouchers and food bank vouchers etc. That's the reality of this. And what for? Very little in the way of saved money but a lot spent persecuting innocent and vulnerable people.

But both isn't being done. That's the point. And the amount being lost to benefit fraud is so tiny it's very unlikely to be worth the effort and cost that's being put in. This is purely to try to win votes. Personally I'd rather they were focussing time, effort and money on resolving some of the real and huge issues that this county is facing at the moment rather than this pointless waste of time and money that will just further demonise benefit claimants and make the lives of the most vulnerable in society harder.

No one is saying that it's ok to claim benefits fraudulently. You are completely missing the point.

Here's a link, and I just googled UK gov to access claimants' bank accounts:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23903863.dwp-plan-monitor-benefit-claimants-bank-accounts/#

And after a while they’ll say they’ve identified higher than average levels of benefit claimants having ‘disposable income ‘ and use that as the basis for lowering benefits as they will ‘prove’ it’s not necessary to be the current rates and that it’s only funding things in excess of the bare basics

That is the worry, isn't it. You are only allowed to spend on the bare basics. No holidays, no pubs, no cinema, no new clothing etc. What about Christmas presents?
A couple of years ago, I sold a vehicle I was no longer able to use (doing so did not put me above £6k), and I treated myself to a VR headset. If I did that now, would it be flagged as fraud?

So what would happen if you spend too much on what they deem to be frivolous items ? Will there be a two (or more) tiered system where if you can show you aren’t buying luxuries you get more but if you do they’ll drop down your benefits to limit your spending to just the basics ? Seems that’s where we are heading. Similar to the mentality that those using food banks should get value ranges only and never ‘treats’ or have any preferences 😭

Edenred, the company that upscaled from civil service staff perks to school holiday supermarket vouchers is already well positioned to do this. No banks involved, just supermarkets getting some extra money and captive audience which they won't want to miss out on.