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

I agree. But a copy of a consultants’ report isn’t necessarily going to help if it isn’t specific to what DWP are looking for. I do realise that a detailed report is going to be expensive, but a lot of claimants ask for them because it gives the opportunity to let the consultant know the type of information needed. I obtained mine by giving the consultant a copy of the assessment criteria so that his report was more relevant and left the DWP assessor no room for doubt or argument. It’s unfair because costs may be prohibitive, and strictly speaking DWP should obtain all the information necessary to make the best possible decision. But that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon !!

Spot on. Not to mention that means tested benefits all require the claimant to declare anything that could be classed as income. So Uncle Ernie sends you fifty quid for your birthday via online banking. You forget to declare it, or don’t realise you have to. AI picks it up and stops your benefit until it’s sorted out. It’s going to catch a lot of people out. A lot of fuss and expenditure on chasing something that isn’t going to bring in much extra revenue when you compare it with what a similar crackdown on tax fraud could bring in. But that’s much harder and would affect the tories and their rich mates. So much better to paint benefit claimants as layabouts in preparation for squeezing them yet again.

I read something similar, but nothing is confirmed - Hunt is staying tight lipped. Interesting if it does come to pass. In the days of DLA, a claimant could automatically qualify for the ESA support group and LCWRA payment just by qualifying for the higher rate care component of DLA. The Tories stopped that when PIP was introduced by changing the work capability assessment to include specific categories qualifying claimants for LCWRA. Interesting that they’ve come up with a way to reintroduce it now it’s more advantageous to them rather than the claimant.

I think this is all tied in to the work capability assessment. There are proposals to scrap it and just have the assessment currently used for PIP. It’s bonkers because PIP has nothing to do with the ability to work but the assessment does look at the level of disability present, so that has implications. The PIP assessment is also a lot harsher than the work capability assessment so it’s possible that they could assess for eligibility for ESA and PIP in one go, and base the proposed health element on that - I can see how that would result in a lot less successful claims if the dogs breakfast they’ve made of PIP assessments is anything to go by. But presumably - as with PIP - there would also be a lot more appeals, so difficult to know exactly how it would save money. Personally I think this is a sign that the conservatives are desperate in the run up to the election and looking for cheap and nasty policy to pull in more votes. And as usual benefit claimants get the crappy end because the British public too easily buy into the government narrative that they’re all cheats and layabouts.

I think before you say other people are spouting rubbish, then maybe check the facts yourself.
£16k in capital means you can not claim benefits. Your benefits actually start tapering off once you have £6k....

GP record include copies of consultants' letters, fortunately - if you can get digital access. I hope most people can get this now.

In my own PIP claim, I knew I needed to build a watertight case.

Yep, that happened to a friend of mine. He was diagnosed with arthritis, along with ASD. He "rocked the boat" with his PIP, and actually lost money. He genuinely though he was going to get more.

Nope. Wrong on all points. The algorithm will flag up people who have over the savings limit. It will also flag up any payment receive into your bank account that you haven’t declared to DWP - means tested benefits require the claimant to declare anything they receive and DWP decides if it’s treated as income. The algorithm could potentially flag up something like birthday or Christmas gift money paid directly into a bank account and suspend benefit while it’s investigated.

And there are proposals - which the government openly admits - to look at disability claimants’ bank accounts to see what they spend their money on. This is allowed for in the Rights And Responsibilities agreement which claimants agree to as a condition of claiming benefits. Basically the DWP has the right to collect and share information regarding claimants with any agency they see fit.

I agree, but for disability benefits, a straight printout of GP records wouldn’t be much use. Benefit eligibility criteria is complicated and specific, and that’s why claimants ask for reports from GPs and consultants which are tailored to these criteria. It avoids any opportunity for DWP assessors to argue the toss if GP records are not specific enough.

Sorry but this is incorrect. If you are on means tested benefits any money that comes into your bank account is supposed to be declared, regardless of whether it takes you over the savings threshold. It’s income. If Aunty sends you £30 for Christmas via your bank account it absolutely will be scrutinised and the algorithm would flag it up, benefit would be suspended and the claimant would then have to justify themselves to DWP’s satisfaction for benefit payments to start up again.

You clearly don’t know much about how the benefit system works. At present, anyone claiming income related (means tested) benefits can be asked for a bank statement at any time - DWP usually check claimants bank accounts on a regular basis by asking for bank statements periodically. The proposed system of a AI checking on a monthly basis will just replace that. And there are absolutely plans underway to check what disability benefit claimants spend their money on. The government is open about that. It’s most definitely ordinary people who will be caught out if they don’t properly understand the rules for claiming means tested benefits. As your post has very eloquently demonstrated.

I think that one of the best things that any claimant can do for themselves, or a relative/friend they're helping, is to find out if their GP surgery allows digital access to patients' medical records - they should do - and register. This means that at any point the claimant/patient/appointee can print out up-to-date copies of summary care or more detailed evidence.

This includes letters from hospitals, blood test results and scan results. Once you get the hang of it, it's all there, often behind a paperclip icon (for a letter) or another screen (for blood results).

And it's all free.

Unfortunately the social worker was right. When you challenge a PIP decision it goes to a different case worker/decision maker who may not agree with the original decision. They don’t just review the part you are challenging, they review the whole award. For example if you get a higher rate care award but nothing for mobility, and you challenge them because you think you have a case for mobility as well, you risk ending up with nothing if the new decision maker doesn’t agree with the care award.

I always think it interesting that there are two separate routes into getting a Blue Badge: via PIP (the automatic qualification based on mobility points), and via an application made directly to the Council.

The latter really does favour people who can obtain letters from their GP surgery, many of whom now charge for this service.

My GP charges a whopping £180 for the necessary detailed letter.

I think you are getting paranoid. The algorithm will only flag you up if you have over £16k in a bank account. It's not looking at what you spend money on. The DWP might make mistakes especially human error but bank algorithms are less likely to make mistakes. If someone sent you £30 for Xmas no one would care if it didn't send you over £16k. No one thinks the majority of people are on the fiddle. However there will be a few who are. If they get caught that's a good thing because the benefits should be reserved for genuine cases. Just think for a moment. If a person is claiming benefits they have to show a bank statement when they first claim. If they inherit a lot of money but don't declare it because they don't want their benefits to stop, no one would know if there are no regular checks. It's to catch out people like that not ordinary people who have legitimate claims and not much savings.

This is absolute rubbish no one is checking what you spend your benefits on. The algorithm we I'll only flag a person up if they have over £16k in their bank account. If you haven't you have nothing to worry about. It's not like a person checking it's an AI algorithm.

@caringcarer It is terrifying for people on benefits to have their bank accounts monitored, even those who are not "on the fiddle" because the DWP have a history of making mistakes and incorrectly stopping people's benefits, then taking years to put things right. Although, if you've never had dealings with them you won't realise this. It's also terrifying for benefits claimants because we don't know, as yet, whether our outgoings will also be scrutinised. Will we get our benefits stopped if Aunty whoever sends us £30 for Christmas? Where will this end? If they are allowed to do this, then what will the next thing be? Just because we claim benefits we shouldn't be treated as second class citizens and have no rights to privacy.

I don't have a choice. I can not live off of nothing.
I submitted to the initial check, but this new scheme is going to go down a slippery slope.. not just checking what is in my bank account, but what I am spending it on. Spend money on gas... fine. A tea in Costa... must be fraud!

You will have a choice, claim benefits and agree to bank balance checks by an algorithm each month or stop claiming benefits. A person could inherit a lot of money, put it in the bank and still claim benefits as the system is now. If people do nothing wrong they have nothing to fear.

I don't see anything terrifying about it. I don't claim benefits but I wouldn't care if tax people wanted to check my bank account. It would only be terrifying if a person was claiming something to which they were not entitled. They won't be treated as guilty because if they were guilty they would be charged.

Believe it or not, many people do not have a choice when it comes to benefits. I am unable to work, so I am on UC. Am I meant to just live off of fresh air otherwise?

I had my bank account checked when I first claimed (to check I didn't not have savings etc). Why should I now be subject to monthly checks?

Then people should only claim benefits if they are happy for checks made on their bank accounts. If they don't want the checks they should keep their human rights but not claim. I don't claim benefits but I'd have no problem the tax people checking my account to see I'm paying my taxes.

Bank accounts will be monitored. As it is right now, bank accounts of claimants are only monitored if fraud is suspected.
All claimants will be treated as guilty until proven innocent. It is terrifying and a huge invasion of privacy.

You are conflating tax avoidance which is perfectly legal eg. putting money into an ISA to avoid paying tax on profit. Putting more money into a pension to stay under an earning cap for tax, with tax evasion which is not declaring correct profits to evade paying their taxes due.

If a person is truthful and only claims what they are entitled to and don't lie on their claim, they have nothing to fear. You can only be caught committing fraud if you are committing fraud. Same with workpeople and businesses if everything you earn you pay tax on you have nothing to fear from checks. Cheats shouldn't prosper.