Truly shocked by Tory bank trials for benefit claimants.

HMRC already do this to adjust tax codes for savings income. This applies to the better off. They should monitor for benefit fraud if a similarly efficient way is possible

I think it might be a good idea to stipulate that benefits should not be used for gambling, bur it probably unworkable.

Agree. Nobody is going to have 30k lying around in the bank by mistake, nor is anybody checking going to mistake £1,000 for £100,000. It should be straightforward and if they can recoup £4 billion a year then it should be done.

I’ve actually been through the compliance process a few years ago. I don’t know why I was flagged up to investigate but I was - it was a face to face interview and they asked me to provide bank statements for all accounts and it was really straightforward I just thought they have to check and I was fine with that

I'd also worry about the competence of those doing the checking.

Concentrix/Tax Credits

Late chasing and unreasonable action re UC claims in the pandemic

Carers Allowance

And that's just three big cases that have been in the news.

PEOPLE WITH 50k IN THE BANK ARE ‘BETTER OFF’!!!!!

Just wanted to flag a few points as the article does make it sound like large amounts of money in the bank are much more prevalent than they likely are.

8.4% of accounts were found to be "in risk" of breaking financial rules. So over 90% were not. We don't know how many of those 60k accounts have actually broken the rules. Some might be cases of being under transitional rules or have some other temporary disregarded cash (sale from one house about to be a deposit for another for example).

The average value of these accounts was £50k. Using the average here would not be advisable, as averages are skewed by outliers. The average could have been increased significantly by a small handful of accounts having exceptionally large balances. The median or more figure would tell a clearer picture. Also, again we don't know which balances have actually broken any rules, so it's meaningless.

Lastly the article doesn't make it clear how the accounts were selected or which bank used. Without this information it's not possible to tell if this is a representative sample of the population or not.

Looking in people's bank accounts is intrusive. Introduce it to check the better off are paying what they should and hear the howls of protest. The people clamouring for it would be the first to complain if they were on the receiving end and assumed to be a fraudster. It's the first step to reducing or even eliminating low income benefits as they will gradually bring in more monitoring, restrict what you can spend money on etc. I can honestly see the poor being driven back to a life of sackcloth dresses and gruel by this lot if they are not voted out.

She could do what other people have to do - get one off fb marketplace, put on a credit card, rent one ? In terms of a car of her child is severely disabled she could get a motability car or use taxis ? Nobody NEEDS £20k and benefits just in case !

@canp Definitely. Investigate both

Yes fine, I'd be happy for them to do this.

But I'm also happy for them to verify that benefits aren't being fraudulently claimed.

They are separate issues.

I agree too. I’ve a friend who inherited a reasonable but in the scheme of things, small amount (20k)
she is low income single mum to a Sen child, unlikely to ever have another chunk of money like that. So what’s and needs to save it to do things like, replace a fridge, replace her car when it dies nothing extravagant and nothing excessive. Yet she has to use it to live rather than protect herself from the inevitable poverty issues later on.

What whataboutery?

I said nothing about anyone/thing else bar that I'd want to see better figures from a Tory output in a dumbed down piece from the Mirror syndicate.

I think both govts would tackle it

If UC was regulated properly and checks done on everyone the money saved would be a lot. Maybe then they could increase carers allowance for example . People shouldn’t be claiming if they aren’t entitled - this isn’t really about the conservatives (I hate them as much as the next person) it’s just verifying eligibility and there are criteria and cut offs for everything it’s not personal attacks

I work in an industry where I regularly review individual's bank statements. The stories they tell never cease to amaze.

Not just talking about accounts which are receiving some kind of benefits here. Some of the covid bounce back loans. Straight into gambling companies! 😳

Plenty of accounts where benefits coming in also getting regular, large payments coming in from individual names.

It's truly mind boggling and always an interesting read.

I can just imagine a thread on here for example ‘im on UC but working cash in hand and not declaring but it’s ok because Starbucks don’t pay enough tax’

Im sure everyone would agree …..or what’s more likely is they’d be having a go at the OP 🤦‍♀️

Another Tory post to drum up support with their lies 🙄

I think even if it's 1%, it is worth stopping. 1% will be thousands and thousands of people.

Nobody should be defrauding the benefits system or the tax system. Whether they are a random low income benefits claimant with £50k in the bank or whether they are a conservative mp not paying their taxes.

It's just whataboutery to bring up other problems when we do have a serious problem with people defrauding the state.

By checking everyone properly not just going by what they put in the claim would save a lot of money and then the government would back off attacking those who are unwell/on PIP ! It seems logical to me to ensure that all benefits are being correctly claimed. Some cases may be complicated but they’ll be investigated and verified or not

Exactly. Have a root around and see if any Russian money is involved.

Why would anyone mind it being checked that they are legally entitled to UC depending on their savings and the eligibility criteria ?? It’s like saying they shouldn’t check if someone actually has a child for them to claim child benefit ??? Like it or not there is eligibility criteria for these things and they need to check !

8% allegedly for one and 1% for another. 8% if this accurate - and knowing our government's ability to obfuscate, bend, get wrong and downright lie about figures - you have a point. But 1%, it shouldn't happening at all but hardly worth shit stirring over.

And shit stirring is exactly what you're doing. There have been so many of these threads lately I'm beginning to wonder if we have the entire Comms team of Tory central on MN.

Hahaha you know all these paper just copy and paste from the Daily Fail and such like op? I wouldn't believe a word of it.

Drop in the ocean compared to if we started looking at tory bank accounts and comparing the balance to HMRC tax records.