Government to require banks to do monthly checks on the accounts of people on benefits and report back

[IncompleteSenten]

I read about this here.

metro.co.uk/2023/11/06/benefits-claimants-to-have-bank-accounts-checked-monthly-in-crackdown-19779875/

Do you think they will do it or it'll be blocked?

It sounds awful. If I was on unemployment benefit I'd feel really humiliated. I understand fraud happens but bloody hell this is really not on.

In theory it's not a bad idea given the amount of unreported benefit fraud, but as the fraudsters clearly know how to play the system the surely they'll know how to deal with any such checks, so pointless.

I didn't know we had 5.4 million people unemployed.

That seems like a lot.

I wouldn't really care. I receive some UC top up (hoping to get off it soon as shortly I don't have to act as carer) but not much is private nowadays.

Are bank tellers going to be getting paid any extra money for doing this. You’re probably talking of thousands of bank accounts. Its going to take a lot of time and work to do, isn’t it.
If they’re busy all day with customers. Where is the time coming from to do all these weekly checks. Will it mean them working longer hours.
The time has to come from somewhere.

It's wrong and if they suspect fraud then they can get access As a country we have enough going on fingers crossed this is just another headline maker as if it happens this will just be the start and surely you spend your money on what you want it may be a grey area but do we potentially want a goverment telling all what they can buy

pity they cant do similar with the cms and let the children gain from more stringent checks

I’m not sure people realise how far this could go. This is NOT about people who work cash in hands (unless they are stupid enough to put that money on their account or pay all their groceries by cash for example).

No it will be
1- person A has transferred £50 twice to you (to help with paying for the heating/groceries…). You should have declared it so here is a penalty if £xx fir that (or we are suspending your claim etc….)
2- you’ve given £100 to person B every month for the last 12 months. This is depravation of assets so here is £xx penalty and/or we suspend you claim.

The system would be fully automated. (Which would mean a computer program actually working which might be an issue anyway) it will flag whatever you’ve decided it to flag. Maybe regular payments or the presence of some type if spending etc…
A lot if those payments/spending might well be completely ok under the UC rules. But they’ll have to be investigated. You’ll have to prove to them you haven’t done anything wrong. And in the mean time, you don’t get
paid. Money saved by HMRC. More heartbreak and stress and worry for UC who’ll end up watching every spending in case it triggers a check. Reduced ability to receive help from outside etc…

It is already the case btw.
Eg you can’t cash in your pension and give it to your child who is struggling - deprivation of assets. Never mind that whatever you have in your pension pot has no impact on your current situation.
But that would become ‘automatic’

That is exactly it @CameleonAreFightingBack.

Currently human beings do this. But AI will have millions of claims to compare, so lots of data points to see what "normal" looks like.

The point about AI refusing your payment subject to query raised is exactly what happened in the trial. Then you could apply and ask for it to be reinstated by a human being. But the point is that no human being could ever have so much data on what "normal" looks like ever before. It means the claimant having to fit in with all other claimants, very strictly, and will get tougher each time as the AU learns what looks like fraud or additional income.

This is why the DWP absolutely love it. It will set objective standards which will be hard to counter argue against. And it will take you an age to get s human being who will turn compare you against the AI's judgment.

I think it should

I think all public money spending should be scrutinised

Well if you are happy to open that can of worms, how long before they start securitizing what what you spend your money on when you are in receipt of a state pension for example? That is why people question it because erosion of civil liberties doesn't happen all at once does it?

Quite. How are they going to monitor the right account? And anyway, your ds wouldn't be receiving income-related benefits which is what I suspect they want to monitor.

Exactly. It’s the thin end of the wedge. Hopefully the banks will tell them to fuck off.

The banks have already said yes! This has been trialled already this year. It works.

That is not to say it's something that will be liked, but stopping it is not going to happen. The government already has the power to do it, it will just now actually extend it.

Where are they going to find the manpower to do that? Or a computer program that actually works and doesn't fuck things up like that post office one did?!

Besides, I can't help thinking that the banks themselves wouldn't be all that happy with releasing customer data. I know they have to do it when required to do so (as part of an ongoing legal case for instance) but for everybody?

Pah.

Quite happy for them to look at what I spend my state pension on
Also happy for them to tally it against what I paid in.

You say that but you have no idea of what they might decide was a misuse of public funds or what else they may tie to your entitlement if you start down that path, you are being wilfully ignorant or just plain stupid here, neither is a good look.

Disingenuous, I think @whitewingdove.

If I was defrauding DWP I'd be using a bank account they didn't know about. I expect most fraudsters would do the same? This seems on the same level of pettiness as the tent thing, a pointless exercise in persecution by minor officials to satisfy fans of Gross Bigot News.v

Mr Farage just received a few quid for having his bank details disclosed. Will the same apply for proles?

But what if someone is using a food bank regularly? They won’t have many food costs on their statement?

And if they decide you don't need that phone contract and can have X instead? Or that your subscription to whatever is unnecessary? Or you are spending too much on food?

There is no way for them to know what will happen once monthly monitoring of their bank accounts is considered acceptable.

Well quite. I'd be dealing only in cash. You'd have to be as thick as pigshit not to be doing that already tbh!

You'd run your bank account in a way consistent with your official income then use cash for everything else, surely.

I'm not a criminal so I'm not exactly sure how it works but I feel confident enough to assume they don't top up their bank accounts with their 'ill gotten gains' 🤦

It's only for those claiming means tested benefits. If the rules are you can't claim if you have more than £16k in your account the bank will apply a filter showing any bank account going over £16k. If you've got more than £16k.in your account you shouldn't be claiming these means tested benefits.

If it saves £1.3blion in fraud then that's 1.3 billion that could be spent on giving more help to genuine claimants.

Yes I heard that too. But only on people with lots of sales, IE on line shops not people just selling on a few bits of clothes.

Who exactly are the innocent in this? Anyone claiming with more than £16k in their bank account is not innocent. 🤷