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.

That’s really not what this is though is it? It’s a check to ensure no one is falsely claiming. They do not have access to your accounts. Nor will they. Simply the bank will highlight anyone whose account shows they do not meet the criteria for benefits.

if people are honest in their claims ie the innocent there is nothing to fear.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear eh ? Not quite so sure the list of people wrongly jailed and sanctioned and losing their children due to conspiracies and cock ups would perhaps see it that way.

Yeah, that's the current proposals. Nothing to suggest they won't go further if they can. The more rabid Tories have always been keen on looking at ways to make sure people on benefits spend their money in prescribed ways, they just haven't been able to achieve that. Yet.

However, it's a moot point as (hopefully) Labour won't go down that route.

Someone at the guarniad fell asleep when they did the area of a circle at school.

I have a relative surviving on benefits and I help them out with bits and pieces for unexpected expenses when I can, (not on a regular basis, I can't afford to do that) . The income that the government provides people on Universal Credit with is the bare minimum imo, it doesn't allow for anything unexpected and very few claimants will have savings put by.

Does this proposal mean that the little bits of money from me will end up reducing my relative's benefits?

Meanwhile very wealthy MPs and their mates get away with all sorts. Why am I not surprised?

It’s also a moot point as that’s not the proposal. I mean we can get hysterical about anything not suggested, like they want to listen into your home, monitor your spending, or put curfews on, but since no one is suggesting any of that crap it’s a bit much to run round panicking they might.

No. That gets treated the same way as child support I think. This is for people with serious levels of savings they haven't declared.

When I was on income support in Finland they had something similar, except that the claimant themselves had to do the legwork. Every month I had to queue up at my bank to get them to print off my statement and send it in with my application for that month (had to reapply every single month). It was a big hassle and belittling and made me feel untrusted. Anyone who wanted to hide money would make sure they got it in cash instead of into their account so wouldn't help catch those people anyway.

It’s an invasion of privacy. What exactly are they looking for, seeing if you’re on benefits but shopped at Waitrose last week?

They already do it?

My relative (single parent but works FT) is in receipt of the old housing benefit (not much maybe £150 a month) and she gets an annual bonus at work of £1k. Every year her H.B claim in automatically cancelled as something is flagged by DWP.

She cannot advise them in advance (as she needs her payslip) and the claim is cancelled almost immediately. She is able to reinstate her claim the following month when she can provide a payslip to prove the bonus was a one off (even though payslip clearly says "annual bonus")

So they can and do notice these things.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal though. The use of pensions, ISAs and some salary sacrifice arrangements are all legitimate ways of avoding tax!

I imagine that there'll be a fair amount of AI / data analytics used anyway, much as they already use software to pick up any inconsistencies on taxpayer data that could point to tax evasion.

HMRC also already has has a shared service to check bank account details are correct, and other government departments and local authorities ca also collect bank details and checl them with the shared service. They can't, without a court order I don't think, actually access the transaction level detail.

But given taxpayers are already subject to scrutiny, I don't see why benefit claimants shoud be exempt, and I think it's reasonable to make sure that those claiming are entitled to do so.

Right now that's not what its for. But they are revising the benefit system all the time and it gets more and more bonkers. Housing benefit was changed from the median rent to 30% of the median rent. And frozen in 2019. So now many claimants have been forced into extreme poverty and are facing homelessness. Just last week single parents of 3 year olds now have to work 30 hours a week, forcing people working 20 hours a week to spend another 10 hours looking for work, on top of caring for a 3 year old.

I can absolutely see a time when benefits are linked to spending and reduced if it's deemed you are able to meet your minimum living requirements.

I agree with you I think they’ll move the goalposts from checking for undeclared income / fraud to dictating on spending and what is deemed frivolous for those on benefits . It’s a slippery slope

I think the banks should be monitoring the accounts of all politicians from this lot we are suffering presently, and report back.
The costs.... I bet you they will be using this famous AI system to highlight any issues.
And, to be honest, I have seen both ends of the stick. I know of people who are on benefits, but seem to be living rather well. And others who would really need more than they get. I have to confess the system has always baffled me. There is always a little tick box or other form or other claim... that is meant to get you more help. But I thought that was meant to be sorted at the time of UC. All we got is people getting nothing for six weeks.
The politicians do not seem to be able to do much right these days.

I hate this. It's already had the tax paid when it was bought originally if you're just selling your old clothes etc.
People are selling things in some cases to pay bills and eat.

No it isn't the proposal, but it is not "hysterical" to ponder the fact that the Tories might push this further if they ever get the chance.

I mean, if I had said three years ago that the Tories were going to send migrants to Rwanda, or have parties when the rest of us were forbidden to do so, or remove tents from homeless people, some might have suggested I was being "hysterical".

The current government is stuffed with cruel psychopaths and I would put nothing past them.

It will cost less to check via AI and suspend payments. This software has already been successfully trialed so give over imagining it's going to be too expensive or won't come about. It's already working.

"Going anywhere nice on your holidays ?"

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/dwp-contact-airlines-your-travel-28054513

Well actually a job coach will probably get to make a decision on that. And the you can appeal to a case manager. And whatever they decide goes. UC is incredibly haphazard on the way that it's applied so one person can end up with a completely different decision. And it is impossible to challenge or get common sense to enter the room. I was on the phone to the DWP and the lady I was speaking to acknowledged that the system didn't make sense on this issue I was talking about but there was nothing to be done.

But how do they know how many accounts you have? What if you only gave them 4 accounts?

How much is a large amount of money?
What about rental payments to a private landlord?
Or cms payments?
Or people who have a gambling addiction and spend hundreds in one go?
Spending is so subjective, I hope this is just a policy

I thought they had access anyway

Universal credit threshold is £16k.

At the moment, it us already the case that the money you give is seen as an ‘income’ and should be declared.
The relative would be better if you were buying stuff fir them rather than give them some money there and then.
Or use cash.

It will cost less to check via AI and suspend payments. This software has already been successfully trialled

What you mean is a trial was called successful and then what it did was written back into the original brief. It's how my "successful" attempt to cook a roast was actually meant to burn it to a crisp.

I know exactly what AI can and can't do. Mainly can't.