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.

@BIossomtoes said:
Do what you like, I really can’t be arsed. The figures speak for themselves.

They would, if you would supply the figures I asked for.
Your own costs would do. I don't need to know what you earn. Just the costs.
Provided, of course, that you yourself are a single person over 23.

Banks already check accounts. They already have reporting responsibilities towards HMRC and need to check individual and corporate accounts for fraud, sanctions busting, drug dealing etc. It doesn't mean they hand over your statements, it just means they report any suspicious activity. People here are making this into something it isn't! I assume you do realise that bank staff can already see your statements.

The hairdresser is a friend of mine, she's also on ESA (or the UC equivalent I think, she's not been on it as long as me) and isn't allowed to work

Except you are allowed to work if you get ESA. If you have been/are on ESA, whether legacy or new style, I am surprised you don't know this.

www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/working-while-you-claim

I didn't realise people were unaware of this sort of behaviour, we may move in different circles!

Of course I am not unaware. I was merely noting the coincidence that when ever there is a thread like this, people come on to tell us all about the financial ins and outs of the benefits cheats they know. It is like clockwork.

Way to tar non-working benefit claimants with same brush.

Use your own costs. The point I made has been proved - work pays and anyone with even the lowest paid job is better off than if they were on universal credit.

@Boomboom22 my dear friend struggled to do a degree while raising 2 DC on benefits (she could do this because in the old days a single parent didn't have to look for work until the youngest child reached 16). She topped her benefits up with all sorts of little side hustles - car boot sales, doing a weird fire swinging thing people would pay to watch. Then one day her abusive ex dobbed her in. A few days later she hanged herself.

Sorry.

I assume you do realise that bank staff can already see your statements.

Of course they can, but only in the context of legitimate business need and they can’t stop your income indefinitely if they see something that in their view looks a bit odd.

I work in a sector where we do sometimes need to see bank statements. I think government might start to make it a requirement that if you receive benefits, you would need a bank account that is part of the 'open banking" scheme.

This way you have an overview of income and outgoings.

Hopefullu absent parents who avoid CMS claims will incur the same invasive checks…

I would imagine what they will do is what they did a few years ago is use a credit checking company like Experian and check your credit file
as far as I can remember even back in 2004 /2003 when you applied for tax credits they did this and checked the electoral roll to see who was living at the address especially if I was a single mother claim
If I didn’t add up to what was on the claim form
such as more than one person was on the electoral roll then they would do a credit check on you to see if you were financially linked to anyone at that address like a partner if you had any joint accounts or loans

This would also show what bank accounts savings accounts and credit you have at your address in your name
Then from that if you have only declared one account they will see the other accounts so no that you haven’t been truthful and go from there

When I check my credit file I can see my bank account and when I opened it
it’s got my mobile phone account on there as well
it will show any credit cards / savings accounts I have in my name anyone I’m financially associated with how long I’ve lived at my address and stuff like that

Wouldn't that be an idea.

Why would the government need to know what someone spends their benefits on?
Once it is in your account, it is yours to spend as you wish, be that sensibly or not.
Otherwise we can end up on the slippery slope of being told certain spending is inappropriate.

@Boomboom22 Would they be the same families the Joseph Rowntree Foundation couldnt find?

That might worry a few Tory MPs...

work pays and anyone with even the lowest paid job is better off than if they were on universal credit
Simply not true. UC is £368pw, min wage after tax is £343pw. Plus if you’re on min wage you lose all the freebies like free prescriptions and dental, free school meals, council tax support, etc. You also have to pay for travel to work and possibly for wrap around childcare too. So I think you can see that min wage is a LOT less than UC.

😂😂

UC is £368 per month for over 25s excluding rent.

You're right, I forgot sorry! I believe I am allowed to work but I've not tried (I'm genuinely not well enough), I don't believe you'd last long on ESA though if you did, it's intended for people who aren't well enough to work. Indeed, when I made the mistake of saying a few years ago that I was hopeful I'd soon be well enough to maybe do something a few hours a week, I quickly got chucked off and had to reapply (it was reinstated immediately). My mate certainly doesn't let them know she's able to work, her claim depends on her not being able to be do hairdressing.

I'm not sure why you think it a coincidence? I could say it's a coincidence that lots of people suddenly turn up knowing people who are desperately struggling - I don't declare that they must be lying because I know so many who scam the system, I believe them as I believe most claimants are genuine. I stated my experience to hopefully add to the discussion, many here seem to think that nobody would ever play the system and that's very much not true; I understand why the government wants to crack down, though as I stated before I don't think this approach will work as most people are either genuine or have enough braincells to not put their ill-gotten gains in their current account. But I don't care if they want to try it, I have nothing to hide.

UC is £368pw

It’s not. It’s £368.74 a MONTH.

https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

I don't have a problem with the authorities seeing the funds coming in to bank accounts, but I object to the idea that anyone can police how the money is spent. Unless and until, someone significantly falls short of their parenting responsibilities.

I think that this initiative is designed to flush out the people who take money out of the pockets of people who need it while they are living long term outside the UK, or claiming benefits and working on the black.

No no, UC is paid MONTHLY. That's £368 PER MONTH for a single person versus £343 PER WEEK on minimum wage. Which VERY ROUGHLY works out as £1,200 a month after tax.

I can see why you got confused, UC really is that low for a single person. Hard to believe right?

No, UC is £368 per month.
That equates to £92 pw... significantly less than what someone on minimum wage gets.
And free NHS dental care is hardly a benefit when there are no NHS dentists to provide it.

How else do they monitor the cap on savings?
I assumed they already would do this

UC is £92pw in your pocket and your rent gets covered separately.

Min wage is £343pw, rent is going to be at least £100pw, travel to work is going to cost at least £50pw, leaving you with £193.

So you are £101pw better off for working. Except you’ve lost your entitlement to free school meals, prescriptions and dentistry, council tax support, warm home discount scheme, cold weather payments, and various other discounts available to UC claimants. But the big issue is going to be childcare - it’s going to cost around £100pw per child, more during the holidays.

As a single person you’re a few hundred quid per month better off working. With one child you break even - and most won’t bother if they aren’t going to be better off for making the effort. Two or more kids and there’s no point working.

@Spirro Evens out though cos as a single person with no kids its back of the queue for social housing or not in the queue at all.