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.

Exactly. And if you are single with no kids and can't pay the inflated private rent you won't get so much as a dodgy hotel room never mind a flat. If it's up to Suella, you won't even get a tent.

Honestly if you are really interested use a calculator like entitled too and actually take a look yourself.

Single person - better off in working

Single person with two children - you get £850 ish per month on UC if you don't work. If you do work you would get you salary of £1200 ish a month, plus £625 UC, and 80% of your child care costs. So you would still be better off in work. Yes you would loose your free school meals, but you would have an additional £1000 a month coming in to cover them. You would also get help with your rent up to your local housing allowance.

Council tax is completely separate to UC and most single parents claim UC would still get some form of council tax assistance. Also single people on low income claiming UC to top up can also get council tax assistance.

I would either stop now as your are looking stupid/bigoted and educate yourself with something other than the daily mail. 👍🏻

I admire your determination but you lost your argument about four pages ago. And a huge chunk of people claiming UC are in work.

I admire your patience @Runningonjammiedodgers, mine was wearing very thin!

well i thought they already had powers and also if anybody has over 16k this news will just see them withdrawing funds to a more sensible level in plenty of time incase this does happen ,cash in hand will carry on just that no paper trace

those that get other dodgy payments may just open a seperate account and not diverge they have it,what would be the problem with sending money abroad if they are entitled to the benefit??

i think people are worried when it really wont effect them not that im in favour im not and cant wait till they are voted out they seem to be messing with every part of the welfare state

say for example i get £1270 income based a month + 400 pip + 160 cms a month =£1830 i leave £900 in the bank for DD's and take the rest in cash to spend as i wish eg pay the cleaner,son's hobby etc i dont think thats wrong

lets make sure they get voted out

@XenoBitch I think a government agency would be more interested in the income and balance, not the outgoings. Wanting to see balance levels and income other than benefits.

Yes come on they want to use this to track whether you've got a partner who contributes to the household etc. DWP seem to be applying AI analysis across the board in their work, have already got a contract in place. So yes it's going ahead.

Exactly. They're hardly going to put it legitimatly through their bank, are they

I wonder whether they could legally have done that when we were in Europe?

When we were in Europe.... dreaming of a golden age... Europe has its own problematic areas. It really isn't all wine and roses once you get to Calais, or why are there people queuing to get on small unseaworthy inflatable boats to head to the Kent coast?

Well, it would show up as going in and coming out of the bank

Try Googling all the social services stats for the GARD province in France. It's not pretty reading, and it will probably make you feel quite pleased you don't live there. It is also, just to make my point, one of the strongholds of the Front Nationale. It has a huge north african population, but there are still a lot more French people, who will eventually, dominate the outcome. I hope.

It's not the income into the account they will want to see, but a pattern of spending across the whole month that is consistent with there being no other income. In theory the monthly pattern should show the outgoings for any own-cobtributions to rent, all bills etc and a steady regular spend on food which is proportionate to the household size. If there are major discrepancies eg no evidence of food shopping then that would be investigated as possibly indicating that someone has another income source and is buying food from their cash-in- hand income.

It only works if you compell people to run all transactions through their bank account. People could simply take out their entire income in cash the day after receiving it.

I agree with those saying it's concerning for where it could lead. It is so intrusive and I can truly see it leading to analysing someone's spending and giving instructions or setting restrictions. People can say they wouldn't do that but until I read that article I would have insisted they wouldn't set up monthly monitoring!

If I was on income support and was working under the table or had dodgy funds coming from somewhere then I'd just not put it through my bank account. Tbh I wouldn't have been doing that in the first place. Do people committing benefit fraud typically run it all through their bank accounts?

They aren't going to catch fraudsters because who would be stupid enough to use bank accounts to do that? They surely just keep it in cash or use someone else's bank account.

if you don't think AI will flag cash being taken out as a point for query then you are not thinking clearly. That is what it will be looking for!

@Spirro Exactly!

I see @BIossomtoes hasn't suggested any figures. If she reads your posts, she will see there is a lot to take into account.

@BIossomtoes I used to advise many people in unfortunate circumstances, and I've had to live on benefits myself, sometimes simultaneously. My own costs: I'm retired and on State Pension, living comfortably and frugally on a legacy. Your costs would be more accurate to use than mine would

In a moment of annoyance, many decades ago, I asked a DHSS (old DWP) just after I had signed on, how I was supposed to manage on the money I was entitled to. Her reply: "It's up to you how you spend your money"

I'm retired and on State Pension, living comfortably and frugally on a legacy. Your costs would be more accurate to use than mine would

I doubt it since I too am retired on state and occupational pensions and am mortgage free.

In any event, the assertion made by the pp who started all this was that work should pay more than benefits - which it unquestionably does, regardless of the cost of working.

That £92 has to pay for everything, possibly a top up for rent if HB does not pay enough.

Also, someone on that rate of UC will be in the group that has to prove they are job seeking with threat of sanction if they don't. Their transport costs to the job centre and interviews also has to come out of that.

Where on earth did you pluck the £50 per week travel figure from?! Especially now with some jobs - even min wage ones - being WFH or hybrid. Some pay more to commute but many pay less. I spend £15 per week commuting to work.
Childcare costs vary hugely. After school club and breakfast club is cheap around here. Lots of people have grandparents collecting or taking to school which saves an hour here and there.
Prescription costs are an issue but you can get a pre paid certificate.

I don't have any occupational pensions. I'm just lucky that I've been left some money by a relative. And I too am mortgage free.

So neither of our costs would do for the calculation, then.

You could give us a reasonable guess what you think costs would be. Or ask a family member. Then we can accept that your opinion is an informed one. And then I can work out what "considerably more" is in percentage terms, two values in fact, before and after costs are taken into account.

Work may pay more, but that is different from it paying to work. It depends on the circumstances. Yes, UC is more than min wage f/t. What we have moved on to discussing, I thought, was what you meant by "considerably more" (your words). It isn't as much as you would like to think, is my guess.

They can look at my account if they want. I'm just as broke as they want me to be.

They can look at my bank account all they want, all they will see is money coming in, then going out to either the supermarket, my household bills, rent, Amazon, or Kobo books. The only other place money goes is some to ds for him to get me cash so I have some money in my purse for things like the window cleaner, the hairdresser, if I need a taxi or for birthdays.

What we have moved on to discussing, I thought, was what you meant by "considerably more" (your words). It isn't as much as you would like to think, is my guess.

No, you’ve moved on. I was done about six pages ago. Find someone else to pick a fight with, I can’t be arsed.

I am in the support group of ESA although I don't get any money from the DWP as my Dh earns over the limit which is fine. I do get my NI stamp paid that is it. Other than that I get money into my account from my DH and some from my grandmother each month.

I don't know how this will affect me? I am not committing any fraud. I have about £20,000 in savings now and I do have "money" land in my account but from legitimate sources. Hopefully this won't affect me.

My thought though is most people committing benefit fraud are probably working cash in hand so this won't make much difference.

Also I wonder if this will also evolve to scrutiny and disapproval of what people actually buy? I know this was discussed during the austerity years that people should be given vouchers as opposed to cash so that money couldn't be saved or spent on things like alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.