Can UC do this

[Ohfear688754]

I am not looking for angry comments at me, just genuine advice.

2022 I was on Tax credits and I got divorced. I got X amount of money which was reported correctly and used in June 2023 to buy a house, leaving me with about 8k in savings.

May 2024 I was moved over to UC where all accounts and savings were declared.

Fast forward to yesterday where I have a Compliance call with UC (basically in the Fraud arena) who have recieved HMRC figures for 2023/2024 which shows that I had savings over 16k thst year.

They are concerned that because I had savings then that I might have had savings I didn’t declare when I applied. Went through all my accounts and gave current amounts and explained I had had that money, but that I used it to buy a house and it was prior to my UC claim and that when they get the 2024/2025 tax details they will see that.

Not good enough and they have asked for permission to contact all my banks and get statements for that tax year so they can “see” if the money went.

Is this right? I wasn’t even on UC then, I was on Tex credits and I declared all the interest I received, so it’s clear there was money.

Im not concerned because I know exactly where and when the money went and nothing will be found, but it seems a bit long reaching for UC to be able to check for a period of time when I wasn’t even claiming it? The rules for Tax credits were different, so I wasn’t doing any thing wrong then either?

People thinking savings don’t count because “they belong to the kids/monzo doesn’t count/ it’s inheritance” etc is one of the top reasons for benefits overpayment. You see posts about it here all the time. Just tick the box and forget about it.

The fraud rates are based upon those who get caught. The numbers we catch are low. With these new powers they may well increase.
HMRC do make mistakes, and if they make one OP can complain.

HMRC are heavyhanded. I don’t get what you don’t get. Let them investigate and let the decision maker make the decision. If you know all is fine, all will be fine. Sometimes it’s not and they need to do their job to find those people.

She said she showed them the documentation and divorce and house papers.

This is interesting. Can I ask you experience of this? Your evidence for suggesting it’s simply people not getting caught? There are a lot of people struggling out there, the system in particular PIPs is extremely difficult to navigate. I think the narrative against on benefits is unfair and convenient for the government. Anyone could need them at anytime…

No, the government don't "own" you, but when you receive benefits you enter into an agreement with the DWP.

They pay you so they ask you to keep your side of the agreement. It is a two way street.

They are also part of the social contract with the taxpayers and they have to account for benefits they provide and they have to ensure everything is done accordingly.

Just to be clear, I didn't say UC claimants are committing fraud enmasse. Just that they can only count the fraud that they catch. Actual rates (as in, the ones who get away with fraud) may be much higher. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, we shall have to wait and see.

Thanks for reiterating my point of a two way stress. The lady in question hasn’t done anything wrong. She hasn’t kept or hidden finances.

Unfortunately, the benefits system is in tatters and has been for years. Look at how many mistakes are made every day in the benefits system. How many vulnerable people are dragged through systems and fighting for what they should legally be entitled to when they are at their very lowest. Many simply give up. Kindly and in the nicest way - go and sit in a CA centre, go and sit with someone applying for these benefits processes, go visit the single mum on UC then come back and comment. You only need to look at overturned mandatory decisions for PIP to know the system is letting people down…

Just to mention the contract with tax payers is often the same person. People can work and be on benefits… or they can have worked all their life and suddenly get ill - physically or mentally - another convenient government social myth that taxpayers and benefit recipients are two separate entities …

OP @Ohfear688754I don’t want to derail your thread so hopping off now but wishing you the best of luck. Keep written evidence of everything.

May be higher, may be lower… the problem is the suggestion of fraud adds fuel to the fire without substance…

I'm going to leave aside your "helpful" suggestion to visit CAB or a Job Centre. I know more about it than I care.

So you think no checks are ever needed?

How would it be lower?
It can't be a system that runs entirely on trust. Checks should be carried out. If mistakes are made, they should be dealt with. If fraud is committed, it should be dealt with.

Absolute nonsense!

You can absolutely guarantee on almost all crimes (and yes, benefit fraud is absolutely a crime) that the conviction rate is lower than the actual occurrence? The fact you think it might be lower just makes me think you are being disingenuous. Nobody has any real idea about the scale of benefits fraud as it can be very different to identify with some benefits.

I’m making the point that you are making - we just don’t know! Therefore we shouldn’t judge. What we do categorically know is the amount do MD that are overturned meaning people are having to fight for what they should be getting years previously. How is that right?

I didn’t say that… I have maintained it's a two way street. At the moment our most vulnerable are being let down.

So what do you want to happen so that they are not, the way you see it?

Ensure assessments are carried out quickly, professionally and fairly. By staff that have the credentials to actually understand certain conditions. So not putting a physio in to assess a mental health patient. To ensure that fair assessments are made in the first instance and that the number of mandatory reconsiderations are reduced. That they are treated with respect and care during the process.

But that's really an entirely separate issue than checking bank accounts for undeclared savings or income. Two very different problems.

And that's exactly what happens.

You that the assessors don't make decisions? They only record the answers the claimants provide.

Also, telephone assessments are very beneficial for the claimant.

Also, anyone who finds this too undignified is free to withdraw their claim.

Declaring it and providing evidence are not the same thing. All they are asking for is the latter.

I’ve afraid that’s not most peoples’ experience of the system at all.

My point was that if we are to talk about suspected fraud and why these processes are being carried out then we need to look at the other side when mistakes are made administratively by HMRC and by assessors. I’m not trying to complicate the issue here and if I have done as it seems I have then many apologies. The OP had shown all paperwork and was still being investigated. I would rather they put efforts and resources of that investigation into fraudulent cases where evidence hasn’t been offered. Of course it’s easy to say just do what they say and get on with it, that what you signed up for. But that’s what the postmasters did and look where that got them. Accountability is absolutely crucial on both sides. I hope OP’s case is solved quickly and fairly, and without too much resourcing from HMRC.

They may also want to see you didn't move the money to anywhere else, other than your house purchase.

It's not an investigation, though - it's a separate check to verify/tick off that the information provided matches the data they can obtain.

The law to do this for any claims (including pension claimants) was passed a couple of years back.