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?

Tbh they do it for tax compliance as well as benefits. It may feel intrusive but it is part of the contract we have with the state to pay the right tax and receive the right benefits

Thank you for this clarification. Would this be the process even though it was historic and pre-claim with the switch over from TC ago UC complicating it?

I don’t advocate anyone hiding money but I can see why the OP feels a tad violated tbh. Not over sensitivity - I guess a feeling that we live in a world where because of the post office scandal and party-gate we just don’t trust those in charge to do the correct or right thing. Maybe a lack of trust in the admin processes and computer systems?

So I guess from OP’s POV - and correct me if I am wrong — any interaction like this naturally unsettles you even though you’ve done nothing wrong. I’m a born worrier, so I guess I naturally empathise with OP. I’d love to be a don’t worry about it kind of person! But I would be stressed about this too and questioning it.

You are conflating issues. Mistakes should be dealt with when they are made (and they usually are, given how often appeals are successful). But that is irrelevant to the need for simple checks of people's finances.

I guess I am getting ahead of myself and conflicting issues here. So I agree with you and am sorry for that. My overthinking takes me to the place I guess the OP is in - panicking!

I will say I’m glad you have confidence that mistakes are picked up and dealt with because generally across the scope of dealing with a wide range of government bodies from DWP to DOE in my line of work - that is not my lived experience. Often you have to point out the mistakes to get change and the vulnerable don’t have the energy or insight to do that - to advocate for themselves - often when they are struggling with the day to day.

In Op’s case - let’s hope it’s a quick in and out and case closed. Maybe a DSAR check to ensure everything is in order for peace of mind.

It might not be your lived experience, but it is just statistical fact that most claimant are not challenged, and most appeals are successful. If the system was denying people their claims on a large scale we wouldn't have a benefits bill the size it currently is.

It would be a pretty poor check if they simply said 'thanks for the docs you gave me, yes, they add up'. The checks need to look at other accounts that may not have been shared, follow the tracks of all monies coming in and out. It is pointless otherwise.

I am absolutely not saying the OP has done anything wrong at all, but I do defend the right of checks to be done by searching all evidence - that provided and that that has not been provided, and pre-dating the claim. It's the only way those who are defrauding will be identified. The system can't be run on trust.

(How PIP assessments are conducted is an entirely separate issue).

To clarify, I’m not being accused of Deprivation I am being accused of having about 40k across 4 accounts, based on 23/24 HMRC figures.

As I’ve said, I did at the start of 2023, and TC were aware of it and I declared interest and my award was adjusted.

By mid 2023 all but just under 16k was gone on the house and furniture.

May 24 I was moved to UC, and declared what I had, all accounts were declared and amounts given. I was under 16k but I’m also aware that I could have had £££££ for the first year.

No money is given away/moved to children’s accounts etc.

I have spoken to HMRC today, who have actually looked at my Interest payments and discovered for the last year they had me on the wrong code, due to me having nothing like they think.

Im pissed off because this relates to a different time, on different benefits, with different rules, and it smells of a fishing expedition.

If they were to speak to HMRC they would discover that according to HMRC I now do not have that money.

It could be much easier to investigate if they didn’t go in so heavy handed.

I offered my financial settlement details, house purchase details and then they could add it up and see that physically I couldn’t have that much.

Stats source? Genuinely interested?

That is understandably frustrating. Departments not speaking to each either. So much for cross checking facts ! I rest my case. I hope you get it sorted. I hope said departments can start to apply logic. I still don’t understand why they needed to know this when it was before you applied but what do I know! 😜

The government. It's around 80% for PIP, 60% for everything else. I don't have a link to hand, but I imagine it's easy info to find.

Your thread title made me smile OP, it’s government, top of the food chain, they do as they please and we’re at their mercy

I might also add, I work full time and my thoughts are thst it would be nice if anyone was as diligent on CMS and avoidance of that.

My ex owns 3 companies (yes 3!) he pays himself 6k from one and apparently “volunteers” at the others, whilst taking huge sums in cash.
HMRC will not investigate despite repeated reports.

If he was made to pay fairly, I wouldn’t even need UC, he should have paid thousands and thousand in tax (and probably to me) but they prefer to go for someone who is an easy target.

Youre not being accused of anything. You had a large sum in the last figures that are available to them. You've told them what happened to it, they check, it matches, everything is fine, you get your UC.

Other people will remember another bank account at that point. Others will scream obscenities at them and tell them to stick their money as they dont need it anyway. But they aren't at any point saying you have done something wrong, they just need to check because you did have a considerable sum and people do forget about accounts when they are claiming a benefit with a savings limit.

I think that is a also a very fair grumble. The avoidance of declaration of income is a real issue, especially for SE fathers and there never seems to be any catching up of these tax and CMS avoiders.

I don’t think they can insist that you give them consent to access your accounts if you provide them with statements within the timeframe they have set. I initially thought that it would be easier to just give consent but when I received the forms could see they were not specific and just gave carte blanche consent so provided copies of statements for all accounts for the past 3 years. I also provided additional information proving source and destinations of funds.

This was huge overkill. I had to temporarily claim UC to cover the period between STBEX stopping maintenance despite being in receipt of unshared pension and paying maintenance pending suit. Apparently they were concerned that I had deprived myself of assets in spring 2022 (gift of housing deposit for DS1) in order to claim UC in October 2024. Lack of a crystal ball meant I didn’t know that ex would shack up with new girlfriend years later and stop maintenance in order to financially support her. Huge and unnecessary hassle. Upside was I could get off UC when ex had to pay MPS - and his new girlfriend promptly dumped him when he could no longer afford to financially support her!

Compliance interview was back in June and I never heard back and claim is now closed.

I understand that UC should investigate as there has been large scale fraud due to Covid but in my case it was a huge waste of time and tax payer money to prove that all was above board.

Is there a time limit on potential deprivation of assets and making a claim for UC? Eg if you bought a flash car or went on an expensive holiday years before making a claim due to change of circumstances?

In that case, she never had the money to begin with, so not sure how that is fraud. If she claimed it and it went into her account, then she gave it to her brother then that would be dodgy.
If my dad says he wants to gift me £20k, and I say no as it would fuck up my UC, then that £20k is not classed as mine. it is his. But he can buy me stuff with it, as is his right to do so.
UC don't ask if anyone has offered you money.

uc Is operated by DWP and they will use systems operated by HMRC to evaluate incoming wages to the claimant. These operating systems should flag if there is a month with more income - this is supposed to help prevent overpayments. So the two separate linked by technology, but DWP covers UC

I don't understand why you can get UC or any benefit if you are buying a house to protect your deposit. I get that it's the proceeds from a divorce, but surely your capital should be used instead to fund living expenses?

If OP did not buy a house, she would be renting until her money runs out then claiming the housing element of UC.
She is entitled to buy a roof to go over her head without it being DoC.

Amount to be used to purchase premises
"H2119 Where a person has received an amount within the past 6 months which is to be used to purchase
premises that the person intend to occupy as their home, that amount can be disregarded from the
calculation of that person’s capital where it

1. is attributable to the proceeds of the sale of premises formerly occupied as their home or
2. has been deposited with a housing association (see H2045) or
3. is a grant made to the person for the sole purpose of purchasing a home¹

.

Is it reasonable to disregard for longer
H2120 The DM may decide it is reasonable to disregard the amount for a longer period if, for example

1. people have tried but not found premises which are suitable for their or a member of their family's

needs (in particular, if one of them is disabled and needs a certain type of accommodation)

1. the person has found premises and the

2.1 sale has not been completed or 2.2 seller later decides not to sell."

Source: GOV.UK share.google/oBL5bBMJopd2c79cO

My ex husband was able to keep the marital home, I am equally entitled to the same due to my marriage. Why should I leave a marriage and be not allowed to use my half of the assets to house myself and the children?
The money I had would have run out on rental by now and I would be receiving UC and housing benefit, and we would not have any stable living conditions.

Legally I was allowed that, why would you want me able to claim more

Under UC rules I could never have saved a deposit, so all that money would have gone on renting and into a landlords pocket.

Also, I was not on UC when I got divorced, I was on Tax credits, but for information, if I had been on UC at that time I would only have had that disregarded for 6 months, and only if I didn’t touch 1p of it if I told them it was for a house.

Sometimes it would be great if you read the rules before saying things like that.

I would ask them to quote the legislation under which they are demanding this information

They need to quote the regulations and not just because I say so

It's long, so I've just quoted the relevant parts:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legislation_regarding_current_dw

"The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 (the 2013 Regulations) contain statutory powers which allow claim reviews to be carried out. These powers give Universal Credit Claim Review (UCR) agents authority to require claimants to supply information or evidence (including bank statements) in connection with an ongoing
claim, or any question arising out of it, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Agents act on behalf of the Secretary of State when requiring evidence in relation to claims for existing Universal Credit. Specifically, under regulation 38(2) of the 2013 Regulations, a claimant must supply such information or evidence as the Secretary of State may require for determining whether a decision on UC should be revised or superseded.
Section 8 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 6(1)(e) of the UK GDPR allow for the DWP’s processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of a government department, in this case establishing that a claim for benefit remains, as set out in the 2013 Regulations.

Under Section 109B(1) and section 109B(2A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992,
DWP has the power to request certain information from specific organisations, including banks
(see section 109B(2A)(a)). These powers may only be used as part of a criminal investigation
where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a benefit offence, such as fraud, has been
committed. These powers are limited to compelling the information holder to provide the
information requested to help prove or disprove a benefit fraud allegation."

You could send them the completion statement for the former matrimonial home and the purchase details of your current property so they can see what you had and where it went

There is an issue that when the DWP make a decision on your claim they then need grounds to revise or supersede it. They clearly could have asked for the information prior to paying it but then having paid it they then need some fairly good reasons for requesting it now.

The only thing the ARENT entitled to see is what you spent your money on so you can redact that. Transfers in and out of the account keep to show them and the balance