To think this “crackdown” on benefit fraud is absolutely pathetic

[MissLou0]

We lose hundreds of billions from tax avoidance compared to 1 billion on benefit fraud and nothing is done about it, because those are the Tory donors. Michelle Mone just stole £28 million from taxpayers for her PPE scam, she’s not in trouble, and she of course also hides her hundreds of millions offshore.

We lose a small amount from benefit fraud, and as a result everyone who claims any sort of benefit including disability benefits banks are going to be monitored.

The graph below doesn’t even scratch the surface of how much is lost to tax avoidance. For example Rupert Murdoch is worth £17 billion and he hasn’t paid tax in years, personal tax or on his businesses. And he’s ONE person. These people are not targeted yet the most desperate and vulnerable are.

This is completely ignored by the media as the majority of newspaper owners are hiding their money offshore.

I’m in a situation where I don’t need to claim any benefits but I have family who are disabled who have had to fight for even the tiniest amount to live on, and they are now having to deal with this invasion of privacy which will make not even 0.000001% of what cracking down on tax avoidance would.

Suggestions that people's accounts will be monitored are unlikely to come to pass. Banks would refuse to share this data with the government and if the government pressed them through regulation they would be more likely to de-bank customers than share this data.

The US Government tried something similar where benefits recipients would have to use pre-paid cards for all their benefit spending. Problem was every bank refused to operate the pre-paid cards for them.

Exactly. The current PIP assessment doesn’t assess all the costs involved with disability. It uses the amount of help/aids and equipment needed to assess the level of disability present, and the likely costs involved. It’s over simplified and not the best way to do things, and deliberately omits major cost factors such as incontinence - which incurs massive cost, all ignored in the assessment. If they’re going to monitor and judge spending in line with PIP awards, then IMO it follows that they will have to rethink the eligibility criteria so the assessment is a realistic reflection of the individual disability and the likely costs the monitoring should pick up on.

They can’t do anything unless they clarify certain things such as what is deemed acceptable or not.

ive had to give up working to care for my disabled daughter and I have to facilitate her education because they don’t have suitable schools to meet her needs.

I’d love to see them argue that I’m spending her disability money fraudulently because sometimes I buy wine along with the additional food and toiletry spend.

there is a lot of fearmongering on here . Unless they change the rules to precribe and define how DLA and PIP can be spent this will be subject to legal challenge if it happens whether the info is gathered by AI or not.

I can only speak about Mexico's example. The current president, who took office in 2018, went after all the large companies that had been tax dodging for years. That money has been used to fund a newly created welfare system. I has made a huge difference

The legislation is being put in place, and AI makes it easier to implement. It’s already being done now to a certain extent because the agreement between benefit claimants and DWP involves the acceptance that DWP will share and collect information about you between various agencies. This is just an extension of that.

Hopefully the Tories will be voted out and this batshit stuff will not come to pass.

At the moment there is absolutely no restriction on what PIP or any of the other disability benefits is spent on. The assessment is based on the need for assistance and aids/adaptations. It ignores costs like incontinence and other major factors in disability as it’s too hard to assess for and PIP is a one size fits all system rather than tailored to the individuals’ needs. I agree - this would need to change to be a lot more specific if claimants are to be judged on what they spend that benefit money on. For example how do you prove that because of incontinence you spend more on bedding, clothing, washing powder, energy on increased laundry needs ? Or those whose condition means they have to have the heating on more than average ? You would need a system like direct payments via LA, where all spending has to be justified, otherwise the government will find itself mired in legal action.

YABU it is illegal and is a crime.

The legislation is already being pushed through. Do you honestly think a Labour government is going to stop it ? They have a proven history of running with plans introduced by outgoing Tory governments.

What is ?

Tax avoidance and benefit fraud are two different things. Waste of public finances in general is undesirable because those finances are finite. All these things require tackling and those of us who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

You've made countless posts on this thread along the same sinister lines. Please be responsible and post links to where you're getting this detailed, government 'fait accomplis' narrative from, because there are a lot of medically anxious MN users reading. You sound like you know what you're talking about, so please show your sources for this unsettling scenario.

What a facile statement. This sort of crap is only spouted by people who have never been on the wrong end of outfits like DWP or have zero imagination or empathy

I think the point is that there are larger issues that could be addressed, but they're going for the one that will save a small amount of money compared to the far larger amounts that the government seem oddly reluctant to do anything about.

I saw somewhere they're hoping the bank checks will save £500 million over five years. So £100 million a year, which is a huge amount to the average person but loose change down the back of the sofa for government spending.

That's an excellent legal point. That's what the regulations say, and why so many PIP appeals win.

Edenred, the company that upscaled from civil service staff perks to school holiday supermarket vouchers is already well positioned to do this. No banks involved, just supermarkets getting some extra money and captive audience which they won't want to miss out on.

So what would happen if you spend too much on what they deem to be frivolous items ? Will there be a two (or more) tiered system where if you can show you aren’t buying luxuries you get more but if you do they’ll drop down your benefits to limit your spending to just the basics ? Seems that’s where we are heading. Similar to the mentality that those using food banks should get value ranges only and never ‘treats’ or have any preferences 😭

That is the worry, isn't it. You are only allowed to spend on the bare basics. No holidays, no pubs, no cinema, no new clothing etc. What about Christmas presents?
A couple of years ago, I sold a vehicle I was no longer able to use (doing so did not put me above £6k), and I treated myself to a VR headset. If I did that now, would it be flagged as fraud?

And after a while they’ll say they’ve identified higher than average levels of benefit claimants having ‘disposable income ‘ and use that as the basis for lowering benefits as they will ‘prove’ it’s not necessary to be the current rates and that it’s only funding things in excess of the bare basics

Here's a link, and I just googled UK gov to access claimants' bank accounts:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23903863.dwp-plan-monitor-benefit-claimants-bank-accounts/#

No one is saying that it's ok to claim benefits fraudulently. You are completely missing the point.

But both isn't being done. That's the point. And the amount being lost to benefit fraud is so tiny it's very unlikely to be worth the effort and cost that's being put in. This is purely to try to win votes. Personally I'd rather they were focussing time, effort and money on resolving some of the real and huge issues that this county is facing at the moment rather than this pointless waste of time and money that will just further demonise benefit claimants and make the lives of the most vulnerable in society harder.

What will actually happen is they'll pick up on some claimants who have genuinely made a mistake (because benefit rules are really complex and really misunderstood), and hence make their lives hell over a few pounds they've made a mistake with. Or they'll pick up on "suspicious" account activity that isn't actually anything nefarious. These people will then be investigated. And usually their benefits will be suspended while this is happening. This process takes months and months. Is extremely stressful and while they are going through that they'll have no money to live on so will have to rely on charitable grants if they can access them and energy vouchers and food bank vouchers etc. That's the reality of this. And what for? Very little in the way of saved money but a lot spent persecuting innocent and vulnerable people.

God I don't. I don't want the government monitoring my bank account! You are way too trusting! We are a way too over monitored society as it is with the technology we have now. That's only going to get worse if we don't watch out.

People don't like feeling monitored. Just look at the push back people give at the idea of security cameras inside friend's homes, or people who don't like staying in holiday cottages with the owner too close by. It's not that any of them are thinking of anything wrong, they aren't. And I'm not. I do things by the book generally. But the feeling of being constantly monitored is oppressive and it feels like an invasion of privacy.

That phrase really hits the nail on head of what the issue is here. Not sure when that dates from but obviously old; depressing that nothing ever bloody changes!!!