Benefits legislation

[Mumeries]

I claim disability benefits and universal credit because I can’t work due to a brain condition. In all, I get £1,000 a month in benefits.
I am shocked that there’s a new legislation about arrests if they suspect fraud, seizing laptops and phones and checking transactions of all claims regularly.
Is there a chance that arrests will happen left right and centre just because they don’t agree with that the person has spent money on?
I don’t know what I can do if anything, but I don’t want to claim benefits anymore, if there’s a risk that I will be interrogated. I don’t want to be monitored and scrutinised for what I spend my money on
as if I’m a child.
I want to ask if the news has been exaggerated for the sake of a news story.

If you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to fear, but for someone who mysteriously spends £1000 of benefits on leisure activities and doesn't appear to buy groceries or pay for travel they could start to wonder if there's an undeclared account, cash in hand income etc.

Start with drug dealers in my opinion. Then deal with money laundering properly (allegedly vape shops as one example). Though I bet that is not what will happen.

In general I think it is sabre rattling.

That last part is complete and utter nonsense.

Billions in benefit goes unclaimed every single year, and not a single penny of it is used to increase the payments that actually are made.

This idea of a "pot" is just a sop to morons who can't comprehend that government spending doesn't function like a household budget. Benefits are paid on eligibility anyway, and not government affordability, so simply shaving a few quid off the total spend changes nothing whatsoever about what someone else will get.

I understand the purpose, but this amounts to an electronic wiretap on benefits recipients’ financial information without going through the now legally required judicial process to obtain permission for snooping. Our financial information is private and protected by GDPR. It’s not like social media posts in the public domain that DWP is free to monitor and examine for evidence of fraud.

My concern is whether we'd see another post office scandal.

Yes, and that was caused by faulty AI and Post Office officials having absolute trust in the AI.

And you imagine anything the Tories instigate won’t be an unworkable disaster that goes wrong more than it goes right? This is the money people used to live on we’re talking about here, not extra pocket money. My monthly wages don’t even cover my rent, let alone anything else like food.

and what other sections of society have their banks monitored each month to prove their innocence when no suggestion has been made that you’re committing a crime, let alone probable cause for suspicion? It feels like being a benefit claimant is probable cause enough. Yes, some people fiddle the benefits and claim what they shouldn’t, but then some non-benefit claimants commit crimes, but you’re not all treated like criminals until proven innocent.

all bank accounts are monitored. All unexpected and unusual payments are queried and it is perfectly reasonable to have to explain yourself. Police can take anyone's electronics to investigate suspected crimes - I am just not sure what is different now

I don't know how true it is, but I'd disagree with it strongly. Why should someone else get to decide where every penny of your money goes?
I feel like maybe it's all part of the bigger plan towards a cashless society. I don't like the idea of the government agencies knowing every penny that comes in and everything that it gets spent on. Not that I've got anything to hide. It just feels like it's a violation of our civil liberties and could be misused for nefarious purposes!

But they won't do it that way will they?

How stupid would you have to be to put leisure through your bank account and buy your food with your undeclared cash?

You'd do it the other way round. You'd have the paper trail showing you were just making ends meet and you'd use cash for the extra stuff.

Your weekly shop at Asda on your card. Your expensive whiskey from your secret cash.

Your fifteen quid kettle on your card. Your 50inch TV screen in cash.

The government surely can't be so stupid that they don't know this. So it can only be being implemented with more judgemental and potentially punitive measures in mind long term, targeting people who are not committing benefit fraud.

So basically if you’ve got anything too nice you might be under suspicion? I’ve been playing a musical instrument for most of my life. I’m in my mid 40s now and have saved up over the years so have a few nice instruments that I own. Does that mean somebody might decide that nobody on benefits could possibly afford those things so therefore she must be on the fiddle? Punn not intended.

This is absurd but somehow also totally predictable. I counter it with this:

Everyone's guilty of something - Terry Pratchett.

Actually surely this will count as a form of profiling.

Looking at someone's bank account is akin to a forced stop and search targeting only the unemployed (and, overwhelmingly, disabled people). If they're doing anything else that's evident in their bank account that they maybe shouldn't be, they will get caught where we wouldn't have even looked at the bank account of a non-benefits claimant doing the same thing.

This is literally criminalising a whole sector of society and if they are caught for something where someone in a different demographic wouldn't have been, they are then going to be more likely to have a criminal record which will make it even harder for them to get a job and even more dependent on this intrusive, dangerous system which can cut off their money at the whim of a benefits officer or worse, a computer.

But this is still an extra level of monitoring and suspicion that nobody else has. My bank monitor my account for fraudulent activity regardless, partially for my own benefit, which is the same for anybody, benefit claimant or not, but people who don’t claim benefits aren’t being specifically targeted for additional monitoring on the assumption that they Specifically, due to their being a member of a certain group, are assume to be criminals so Have to prove their innocence,are they?

I dont know, that is why I am asking - what specifically is different now? Nothing, I don't think. I have certainly had to explain large amounts of money in my account to the bank in the past - and I know when I help out my cousin who is on benefits I often pay bills directly so they don't go through her bank account and don't affect benefits - this has always been the case over decades

Having to claim benefits is shit and this will just make it even worse. It's hard enough being the sole carer for a disabled child who will never live independently without being branded a scrounging thief.

This government make me sick. I was slightly wavering about voting Labour for various reasons (and no, my other option wasn't voting Tory) but this has decided it for me.

I've paid my fair share of taxes during my life but life gets in the way sometimes and you end up in situations you wouldn't have imagined.

I don't deny benefit fraud exists but I'm sick of the demonisation of all those claiming benefits.

Since they already have the right to request bank statements if the case meets the threshold to suspect criminal activity, why would they need permanent surveillance?

You know that conducting fishing expeditions is currently illegal? For very good reason.

Once this has been rolled out against disabled people, it will be rolled out against everyone, Bigredjumper. Including you.

As a disabled person who has been through the DWP mill many a time, I am perfectly well aware that the DWP and its agents ATOS and Capita tell lies about me and falsify evidence in order to arbitrarily stop my income until I get the chance to prove them wrong at tribunal more than 12 months later. I have caught them at it often enough - my favourite being "she walked unaided into the test centre", a phrase which mysteriously disappeared from the DWP's report when I pointed out the centre had CCTV which I would be acquiring under GDPR.

Giving the toxic, not-fit-for-purpose DWP permanent access to all disabled people's bank accounts, will speed up lying and deliberate wrong decisions.

Good grief

How many people in the middle/upper classes are self employed and engaging in various forms of tax evasion? Why aren't we scrutinising their bank accounts (yet)? People in certain jobs are far more likely to evade tax than others. Most of us know one person or can name one big company who is doing that.

In fact, if we follow the doctrine of "the innocent have nothing to hide" we should just publish everyone's bank accounts every month in a public domain website. Doreen doing the Avon alongside her office job, who hasn't told HMRC about the extra income, needs to go to jail because she's cheating the taxpayer out of a couple of hundred quid a year! Dave the driving instructor is taking direct bank payments and only declaring what he gets through BSM. Keith the builder declared he was under the tax threshold to HMRC but really he earned (gasp) £20k and didn't tell them. Checking everyone's accounts would wipe out all of this.

That is where this leads. By letting society's most vulnerable be subjected to inhuman treatment we are opening the possibility of doing it to everyone.

In fact, why stop there? We could get the police to routinely search people's houses and electronics, inventory them on a database, and an AI algorithm could check each item against bank statements to ensure all those music downloads were paid for and that if there's Amazon Prime on your TV you're using your own username and password and paying them, not sharing aunty Ella's login details. If the police call it a CD player on the inventory spreadsheet and your bank statement entry says you bought a HiFi, the computer will flag up the discrepancy and you will be hauled in for possession of stolen goods.

We could check how much time you spent listening to that audiobook on Audible before you returned it for your money back and cheated the author out of payment for their work.

We could fit a black box and dashcam and a facecam to every car and know exactly how fast you were going at all times, and fine you for going 1mph over the speed limit at any time, for any reason, and use eye tracking software to see if you really saw that person that you claim pulled out in front of you.

To prevent rape, we could all wear sound-activated cameras at all times that are triggered by certain words and phrases to start recording, so during intercourse we know if it was consensual or not. People will be obliged to say "I consent to intercourse" at the beginning and then the device will have to record throughout the event to ensure consent is not withdrawn at any point, so it can be played in court for a jury and random onlookers to watch and listen to you having sex and decide whether it was consensual or not. It can also identify if someone is really having an affair or not, using voice recognition software.

The innocent have nothing to hide after all.

We currently have the technology to do any or all of those things and with the upcoming AI, we will soon be able to process the vast amounts of data generated by such intrusive monitoring.

Bad idea? Why? Oh because it's abominable to do so and no one should be subjected to this.

Exactly.

The only thing stopping any of that from happening is our fundamental human right to a private life.

But what is even more disturbing is some people are so petty they would welcome every single thing I just listed.

Interested in this as for example a lone parent could be working but in receipt of uc as a top up but receive child maintenance directly from nrp (these payments don’t count towards uc and alike) would this be scrutinised I wonder. I can’t see how they would be able to.

People on pip who put aside a lot of the mobility elements for servicing and mot or to replace car when needed, lots don’t opt for the mobility car scheme.

What next checking credit status and do they have credit cards how much is on them where are they spending.

Perhaps anyone claiming should be tagged! So the DWP can sanction them for popping to shop when they should be job hunting all day. The disabled as well “well we can tell you moved about a lot therefore you can’t possibly be disabled”

A lot of whatabouterry about this.

Just because murder is a worse crime doesn't mean you shouldn't prosecute burglary also.

Benefits are paid for by the taxpayer. By everyone. The government has a responsibility to use taxpayer money appropriately and get value for money IMO. If you believe that is valid for covid PPE, you should believe that is valid for benefits too.

So yes, the best measures possible should be taken in order to ensure benefits are paid to those who need them and not those who don't. In the same way the best measures possible should be taken to ensure people pay appropriate amounts of tax which is necessary to fund those benefits. It shouldn't be a one sided thing.

And this will help? Because people with undeclared cash put it in their bank accounts? Someone working cash in hand nips into Barclays to pay their thousands in?

This just smacks of targeting a group that many other people already look down on and have stereotypical views about with a bit of 'Let's be seen to Do Something About These People who are the real problem with the country, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...'

And there's actually a general misconception about data-processing and automation in government.

A commonly trotted-out claim is that increased automation makes a government "better" for its citizens.

This is not fundamentallly true.

Automation allows governments to do more of what they want to do, faster. It does not magically make "what governments want to do" any more virtuous.

So eg a government determined to remove disabled people from the benefits bill so it can give yet another tax cut to its core voters, will be able to do more of that, faster – regardless of whether the removals were just. In many cases, the disabled people will eventually win tribunals reinstating benefits - but only if they can survive long enough and also feel mentally able to fight the constant battles.

"Benefits are paid for by the taxpayer. By everyone. The government has a responsibility to use taxpayer money appropriately and get value for money"

Maybe they should start with the companies who carry out pip / ESA assessments instead of benefit claimants

Means tested benefit processing staff do not need to suspect criminal activity in order to request bank statements. They may request them at any point to review entitlement.

From the information I have seen, there is no suggestion that claimants who purchase so called luxury items will be subject to additional scrutiny. There is absolutely nothing in any benefits legislation which allows entitlement to suspended or cancelled based on what people choose to spend their money on.

The additional access to information also shouldn't apply to non-means tested benefits. I'm not sure if this has been confirmed but knowing how protective of their data DWP and HMRC are, I'd expect this to be in the legislation when it's drafted.

I think there is a lot of scaremongering going on, on both sides.

Not the point of the thread, but I am also well aware of the disgusting tactics used to deny people PIP/DLA which they are undoubtedly entitled to. It's a national shame. I'm very sorry to hear you've been affected by it and hope you were finally granted your entitlement.

edit quote fail! This was in reply to @PerkingFaintly