Truly shocked by Tory bank trials for benefit claimants.

[caringcarer]

When Tory's suggested looking at people's bank accounts to stop benefit fraud I thought they might catch out just a few people so it would be pointless doing it. I've just seen this article in local press and I couldn't believe my eyes about the number of bank accounts having an average of £50k yet claiming UC or low income benefits fraudulently. It was a real eye opener. Anyone else shocked?

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/dwp-tries-bank-account-checks-29191387

Good. I hope they crack down on piss takers from all classes and backgrounds. Benefits claimants aren’t an exception to that. People work hard for their money and are expected to hand it over to people with 50k sat in the bank? Or more? I don’t think so

I agree. Having savings is a luxury not a necessity

What a ridiculous comment. This thread is about welfare abuse, nothing to do with rich donors.

You clearly do not know much about the benefits system in this country @FaeryRing

Read up on pension credit, read up on why it is organised that way, before you start moaning.

You will be a pensioner yourself one day, the saftey met will be there for you too.

Rules are different for pensioners than those in work for really very obvious reasons.

Again, another post that shows you don't understand the rules of the system you are moaning about.

It is so frustrating 'debating' these matters with people who haven't the first clue what the rules are or why they are the way they are.

You clearly don't understand the rules on pension credit, and you don't understand what capital exceptions are made for very good reasons for other benefits claimants.

The policy is very shortsighted in relation to independent living. Thanks to a sole proprietor/joint mortgage my son 'owns' his own home and is secure.

He has never worked, is the wrong fit for supported living but can't live independently. But he can't have sufficient savings in his name to maintain his home without this impacting on benefit allowance.

If he were in insecure rented property this would be funded and he would have no maintenance costs. But this would destroy his mental health.

We are considering a vulnerable person trust when parents are no longer around.

This is the reality of the issues faced for real people.

It would be nice if the outraged taxpayer concerned themselves with real issues relating to inequality rather than frothing at the mouth a la Pavlov's dogs.

Nice but not necessary. People are ignorant of what doesn't affect them. I'm not holding my breath. I'm not waiting for a saviour. We find a way because we have to.

I wish you the strength to deal with the advertises you may encounter in your life and the added strength to deal with those who blame you for encountering those adversities.

100%

The article doesn't tell us anything about fraud.

The article says some people have balances.

You can have a balance and be eligible, as some things are exempt for very good reason.

The article is deliberately written to get those who don't understand the system feeling angry - don't let yourself be duped by this kind of thing.

This.

There are several benefits which aren't affected by capital. Contribution based ESA. PIP/DLA/AA. Carer's Allowance.

But don't let that get in the way of a good froth.

I'd like to see the actual data the article is based on.

What a daft thing to say. Having savings is sensible and a necessity if you can manage it.

The article specifically mentions ESA is included.

I noticed that it did not specify which form of ESA.

You can have a million to the bank and still qualify for contribution based ESA.

Me too. I'll bet it's a DWP press release though.

The savings limits are stupidly low. They have been the same for almost 40 years. £6000 and £12000 in 1988 was a fair whack of money.

I used to work for DWP processing a means tested benefit. I don't think many claims are fraudulent initially but further down the line, especially with capital increases/inheritance etc, claimants decide not to let on 'as they'll never know' and they want to keep their nest egg to help grandchildren etc. In those days, it was picked up via tax paid on interest by HMRC but was generally 2 financial years later and they ended up owing 10's of thousand which hit the prosecution level.

Hopefully this new more modern way of data matching in near real time will nip fraud in the bud. Not all fraudsters are 'bad' people, just normal people who let things go on to long and they end up in a pickle once they reach the prosecution value, end up in court and get publicly shamed in local media.

NotSentFromIphone good post, thank you.

But we already know the % fraud level, this might make it earlier but doesn't change anything.

You accept that some people could have £50k in the bank and it not be fraud - a balance does not automatically mean any fraud has been committed?

Depends on the balance doesn’t it? Should somebody with 50,000 sat in the bank live off money paid in tax by people who have far less or no savings?

Yes, if entitled to it.

You post a lot but clearly don't understand the eligibility rules or the reasons for them. Those in receipt of UC, PC or ESA in 2024 may have paid considerable tax themselves over their lifetime.

David Cameron was in receipt of benefits for his little boy and he's a millionaire. Was that wrong or right?

More than just the balance. Some types of capital are disregarded. For example if you're between homes and have the sales proceeds from sale of home A earmarked for home B that can be disregarded. So can insurance payouts for loss of a home.

A full list of the disregards is on Schedule 10 of the UC Regs 2013.

Wrong.

It was right.

His child was eligible.

Eligible yes but I think it was wrong.