Benefit Investigation

Housing_Benefit_Officer

They would have obtained full bank statements to show what the blanked out transactions were so hiding them achieved nothing. It would raise suspicion of anyone handing bank statements with transactions blanked out.

publicsectorworker

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

They would have obtained full bank statements to show what the blanked out transactions were so hiding them achieved nothing. It would raise suspicion of anyone handing bank statements with transactions blanked out.

With data protection how can they do this and not tell the claimant?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

publicsectorworker wrote: »

With data protection how can they do this and not tell the claimant?

The Data Protection Act 1998 will not be contravened by providing the information requested by Authorised Officers. Under section 35(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 exemption from the non-disclosure provisions exists where a statutory provision, such as section 109B & 109C of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, requires the supply of information.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a1-1801.pdf

Ss. 109BA-109C

(2) An authorised officer–
(a) shall be entitled to obtain information in accordance with arrangements
entered into under subsection (1) above only if his authorisation states that
his authorisation applies for the purposes of that subsection; and
(b) shall not seek to obtain any information in accordance with any such
arrangements other than information which relates to a particular person and
could be the subject of a requirement under section 109B above.
(3) The matters that may be included in the arrangements that a person is required
to enter into under subsection (1) above may include!
(a) requirements as to the electronic access to records that is to be made available
to authorised officers;
(b) requirements as to the keeping of records of the use that is made of the
arrangements;
(c) requirements restricting the disclosure of information about the use that is
made of the arrangements; and
(d) such other incidental requirements as the Secretary of State considers
appropriate in connection with allowing access to records to authorised
officers.
(4) An authorised officer who is allowed access in accordance with any arrangements
entered into under subsection (1) above shall be entitled to make copies of, and to
take extracts from, any records containing information which he is entitled to require
under section 109B.]

So a fraudster can't hide behind the Data Protection Act to hide their fraud and theft.

davec1960

publicsectorworker wrote: »

They have taken it as though all the money is the claimants but it sounds like it might not be if it's joint account.

An ISA can't be a joint account and the OP says that they are investigating an ISA having 7000 - 11000 in it over a five year period.

OP also says that the account was only just over the limit initially but was subsequently added to, it makes the defence of it being an oversight somewhat weak unless the further deposits were made without the OPs friend being aware.

publicsectorworker

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The Data Protection Act 1998 will not be contravened by providing the information requested by Authorised Officers. Under section 35(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 exemption from the non-disclosure provisions exists where a statutory provision, such as section 109B & 109C of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, requires the supply of information.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a1-1801.pdf

Ss. 109BA-109C

(2) An authorised officer–
(a) shall be entitled to obtain information in accordance with arrangements
entered into under subsection (1) above only if his authorisation states that
his authorisation applies for the purposes of that subsection; and
(b) shall not seek to obtain any information in accordance with any such
arrangements other than information which relates to a particular person and
could be the subject of a requirement under section 109B above.
(3) The matters that may be included in the arrangements that a person is required
to enter into under subsection (1) above may include!
(a) requirements as to the electronic access to records that is to be made available
to authorised officers;
(b) requirements as to the keeping of records of the use that is made of the
arrangements;
(c) requirements restricting the disclosure of information about the use that is
made of the arrangements; and
(d) such other incidental requirements as the Secretary of State considers
appropriate in connection with allowing access to records to authorised
officers.
(4) An authorised officer who is allowed access in accordance with any arrangements
entered into under subsection (1) above shall be entitled to make copies of, and to
take extracts from, any records containing information which he is entitled to require
under section 109B.]

So a fraudster can't hide behind the Data Protection Act to hide their fraud and theft.

But can they do this an not tell the claimant? And Dpa should still apply to joint account holder.

publicsectorworker

davec1960 wrote: »

An ISA can't be a joint account and the OP says that they are investigating an ISA having 7000 - 11000 in it over a five year period.

OP also says that the account was only just over the limit initially but was subsequently added to, it makes the defence of it being an oversight somewhat weak unless the further deposits were made without the OPs friend being aware.

It's not the isa acc that's joint. additions werent from the claimants money and not sure if they were even really aware of the additions as they have that sorted for them.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

What relationship is the other person named on this joint account to the claimant?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

publicsectorworker wrote: »

But can they do this an not tell the claimant? And Dpa should still apply to joint account holder.

Yes and no.

publicsectorworker

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

What relationship is the other person named on this joint account to the claimant?

does this make a difference the other person claims no benefits.

rogerblack

publicsectorworker wrote: »

does this make a difference the other person claims no benefits.

From the data protection act point of view, and the accessing data - no.

As above - the intents are the important bit.
If money was put into the account, with the intent of both parties that it remained the property of the person putting it into the account - then that may not count as capital.
(assuming that is accepted, something which may be difficult)

If it's just someone putting money into someone elses account intentionally, without notifying them - it's extremely difficult to say that that is other than a gift with them intending for the money to be theirs.