Council snooping into bank accounts

BritBrat

If the goverment want us to have ID cards they should pay for them not us.

If we have to pay then it should be our choice to have one or not have one.

Morglin

joebloggs69 wrote: »

I already replied to this once, unfortunately it didn't seem to work, let's hope you don't get 2 replies (I guess this is what happened to you too!)

Thanks for your reply,

My mum does have nothing to worry about, that's not what concerns me. The fact is I find it hard to swallow that they can look into your accounts, not just without your consent, but without your knowledge. You say this is for obvious reasons, but what are they? Because I can't see them. Surely if they sent you a letter telling you they have looked at your bank accounts, then it would be too late to hide anything - so I really don't see why.

I know for a fact that last year a friend of mine had to sign a letter of consent to allow the very same people to look into her accounts, so there must have been a recent change in the rules.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to look, but at the very least the bank or the authorities should let you know.

Sorry about the duplicate reply - computer or this site was saying NO!:rolleyes:, and then doing it twice anyway...........lol:eek:

If a DWP or council department just require verification, then they have to ask for authorisation before they can access an account.

If they suspect fraud, either while the claim is in force, or at the time of application, then they can access accounts, and follow through with their investigation, before a claimant even knows there is a problem - whether you agree with it or not (and I have mixed feelings), fraud investigation now allows for information from various sources (and at one time, in some cases, they sought information from loyalty supermarket cards), hidden cameras etc., etc.,

The DWP have also been known to trawl through EBay - presumably they think it's worthwhile. It always costs more to maintain a fraud department than is ever recouped, but it is seen as effective in deterring others.

Companies sell information to many people, including the DWP.

Banks and the Revenue are now linked to the DWP - which is how "hidden" accounts now come to light.:eek:

I don't know whether this "Big Brother" approach is warranted, as it applies to anyone claiming ANY sort of benefit (including tax credits etc.,), but that's the way it's going, and it will only get worse.:rolleyes:

Glad that your mum sorted it all out, though.

Lin

real1314

Morglin wrote: »

It always costs more to maintain a fraud department than is ever recouped, but it is seen as effective in deterring others.


Lin

Erm, I know someone who worked in this area, going back a few years, they were paid £14k a year, and in 1 year they found about £250k of overpaid benefit and stopped claims that were worth a total of £20k a week

That is very cost effective. Of course, they did say that to some degree these cases were "easy hits".

Garnet_Gem

Morglin - you said that things could "only get worse," but surely you meant "only get better" because if the DWP catch more fraudsters it'll be helpful to sort out genuine claims from fraudulent ones?

Anthillmob

fraud officers by law are able to approach banks, employers, former employers, landlords, former landlords etc all legitimately for the purposes of targetting benefit fraud.

to carry out an IUC id say there was something to worry about.

Morglin

real1314 wrote: »

Erm, I know someone who worked in this area, going back a few years, they were paid £14k a year, and in 1 year they found about £250k of overpaid benefit and stopped claims that were worth a total of £20k a week

That is very cost effective. Of course, they did say that to some degree these cases were "easy hits".

Fraud departments overall cost more to administer than they recover.

This is the civil service, and nothing is ever done cheaply.:rolleyes:

Lin

Morglin

Garnet_Gem wrote: »

Morglin - you said that things could "only get worse," but surely you meant "only get better" because if the DWP catch more fraudsters it'll be helpful to sort out genuine claims from fraudulent ones?

When I said "get worse", I meant that government departments/outside firms and agencies, have increasing powers to "snoop" - even for those not on benefits.:rolleyes:

For example, the scheme they are introducing, tracking children from birth and storing information of all sorts, available to many people, even when there isn't a problem.

I'm all for preventing fraud (although judging by the fact there are 3 million more National Insurance numbers than people, it doesn't seem to be working), but I do get worried about the fact that all this information is kicking about, getting sold on to God knows who, and no one seems to keeping control on it.:eek:

The minister in charge of Data Protection feels the same from what he was saying on TV this morning.

Lin

Garnet_Gem

I know what you mean Morglin, but there's so much fraud (and I include rich tax avoiders) that it's not fair on the honest taxpayers who are stung when people are cheating the sytem I don't like the Big Brother approach either but what's the alternative?

Paul_Varjak

A few years ago the Council asked me to attend an interview under caution. During the interview I was accused of having around 30 accounts - they even gave me the account numbers!

But the council's fraud investigators had not even looked into the ownership of these accounts. Someone had just provided them with a list of account numbers and said they were my accounts.

Had the council looked into the ownership before contacting me, I would probably have never known about the investigation.

So, in my case, I felt aggrieved at attending an interview because they had not looked at the accounts before the interview!

lil_me

Definately not a new thing. 7 years ago I had a similar interview and they had bank statements going back about 3 years all because they thought my partner was earning more than he said and not paying tax on it, all because there was as more money was being paid into his account than they thought there should be. I actually have no idea why the investigation started.

What we were doing at the time was taking money out on the Friday to pay back in on the Monday, because his bank were being funny about how much was going into his account (reduced greatly at the time as got laid off and was starting a lower paid job). They haddn't thought to look at the outgoings so of course it was hilarious when I pointed it out, the trainee who attended with the fraud inspector person looked and said to the inspector 'Look she's right, why has noone noticed that?' They had only circled the 'Paid In' amounts rather than including 'Paid out' or any other transactions. Well that was it interview over, man shuffled out the door, trainee followed and said on the way out 'What a waste of tax payers money that investigation was' :rotfl:

I did get a lovely letter letting me know there was no further action being taken and the case was closed, what a relief eh!