MSE News: Single parents sent 'threatening' letters demanding proof they live alone

Londonsu

major_morgan wrote: »

infoRef: 0000000XXXXXX NI No: xxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently I received a letter from Concentrix (dated 29th Oct 2015) requesting information about my claim for tax credits.

The letter states that:

We have information that suggests there might be another person linked to your address between 06 Apr 2015 and 28 Oct 2015.

We need to check whether this is someone you should be claiming with as part of a couple.
To do this you need to send us some information so we can get a full picture of your circumstances.

The letter requests original copies of:

Statements from bank and building society accounts, including any joint accounts from 6th April 2015 up to 30th September 2015

Mortgage statement or a copy of your home rental agreement

Council tax bills, dated after April 2015

Gas, electricity, telephone and water bills from 6th April 2015 up to 30th September 2015

Any court or solicitor letters, including legal separation documents, Decree Nisi, Absolute of Dissolution

That’s a lot of information. I called Concentrix to enquire about the request. Your representative told me that you had discovered a possible connection between my address and a Mr Miles Hague.

I have never heard of Mr Hague but your rep insisted he had evidence that we were linked, although he could not specify what evidence. Instead he provided generic reasons as to how Mr Hague and I could, in theory, be linked. None of these held water.

In your letter you list my address as "XXXXXX, XXXXX, XXXXX". I pointed out that my full address is Flat 1/1, XXXXXXX. Your rep was not aware that my flat is one of 6 properties located at this address. The address that you have for Mr Hague does not specify a flat location.

I take data protection very seriously and I aim to minimise the amount of personal information that I give out. I feel it would be reckless to disclose sensitive personal data on the basis of such a vague connection between my address and "another person".

It is equally reckless to ask for the information on that basis. I think you may be in breach of the data protection act by doing so.

The amount of information that you are asking for is excessive and I fail to see how some of it could possibly have any relevance; the purpose being to determine the truth about the alleged link with Mr Hague. You say we are a couple - Based on what?

This looks very much like a general phishing expedition. It cannot be right to continue to request so much personal information on the basis of such a tenuous link. I therefore ask that you withdraw your request.

I would also like to make a freedom of information request for the information you have, that suggested a link between Mr Hague and the property that I reside in.

Please be assured that I will submit my Tax Credits Review Form on time in the normal way, this should provide the information that you require.

Kind Regards,

Bruce McPhee

Note: Pretty sure what they are doing is unlawful. Long short is that they must have a valid reason to ASK for the information.
I'm still fighting for written confirmation of the withdrawal and a response to my FOI request. Shudder to think what this would have been like as a single parent etc

But isn't this the same information they ask everyone who is on benefits and needs help from the public purse (unless cont based of course )


My Dad had to give copies of bank statements, and prove his ID and details to get pension credit, everyone has to prove they are entitled to what they are claiming for why should tax credits be any different.

missapril75

@major_morgan

Sounds a very reasonable and reasoned response, although as others have said there is a valid reason and the documents requested may assist the check one way or the other.

It may well be that your response helps them identify the other party does indeed live in a different unit, whereas if you had replied in the belligerent way that others have done, the matter remains unsolved.

Darksparkle

Any tax credit claim can be checked. If you are claiming benefits it should be expected that claims will be checked from time to time.

They do random checks as well as risked based checks. In your case it is risked based as they believe there could be a partner.

By supplying the required evidence, you can prove that there is no partner and continue to claim as normal.

But in many cases, these checks have been justified and we have seen people post here and on other forums confirming they do in fact live with a partner and haven't declared it for one reason or another.

I don't personally think the information they have asked for you for is too extreme. Would take me about an hour to get that together as most is online.

Cornucopia

I think posters are slightly missing the point. We all know the overt reasoning given by HMRC/Concentrix.

The questions are:-

1. whether that reasoning is acceptable? e.g. is data mining of "unusual" data sources an appropriate way to approach this?

2. whether the practical issues of its application are acceptable? e.g. whether agencies should always keep their demands for information to the strict minimum required to satisfy their immediate requirements, or whether they should be allowed to go on "fishing expeditions" through personal, confidential data.

3. whether the overall approach is consistent with acceptable practices and the law. e.g. whether data mining being undertaken within inappropriate data sources (credit reference agency data) is implicitly unlawful for reasons of fairness, suitability and (lack of) consent.

4. whether the whole process is being professionally executed? e.g. is the difficulty in contacting Concentrix to fulfil or discuss its "requirements" acceptable?

5. whether the whole process is being used to unfairly deter or prevent people from claiming their legitimate entitlements?

6. whether there is any element of HMRC or Concentrix over-stepping their authority in terms of what they are doing, or how they are communicating with claimants?

Cornucopia

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

This exercise is uncovering a large amount of fraud.

Is it? How much?

RAS

The trouble is that both the Government and Concentrix have a vested interest in identifying fraud to justify the contract. So the definition of identified fraud is cast very wide and if it is anything like the previous exercise the value attached to each case based on a nominal value that overestimates the fraud. When Parliament took their figures apart what they discovered was that every possible case was counted and the entire value of the benefits claimed by each were counted and then this was multiplied by a number of weeks/month that bore no resemblance to the actual amount of time involved.

So a £20 per month suspected over payment for a period of 8 weeks on a £400 per month benefit was counted as 400x24=£9600 fraud even if it later turned out that there was no overpayment.

I hope they are doing better this time. And I am certainly aware that there are people who make fraudulent claims and that there are people who will show up as residing with ANOther because their ex likes making life difficult and still uses the address for some accounts.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Cornucopia wrote: »

Is it? How much?

I'm sure I can find the annual figures for you - in 2010 it was £125 million. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11633074

(update)

In 2012 it was £203 million for England alone.

missapril75

Cornucopia wrote: »

1. whether that reasoning is acceptable? e.g. is data mining of "unusual" data sources an appropriate way to approach this?

What's unusual about the info obtained? At some stage someone has reported their address and it has been recorded.

2. ...whether they should be allowed to go on "fishing expeditions" through personal, confidential data.
I think you're assuming something. For example, certain staff within DWP have a computer access by address that shows names and NINOs of people reporting that as their address.

Receiving a claim and passing the file to an officer to check on the off chance someone else is at the address....that would be inefficient or fishing.

But claims have certain identifying features and computers cross scanning will pick up potential discrepancies. There may be logical explanations but it needs to be checked. A quick enquiry is surely better than a surveillance team.

3. whether the overall approach is consistent with acceptable practices and the law. e.g. whether data mining being undertaken within inappropriate data sources (credit reference agency data) is implicitly unlawful for reasons of fairness, suitability and (lack of) consent.

That's very long winded.

4. whether the whole process is being professionally executed? e.g. is the difficulty in contacting Concentrix to fulfil or discuss its "requirements" acceptable?

Another example of inappropriate privatisation.

5. whether the whole process is being used to unfairly deter or prevent people from claiming their legitimate entitlements?

I don't like the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" approach, but I'm not sure people do know this happens so I don't see people put off claiming.

6. whether there is any element of HMRC or Concentrix over-stepping their authority in terms of what they are doing, or how they are communicating with claimants?

Look at the thread title. Threatening? Nope.

This thread was just bumped by inclusion of an example of the letter. It's not the first example shown and it's not the least threatening or intrusive.

We have information that suggests there might be another person linked to your address....

Suggests and might...that's pretty neutral don't you think? So many people have distorted this to mean they have been accused of living with someone and it says nothing of the sort.

We need to check

Again, it's neutral. It doesn't say "you need to prove" something.

Londonsu

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think posters are slightly missing the point. We all know the overt reasoning given by HMRC/Concentrix.

The questions are:-

1. whether that reasoning is acceptable? e.g. is data mining of "unusual" data sources an appropriate way to approach this?

2. whether the practical issues of its application are acceptable? e.g. whether agencies should always keep their demands for information to the strict minimum required to satisfy their immediate requirements, or whether they should be allowed to go on "fishing expeditions" through personal, confidential data.

3. whether the overall approach is consistent with acceptable practices and the law. e.g. whether data mining being undertaken within inappropriate data sources (credit reference agency data) is implicitly unlawful for reasons of fairness, suitability and (lack of) consent.

4. whether the whole process is being professionally executed? e.g. is the difficulty in contacting Concentrix to fulfil or discuss its "requirements" acceptable?

5. whether the whole process is being used to unfairly deter or prevent people from claiming their legitimate entitlements?

6. whether there is any element of HMRC or Concentrix over-stepping their authority in terms of what they are doing, or how they are communicating with claimants?

But if you claim money, benefits tax credits or whatever that have conditions imposed and part of those conditions is that you are entitled to what you are claiming for and how much you are claiming for, then you are in fact consenting to having checks made and question asked to verify your claim.

FBaby

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473968/fraud-and-error-stats-release-fy-2014-15.pdf