Does DWP have authority to look at bank statements without permission?

epitome

TELLIT01 wrote: »

There are very good reasons for needing to see unedited / unfiltered bank statements and none of the reasons are in order to know where you go for a drink, buy your food etc.
When I worked on benefit processing we saw many instances where only one bank account had been declared, yet we saw movement of funds to and from other accounts. Had the claimant been able to filter information we would not have know of those accounts and the claimant would happily have continued with a fraudulent claim.
The rules really are very simple - either comply with lawful requests for information or don't claim benefits.

That does not make it a lawful request. I don't know the answer myself, but I would have thought at the new claim stage the question is asked
What is your total savings?

If the total declared is close to the threshold, the DWP can reasonably request evidence of this.
DWP workers will say to the claimant send us your bank statements (because that is the way they have always done it with every claimant and that is what they were told to ask for when they were trained).

But this does not mean that it would be lawful to refuse as evidence a claimant who supplies only a balance of account printout from the bank.

All the required information has been provided, the total savings in that account, and one of these print outs for each account they hold.

DWP has to operate within reason. I can see no justification for insisting that a full unedited bank statement be supplied. Because all they are checking is the savings total, they have no cause to suspect that there is any thing suspicious about the claimant that would warrant a detailed statement of incomings and outgoings from the acccount.





BTW, I wish we had more, lots more CCTV like 10 times as many as we have now, it's such a useful tool for fighting crime and investigating missing persons and civil disputes motor insurance claims etc..

Carrieanne

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

Can I sell you some tin foil for your hat?

Yes, but I need to be assured you're VAT registered. I want no part of the black economy, thank you. :beer:

TELLIT01 wrote: »

In what was is the number of CCTV cameras relevant to a question about supplying bank statements to support a claim for benefits?

It was for emphasis. This thread's original question had been answered.

TELLIT01

epitome wrote: »

That does not make it a lawful request. I don't know the answer myself, but I would have thought at the new claim stage the question is asked
What is your total savings?

If the total declared is close to the threshold, the DWP can reasonably request evidence of this.
DWP workers will say to the claimant send us your bank statements (because that is the way they have always done it with every claimant and that is what they were told to ask for when they were trained).

But this does not mean that it would be lawful to refuse as evidence a claimant who supplies only a balance of account printout from the bank.

When I worked on ESA New Claims we would do as you detailed above, request bank statements if the amount declared was close to the £6k lower limit. If the person hadn't previously been in receipt of benefits a summary would generally be accepted, because it would be impossible to prove that they had spent capital in order to receive benefits. However, if somebody had recently been on benefits, and the claim closed because of an increase in capital, full statements for at least 6 months would be requested. If they failed to provide, the claim would be passed to a DM to confirm that it should be closed for failure to provide info. That was the practice in our office.

epitome

That would be acting within reason, if it is known to DWP that a new claimant previously had savings over threshold, then requesting bank statements going back to the last known balance would be ok........although thinking about it I do wonder where a judge would draw the line, if all that is required is proof of the balance as it it is now and a written statement by the claimant as to what he has spent his money on and when and why he spent it....... then a full history of bank statements would seem to be unnecessary and therefore could not be insisted on by the DWP.

But Joe Bloggs new claimant, who has never claimed before or has claimed but has never had a problem with capital, who is close to £6K on his new claim and who only supplies a balance print out his account when requested to provide evidence of his savings, has acted reasonably and DWP has no grounds to ask for any more detail.


DWP staff have very little knowledge of the law and what the law requires they can and cannot do. They just tell claimants how they see it and what they want the claimant to do (because that's the way it has always been done), the claimant who also has little knowledge of the law just goes along with it. Ultimately though the claimant who stands up for his rights may be disallowed and can do an MR and appeal and upper appeal to find out if he is right and DWP are wrong.

Comms69

Carrieanne wrote: »

Yes, but I need to be assured you're VAT registered. I want no part of the black economy, thank you. :beer:



It was for emphasis. This thread's original question had been answered.

Being Vat registered or not is nothing to do with black market economy....

Carrieanne

Well blow me down.

I suspect a cashless world would kneecap the black economy. Good news for governments and banks. Not so fab for privacy.

TELLIT01

epitome wrote: »

DWP staff have very little knowledge of the law and what the law requires they can and cannot do. They just tell claimants how they see it and what they want the claimant to do (because that's the way it has always been done), the claimant who also has little knowledge of the law just goes along with it. Ultimately though the claimant who stands up for his rights may be disallowed and can do an MR and appeal and upper appeal to find out if he is right and DWP are wrong.

I don't disagree with any of that, apart from the bit about just telling claimants how they see it. The actions taken in our office were those we were told to take when we had our training. It's not a case of each individual making up their own rules as they went along.
Maybe the MR, appeal etc would be no bad thing, as then there would be precedent to use in other claims.

Mersey_2

Chrysalis wrote: »

As far as I know if its a fraud investigation no permission needed.

Not quite.


To be precise - and correct including myself - it is the grounds themselves ie to prevent or detect fraud that make it lawful [which are prescribed in the Act].


Not the fact there's an investigation per se. [Otherwise you could invent one merely to snoop - as sadly one officer did on an ex and who has just been prosecuted for doing so]


In the same way, the criminal equivalent is reasonable grounds. It isn't the act of the arrest itself that makes it lawful, which is why you can sue police for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention [in the very rare cases this happens]


So no, I do not agree re Carieanne's presumption as we have all of these protections and checks in the UK and rights of redress, appeal and the media if we are wronged, unlike in China, Turkey and so on where people are arrested on no grounds whatsoever! [No, Carrieanne, I didn't disagree with your claim that there are 195 countries, as it's the only statement you made which was almost factual - I simply disagree that CCTV is a bad thing per se or that it's all part of some world wide conspiracy as you appear to believe]

dippy3103

Whilst the DWP can obtain bank statements for a fraud investigation, as Mersey says, it’s not the only grounds required. The SSFA powers are only used by authorised officers and they have to be satisfied that the request is necessary and proportionate to the alleged offence and there has to be reason to believe that an offence has been committed. Investigators have to complete In depth requests to these auth officers to consider.
It is tightly controlled and fishing trips are not permitted.
It is very intrusive so only used if there is no other reasonable way to progress the investigation.