Compliance interview DWP - but not on means tested benefits

pinklady21

Hello
A friend of mine who is in receipt of non means tested benefits (PIP and Contributory ESA) has received a letter inviting him for an interview with a compliance officer.
His concern is that he is being asked for his bank statements.
As he is not in receipt of means tested benefits, is the DWP allowed to do this? On what grounds?
Thank you!

calcotti

If in receipt of pension income that could affect amount of contribution based ESA payable.

pinklady21

Thank you.
He does not receive pension income, but is in receipt of permanent health insurance, via his employer. the contract of employment has not ended, therefore he believes he remains eligible for ESA (CB).
The DWP have queried this on several occasions by letter, he has always replied with the info as above, and DWP has confirmed all is well.

But again - why ask for bank statements, ESA CB is not means tested. And why demand he goes for an interview in a town 15 miles away, when the matter has always been dealt with by letter previously? He is understandably rather stressed by it all!

Dazed_and_confused

If he's complied with the rules what's the problem? With providing the bank statements.

pinklady21

Dazed_and_confused wrote: »

If he's complied with the rules what's the problem?

Its the authoritarian tone of the letter, and the demand for info that seems irrelevant, as he has not claimed any means tested benefits.
Apparently, he needs to bring his partner's info as well - which he is struggling to understand why when it is not a joint claim?

calcotti

Although contribution based ESA is not generally means tested it can be reduced due to pension income (half of anything over £85/week). I think health insurance can be caught up in this depending on who paid the premiums - see this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5917692/income-protection-and-esa

pinklady21

Thank you again for your prompt reply.
He has already been through this with them.

He understands that the deduction only applies to someone whose contract of employment has been terminated, which his has not been. Is it possible that the DWP cannot tell the difference?
He is pretty upset about this being raised again, when he has already sent them letters pointing out what the regs state.
Taking in bank statements is simply irrelelevant -- the key point is whether he is still employed or not.

The relevant reg is The Employment and Support Allowance regulations 2008, part 9, Chapter 2, para 72.
Permanent health insurance
72.—(1) For the purposes of sections 2(1)(c) and 3 of the Act (deductions from contributory allowance) pension payment is to include a permanent health insurance payment.
(2) In this regulation “permanent health insurance payment” means any periodical payment arranged by an employer under an insurance policy providing benefits in connection with physical
or mental illness or disability, in relation to a former employee on the termination of that person’s employment.

calcotti

Ok you/he have obviously been through everything and understand the rules. In answer to your opening question I think the DWP have the power to require attendance at an interview regardless of how unreasonable you may consider it to be.

pinklady21

Thank you. It is not the interview per se that is concerning, it is the blanket demand for irrelevant info that seems so draconian.
Can you signpost the regs that allow the DWP to do this, as it seems unreasonable.

calcotti

pinklady21 wrote: »

Can you signpost the regs that allow the DWP to do this, as it seems unreasonable.

Sorry, can’t signpost the regs but I’m sure someone will be able too.

You have the option to make a complaint, it does seem unreasonable if everything has already been covered in correspondence. Difficulty is you don’t know for sure what they are going to ask about at the interview. Often these interviews result in no further action because they agree everything is in order.

antrobus

Specimen standard letter.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/185667/response/457421/attach/5/CCOI1.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1