Daughters UC stopped

HillStreetBlues

NedS said:

It's not currently linked in real time, but DWP run scans which identify 'at risk' cases which are then investigated.

As any overpayment can be recovered at any point in the future, they do not seem particularly bothered if it takes them an age to recover any overpayment.

That will all change with the new fraud detection systems that are being put in place where detection will happen a lot quicker, and use evidence from a lot more automated sources (e.g, banks as you already highlighted) to identify the most common types of fraud.

But there is no fraud if you return within a month for UC or 28 days with other benefits and you aren't doing things you claim you are unable to do.

OhWow

NedS said:

HillStreetBlues said:

OhWow said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Newcad said:

I would think it's because they had been declared that it was relatively easy to sort and get payments reinstated.

It isn't hard to imagine how much more difficult they could have made things if the periods abroad had not been declared.

They are looking to get banks to check overseas spending to see if someone is away for longer then they should be. If they needs banks to do that I don't think the system are linked up to check is someone is abroad.

The government have exit and entry data.

From 8 April 2015 we will collect information on passengers leaving the UK as we do for those entering. This document explains why exit checks are being reintroduced and how the process will work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk

Yes they do, but as I said above I don't think the systems are linked.

It's not currently linked in real time, but DWP run scans which identify 'at risk' cases which are then investigated.

As any overpayment can be recovered at any point in the future, they do not seem particularly bothered if it takes them an age to recover any overpayment.

That will all change with the new fraud detection systems that are being put in place where detection will happen a lot quicker, and use evidence from a lot more automated sources (e.g, banks as you already highlighted) to identify the most common types of fraud.

I suppose there could even be cases where perhaps somebody claimed benefits due to mental health and stated they can't leave the house, but the exit from the UK checks shows they did leave the house?

HillStreetBlues

OhWow said:

NedS said:

HillStreetBlues said:

OhWow said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Newcad said:

I would think it's because they had been declared that it was relatively easy to sort and get payments reinstated.

It isn't hard to imagine how much more difficult they could have made things if the periods abroad had not been declared.

They are looking to get banks to check overseas spending to see if someone is away for longer then they should be. If they needs banks to do that I don't think the system are linked up to check is someone is abroad.

The government have exit and entry data.

From 8 April 2015 we will collect information on passengers leaving the UK as we do for those entering. This document explains why exit checks are being reintroduced and how the process will work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk

Yes they do, but as I said above I don't think the systems are linked.

It's not currently linked in real time, but DWP run scans which identify 'at risk' cases which are then investigated.

As any overpayment can be recovered at any point in the future, they do not seem particularly bothered if it takes them an age to recover any overpayment.

That will all change with the new fraud detection systems that are being put in place where detection will happen a lot quicker, and use evidence from a lot more automated sources (e.g, banks as you already highlighted) to identify the most common types of fraud.

I suppose there could even be cases where perhaps somebody claimed benefits due to mental health as they can't leave the house, but the exit from the UK checks shows they did leave the house?

That would be a long way off. It would say they are on a benefit but not why it was awarded. It would currently take far to much manpower to do that. One day when AI controls our lives then it could be.

OhWow

HillStreetBlues said:

OhWow said:

NedS said:

HillStreetBlues said:

OhWow said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Newcad said:

I would think it's because they had been declared that it was relatively easy to sort and get payments reinstated.

It isn't hard to imagine how much more difficult they could have made things if the periods abroad had not been declared.

They are looking to get banks to check overseas spending to see if someone is away for longer then they should be. If they needs banks to do that I don't think the system are linked up to check is someone is abroad.

The government have exit and entry data.

From 8 April 2015 we will collect information on passengers leaving the UK as we do for those entering. This document explains why exit checks are being reintroduced and how the process will work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk

Yes they do, but as I said above I don't think the systems are linked.

It's not currently linked in real time, but DWP run scans which identify 'at risk' cases which are then investigated.

As any overpayment can be recovered at any point in the future, they do not seem particularly bothered if it takes them an age to recover any overpayment.

That will all change with the new fraud detection systems that are being put in place where detection will happen a lot quicker, and use evidence from a lot more automated sources (e.g, banks as you already highlighted) to identify the most common types of fraud.

I suppose there could even be cases where perhaps somebody claimed benefits due to mental health as they can't leave the house, but the exit from the UK checks shows they did leave the house?

That would be a long way off. It would say they are on a benefit but not why it was awarded. It would currently take far to much manpower to do that. One day when AI controls our lives then it could be.

Manpower? What do you think happens when you go through the e-gates? There isn't lots of humans there writing all the details onto records at a later date. It's a contactless digital border, where entry/exit data can be easily searched on the computer system by using a query language (tell the computer what results you want to see).

UK visas are also going to be digitalised by the end of this year; no more physical visas to show.

Colossus, the first (modern day) computer, was built at Bletchley Park for spying. Now we use computers to talk to/spy on other computers. Very little manpower needed there.

HillStreetBlues

OhWow said:

Manpower? What do you think happens when you go through the e-gates? There isn't lots of humans there writing all the details onto records at a later date. It's a contactless digital border, where entry/exit data can be easily searched on the computer system by using a query language (tell the computer what results you want to see).

UK visas are also going to be digitalised by the end of this year; no more physical visas to show.

Colossus, the first (modern day) computer, was built at Bletchley Park for spying. Now we use computers to talk to/spy on other computers. Very little manpower needed there.

Not much for my experience as they have been closed off and have to go though the booth were a person scans my passport.

OhWow

HillStreetBlues said:

OhWow said:

Manpower? What do you think happens when you go through the e-gates? There isn't lots of humans there writing all the details onto records at a later date. It's a contactless digital border, where entry/exit data can be easily searched on the computer system by using a query language (tell the computer what results you want to see).

UK visas are also going to be digitalised by the end of this year; no more physical visas to show.

Colossus, the first (modern day) computer, was built at Bletchley Park for spying. Now we use computers to talk to/spy on other computers. Very little manpower needed there.

Not much for my experience as they have been closed off and have to go though the booth were a person scans my passport.

And that scan extracts information from your passport.

Muttleythefrog

Just my input.... it would seem bizarre to try to use unreliable 3rd party private sector data (banks/transactions) to in future indicate potential excessive overseas stays of claimants when there is indeed UKBA collecting entry and exit data which should be very reliable and easier to work with. If they do go down the line of using travel data matching in regard to potential benefit fraud surely this is the route they'd take. I doubt though such would ever extend to functional benefit fraud investigation as for starters there is no benefit criteria that would preclude holidays here or abroad including criteria such as in relation to (PIP activity Mobility 1) being unable to go on trips outdoors due to overwhelming psychological distress (people can get determined this applies to them even when having attended an assessment at an assessment centre as the descriptor is not an absolute applying all of the time and reliability criteria has to be considered).... also worth bearing in mind the nature of holidays is that you don't go on them frequently... you could go away a month but they'd still have no evidence from travel data that you spent every day stuck in a hotel room or were out partying on the beach... and if a couple of weeks afterwards you spent another month abroad they'd still be none the wiser... they'd know only that over a period of 3ish months you managed 4 trips.

Obviously in this case the claimant reported all their trips to U/C in advance.... ironically which raised suspicions sufficient to stop payments pending claimant confirmation of essentially what they'd already reported.... I would find that quite unacceptable treatment of healthy claimants never mind those who could face health complications or further disablement as a result.... and at very least such should have come with a very clear message as to why it had happened and what the resolution could/would be ('due to several recent overseas trips we just want to check you are currently in the country and intend to live here so we will arrange a meeting to confirm this such that we can continue to make payments to you including any backdated ones owed'). 

ElwoodBlues

Is it not part of the claimant commitment to inform UC of going abroad? If you don't and they later find out could they sanction you just for not telling them at the time? Just because they can't discover it automatically today, doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future when these systems are linked up. And with no time limit on recovery of overpayments they could come after someone after a very long time.

Also, when they start checking bank statements the OP's pattern of overseas travel won't necessarily be obvious from banking data. It might look like they were out of the country for n extended period rather than several shorter trips. It's easy for the op to prove it now with their passport stamps, but in 20 years time they might not have kept that old passport.

And on the same subject, how long do you have to stay back in the UK in between 28 day/1 month trips abroad?

HillStreetBlues

ElwoodBlues said:

Is it not part of the claimant commitment to inform UC of going abroad? If you don't and they later find out could they sanction you just for not telling them at the time? Just because they can't discover it automatically today, doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future when these systems are linked up. And with no time limit on recovery of overpayments they could come after someone after a very long time.

Also, when they start checking bank statements the OP's pattern of overseas travel won't necessarily be obvious from banking data. It might look like they were out of the country for n extended period rather than several shorter trips. It's easy for the op to prove it now with their passport stamps, but in 20 years time they might not have kept that old passport.

And on the same subject, how long do you have to stay back in the UK in between 28 day/1 month trips abroad?

My claimant commitment just states to check journal and to report a change of circumstances.
A CoC is something that legally affects the claim.  They can give guidance on what might or can be for example one is "changes to your savings, investments and how much money you have"
Almost certainly at the end of a AP  the amount of money you have will have changed even if it's just by pennies. So  every month you would need to send in a report. But it would only matter if it was over £6k, not reporting you have £4k when where last AP you have £3.5k won't matter.
So for being away from GB you need to report if you plan to be outside GB for a month or are outside GB for a month.

Muttleythefrog

ElwoodBlues said:

Is it not part of the claimant commitment to inform UC of going abroad? If you don't and they later find out could they sanction you just for not telling them at the time? Just because they can't discover it automatically today, doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future when these systems are linked up. And with no time limit on recovery of overpayments they could come after someone after a very long time.

Also, when they start checking bank statements the OP's pattern of overseas travel won't necessarily be obvious from banking data. It might look like they were out of the country for n extended period rather than several shorter trips. It's easy for the op to prove it now with their passport stamps, but in 20 years time they might not have kept that old passport.

And on the same subject, how long do you have to stay back in the UK in between 28 day/1 month trips abroad?

Good question.... not sure. Like for HSB above my claim commitments don't really specify such but I am not sure if they're too narrowly interpreting what needs to be reported as changed circumstances (although admittedly there seems no reference to going on holiday (abroad) in any list I can find).... I mean a change of address may not affect a claim but you would be expected to report it... changing you immigration status/nationality I understand is also expected to be reported even if it does not affect the claim. What I do know is every time my wife (joint claimant) has intended to go abroad they have insisted on being kept up to date with details including confirmation of return to the UK. (i.e. they have never said... 'if she plans to go away less than a month then we're not interested'). Her most recent trip went beyond a month but due to the circumstances very kindly a Decision Maker stepped in before her departure to say she could go for up to 2 months. Safest thing is to report overseas trips I'd say even where no work related commitments... as was done in the case of the subject of the thread... it's easy to do and is there as a record should it ever be queried in future (as seems the case in the thread). I'm also thinking that planned trips can go wrong... there are for example some very obvious, and no doubt plenty less obvious, reasons why a planned trip abroad may overrun... airline collapse.. bad weather.. illness.. strikes..  and reporting the issue may be simpler if you've already given details of the trip that was planned. Then there is also the issue of trips where you do not know when you will return... not all trips are nicely defined package holidays.

On passport I don't think they could be relied on as I believe they only stamp those of travellers coming through immigration... indeed this has posed many EU migrants living in the UK a major headache as they did not get their passports stamped when they were entering the UK and if they try to naturalise British the primary proof of when they were in the UK would be passport stamps which they do not historically have. However entries and exits are recorded and I understand people can ask for the details of their records in a data access request.

On last question... if the claimant isn't breaching their commitments they can travel as often as they like in theory.