Signing off due to Universal Credit checking bank statements - advice needed please

norwichsandwich

My friend has been claiming UC for a couple of years due to a genuine medical condition that prevents him from working. Unfortunately, the DWP no longer recognise the condition as being severe enough and say my friend is capable of work. My friend is 60 years old.

Now the DWP have asked my friend for the last 4 months of bank statements and and he is worried as he has been receiving additional financial help gifted from a family member (unfortunately, I do not know how much but it sounds like it totals over £3000 annually and it has been paid weekly) and this will be evident in the bank statements. My friend is panicking and is probably going to close his claim to avoid submitting the statements, but is concerned this will look suspicious and may trigger an investigation into his bank statements, anyway. Does anyone know whether this would happen? My friend has not knowingly committed fraud, as he has not been working, but is worried that he or his family member may get in trouble and have to repay all the benefits he's been claiming. 

If my friend simply closed his claim to avoid having to submit bank statements, could or would it still be investigated further? My friend has never been happy claiming in the first place as he has been made to feel that his medical condition is not genuine, when in fact he suffers a great deal of physical pain on a daily basis.

Does anyone have any up to date information and advice that could help, please?

tomtom256

Yes he would/could still be investigated and they may cancel the claim back if the evidence is required to prove eligilbility.
Gifts from family members are generally ignored, unless they have been saved and take them over the savings threshold.
It's probably just a normal review as most people claiming UC are getting these.

Spoonie_Turtle

I know the thread is not about this particularly but is he aware he can fight the fit for work decision if he feels he meets the criteria for LCW or LCWRA?  It would be a shame if he needlessly missed out on money he's entitled to just because someone didn't do their job properly when assessing him.

Muttleythefrog

The checks sound standard.. large numbers of these are being randomly done now with that '4 months of bank statements please'. I don't think they'll have any issue unless of course they had savings above which they should declare and didn't.

Really do agree with above that they should look to potentially challenging (Mandatory reconsideration followed by an independent appeal if necessary) the Work Capability Assessment decision. If they can get advice or support as necessary to help them... especially if understanding the criteria and how it all works is challenging to them. Entitlement/award is not based on medical condition as such but rather meeting criteria of the WCA for disablement... it helps a lot to know why they qualified previously and whether there has been any change in that regard.

Heightproduction

Also bear in mind that the rules changed recently to enable snooping on bank accounts in the name of fraud prevention.

I reckon MPs should publish their bank statements, then, so we can see that they are all above board. Seems a fair quid pro quo!

HillStreetBlues

Heightproduction said:

Also bear in mind that the rules changed recently to enable snooping on bank accounts in the name of fraud prevention.

I reckon MPs should publish their bank statements, then, so we can see that they are all above board. Seems a fair quid pro quo!

The rules haven't changed yet, it's part of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill that is currently progressing to the Committee Stage in the HoL.
But as they can't randomly check banks atm, they are forcing some people to provide months of bank statement under the guise of these "checks"

NedS

I don't / didn't think the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill gave DWP the right to snoop on claimant's bank statements in cases like this that are randomly selected for checks - I thought they had to have reasonable suspicion / evidence that fraud had been committed - i.e, it would be trained fraud CFCD officers, not the masses of UCR agents they have taken on to conduct these standard reviews. But I could be wrong!

HillStreetBlues

NedS said:

I don't / didn't think the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill gave DWP the right to snoop on claimant's bank statements in cases like this that are randomly selected for checks - I thought they had to have reasonable suspicion / evidence that fraud had been committed - i.e, it would be trained fraud CFCD officers, not the masses of UCR agents they have taken on to conduct these standard reviews. But I could be wrong!

What the amendment means to benefit claimants.
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/data-protection-bill-proposes-%E2%80%9Cwholly-unnecessary%E2%80%9D-surveillance-measures-are-%E2%80%9Cdisproportionate

kaMelo

NedS said:

I don't / didn't think the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill gave DWP the right to snoop on claimant's bank statements in cases like this that are randomly selected for checks - I thought they had to have reasonable suspicion / evidence that fraud had been committed - i.e, it would be trained fraud CFCD officers, not the masses of UCR agents they have taken on to conduct these standard reviews. But I could be wrong!

That currently is the case, they have to have reasonable suspicion before investigating. The proposed changes are about automated data matching, removing any need of reasonable suspicion. 
An example, The Government knows who claims a means tested benefit, the banks know who has what in their accounts, If a claimant has under reported how much they have in savings or 'forgotten' a bank account they hold, the automated data matching process will flag the discrepancy between what a claimant has and what they have disclosed for further investigation.
The Government ran a small proof of concept trial on this in 2017, here is the report on what they found.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6285e7f3d3bf7f1f46f9b6a5/fighting-fraud-in-the-welfare-system-large.pdf

HillStreetBlues

kaMelo said:

NedS said:

I don't / didn't think the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill gave DWP the right to snoop on claimant's bank statements in cases like this that are randomly selected for checks - I thought they had to have reasonable suspicion / evidence that fraud had been committed - i.e, it would be trained fraud CFCD officers, not the masses of UCR agents they have taken on to conduct these standard reviews. But I could be wrong!

That currently is the case, they have to have reasonable suspicion before investigating. The proposed changes are about automated data matching, removing any need of reasonable suspicion. 
An example, The Government knows who claims a means tested benefit, the banks know who has what in their accounts, If a claimant has under reported how much they have in savings or 'forgotten' a bank account they hold, the automated data matching process will flag the discrepancy between what a claimant has and what they have disclosed for further investigation.
The Government ran a small proof of concept trial on this in 2017, here is the report on what they found.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6285e7f3d3bf7f1f46f9b6a5/fighting-fraud-in-the-welfare-system-large.pdf

My reading of it I don't think that wouldn't be picked up.
The banks will use the DWP payment info and check those accounts,  but if no payment is made into a "forgotten" account then it won't be flagged.

kaMelo

The data matching process will, I assume, operate in a similar way to a CRA or HMRC in that they are supplied with all the data. they then collate and assign the data to a person. That way the DWP will know about all your accounts, not just the ones that you've told them about.