I hate to sound cynical, but if I was under threat of losing my job now, the first thing i would do was empty my bank account and store the money under the mattress!

Sadly that wouldn't do you any good because credit check records go back at least six years, so they'd see you'd taken out a lump sum and do you for deprivation of assets.

Hi there,

I had an iuc last october and they produced bank statements going back to 2007. Nationwide and my current bank Halifax. They had details of all accounts I held with both banks, including savings accounts which had nothing in them. I was asked to explain nearly every transaction in all of these accounts. I never gave them permission to do this and after the interview I researched it and found out that when you sign your application for benefits (ie income support etc etc) you give them permission to check your personal information (bank statements) for fraud etc. It's disgusting, I was told I should have informed them of any money going into my account even if it was just £5.00 as they would count it as an income. Nearly a year on and i'm still waiting for my appeal to be heard by the tribunal

credit checks would not work as credit reference agencies only carry details of bank accounts that have overdrafts or a credit facility

so if you had a savings account with 100k in it, it would not show up on a credit check

credit checks would not work as credit reference agencies only carry details of bank accounts that have overdrafts or a credit facility

 

so if you had a savings account with 100k in it, it would not show up on a credit check

That is completely wrong I am afraid.

I only have a Natwest Step/Basic account, with no overdraft, no cheques, anything, and that shows up on my credit reference files.

And they probably send out a standard query to the banks directly with a name/NINO/DOB anyway, they wont just be looking at CRA - they will interrogate the banks electronically and check out any "hits"

Thanks to all for the feedback; seems unless you're one of the elite who can store your savings tax free offshore, you have to be prepared to have your private finances thoroughly investigated by private companies when you fall on hard times and require the state to support you.

What a sad state of affairs.

Since I hate all banks anyway, I think i'll take all my savings out and take my chances with house thieves; in the current economic climate, you never know when you may end up requiring to claim benefits of some description!

Thanks to all for the feedback; seems unless you're one of the elite who can store your savings tax free offshore, you have to be prepared to have your private finances thoroughly investigated by private companies when you fall on hard times and require the state to support you.

You think you should be able to lie (by not declaring bank accounts) and get the state to support you?

They can only access a bank account with a court order (warrant) from a Judge,if they suspect a crime has been committed.

Where on earth some people get the idea from that the DWP/Councils can just go around accessing everyone's bank account is belong me.....

Well they can I'm afraid. Have you read the papers or online about Camerons push against benefit fraud? Contracting out to private credit checking companies? This info's been out there for some time now.

I think 45002 has misunderstood. We aren't talking about physically accessing money, we're talking about gaining access to information in relation to accounts.

Think I may have got out of bed the wrong side this morning but jareds comment has infuriated me!! Benefits are for the needy of our society, needy means cannot do without help from the state. I fell on hard times at the beginning of the year and had no other option but to claim benefits until we go back on our feet; if I had of had money "stashed" away I wouldn't have claimed benefits. Ooooh it makes me mad!

I think 45002 has misunderstood. We aren't talking about physically accessing money, we're talking about gaining access to information in relation to accounts.

 

Think I may have got out of bed the wrong side this morning but jareds comment has infuriated me!! Benefits are for the needy of our society, needy means cannot do without help from the state. I fell on hard times at the beginning of the year and had no other option but to claim benefits until we go back on our feet; if I had of had money "stashed" away I wouldn't have claimed benefits. Ooooh it makes me mad!

I feel the same. Earlier this year, my bank were being difficult in regards to bank statements. I wrote on a bank statement "you [DWP] have my permission to ask for information on my other bank accounts with ".

Right just pulled this off the pay site we can't mention!

Checks on bank accounts and other financial matters can be initiated by the DWP, through the generalised matching service.

 

This can detect through data sharing with HMRC how many bank accounts are held by an individual, as all interest by law has to be declared by banks to HMRC. If for example a person claims means-tested benefits, and fails to declare a bank account or the correct amount of capital contained in a bank account, it can be detected through the GMS. If as a result fraud is suspected, authorised fraud officers can access individual bank accounts without the need to seek prior permission.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/10/20/dwp-plans-to-ramp-up-data-matching-40090586/

http://www.opportunities.co.uk/articles/dwp-new-fraud-and-error-strategy/

So there you go.

Maybe the OP can answer the glaring question of why they wanted to deliberately lie/withhold information about these accounts from the DWP?

speedfreek, that is correct

HMRC, DWP and LAs routinely carry out data-matching exercises for discrepancies between the information held between them.

If a disrepancy arises, for example if a person declares capital of £1000 to DWP/LA, however their bank declares that the person received £500 interest, then the matching service will notify the DWP/LA of the discrepancy.

If it is a minor discrepancy, the DWP/LA will normally contact the individual for further information about the issue.

If the customer refuses or fails to provide the necessary information or if it a major discrepancy, the DWP/LA may then use their powers under the SSFA to obtain the information directly from the banks.

The SSFA powers are normally a last resort where there are substantial enough grounds to suspect fraud, and there is no other way to reasonably obtain the necessary evidence to investigate the case.

They are not rarely (if ever) used at the time a person makes their actual claim for benefit.

If your claiming HB or IC,yes you have to declare your bank account/savings and if you dont,they can refuse to pay you benefit.

If they suspect fraud is beaning committed.

They still need a court order (warrant) from a Judge,to access a bank account

Don't believe everything you read on a web site,especially from " the pay site we can't mention!"

45002

i think people may be talking at crossed purposes, I agree that the DWP/LA cannot access the funds within bank accounts without a court order

However the discussion appears to relate to the issue of DWP/LA obtaining information in relation to bank accounts, e.g. balances, copy statements, etc - which can be obtained under the social security fraud act where there is suspicion of fraud and does not require a court order

Why am I getting grief here; at no stage did I say or imply that I planned to deceive/withhold financial information from anyone. If I was to claim benefits (heaven forbid I would ever have to since the level of JSA wouldn't support a hamster) I would be happy to declare any cash savings I had; I simply resent the fact that private organisations can access your bank details; at what point did I say I had £100,000 thousand pounds in the bank and planned to take it all out so that I could commit fraud?

Looks like some of the posters here should stick to reading the Daily Mail

*clutches handbag*

Your original post mentioned deliberate fraud and that plus subsequent posts asks the question why that fraud failed!

Call me a cynic but........

The ethos of this board is we do not judge your actions but help you get a fair result no matter what you've done. That means we do not promote or encourage fraud but will help with the consequences.

The question "my mate tried to hide their bank accounts but got found out why?" fits into that ethos how exactly?

*clutches handbag*

 

Your original post mentioned deliberate fraud and that plus subsequent posts asks the question why that fraud failed!

 

Call me a cynic but........

 

The ethos of this board is we do not judge your actions but help you get a fair result no matter what you've done. That means we do not promote or encourage fraud but will help with the consequences.

 

 

 

The question "my mate tried to hide their bank accounts but got found out why?" fits into that ethos how exactly?

What fraud are you taking about? Did you actually read the original post? No fraud was committed; the sum of her bank accounts was well under the threshold for affecting any benefits so where was the fraud? Where did I ask why the fraud failed? There was no fraud

Like I said, some posters should stick to reading the Daily Mail

But, by the sounds of things, she didn't enclose full details of her bank accounts?

Nystagmite is correct in oppening post it was stated that the friend only declared 1 account originally and then the LA produced information about an account that was initially undeclared. Although it may not have been fraud in that the account could have been overdrawn or a nil balance it is still fraud as all information was not declared iygwim?

Nystagmite is correct in oppening post it was stated that the friend only declared 1 account originally and then the LA produced information about an account that was initially undeclared. Although it may not have been fraud in that the account could have been overdrawn or a nil balance it is still fraud as all information was not declared iygwim?

Would there be an intention aspect? If the OP's friend intentionally hid that account, then aye, regardless of contents, I suspect that could be seen as fraud. If she simply forgot to mention it, or didnt think she needed to, then no.

Its easy to do, I had a compliance interview, handed over my statements, but forgot about my second account with the same bank - it was on my statement, as when I received a community care grant, I paid the cash (giros) into that second account, to keep it separate from my JSA, and transferred it over in bits, when I found various items of furniture etc to buy. So he noticed the payments, asked what they were, cue embarressed face, and I trotted off round the corner to get a statement printed for that account.

Like the OP's friend "may" have, I never thought to mention it, as at the time of the interview it was empty, and had been apart from the CG money ever since it was opened.

I would just like to point out that they did not get a court order to look through my bank account. All they have to do is request this info from the bank and state what reason and they get it. How do I know this? They did it to me!