DWP demand access in your home & documents

[tomtom256]

Put it this way, would the great british public find it acceptable for the police to randomly pick someones name then go knocking their door asking to come in and check their I.D, bank statements and see if any illegal activity is being carried out within the house?

No?

Then why is it acceptable because I claim benefits?

 

Rarely ever random and it's not always to check for illegal activity. They are also there to ensure you are getting the full entitlement of any benefits.

 

You agree to this happeneing when you sign for your benefits, if you do not want or need them, don't sign and agree to this.

[Shoelover]

The overwhelming number of home visits are notified.

 

I don't get the "they even want to restrict what we spend our benefit money on" though- have I missed something ?

[RaeUK]

Personally, I wouldn't find it a problem at all. To be honest, I'd probably welcome it. I can't remember the last time I had a visitor.

[Chester6]

The overwhelming number of home visits are notified.

 

I don't get the "they even want to restrict what we spend our benefit money on" though- have I missed something ?

 

At the jobcentre some want to tell you what you should spend money on

Eg I overheard a guy getting lectured by a guy his age or older for daring to smoke whilst not keeping his phone topped up, I've been told twice that I should look upon searching as a job yet it's only a part time Job in that case

[antone]

Put it this way, would the great british public find it acceptable for the police to randomly pick someones name then go knocking their door asking to come in and check their I.D, bank statements and see if any illegal activity is being carried out within the house?

No?

Then why is it acceptable because I claim benefits?

 

The answer to your last question is simple - it's acceptable because you claim benefits. I mean, don't get me wrong, I fully support our system of social welfare and wish it were more inclusive and less dehumanising, but do you really expect it to be free of terms and conditions?

[antone]

At the jobcentre some want to tell you what you should spend money on

Eg I overheard a guy getting lectured by a guy his age or older for daring to smoke whilst not keeping his phone topped up, I've been told twice that I should look upon searching as a job yet it's only a part time Job in that case

 

There's a difference between some sanctimonious clown with a JCP badge mouthing off and official DWP policy.

[Chester6]

There's a difference between some sanctimonious clown with a JCP badge mouthing off and official DWP policy.

True

But the point I wanted to make was that some do it and not all

[Shoelover]

There's a difference between some sanctimonious clown with a JCP badge mouthing off and official DWP policy.

 

Totally...

[Lapsed Workaholic]

There's a difference between some sanctimonious clown with a JCP badge mouthing off and official DWP policy.

I like it. But I suspect that in some quarters this remark could be construed as being in breach of the cautionary rebuke that “civility is not optional here”.

[antone]

I like it. But I suspect that in some quarters this remark could be construed as being in breach of the cautionary rebuke that “civility is not optional here”.

 

Insulting hypothetical people is somewhat different to insulting fellow posters.

 

Are we really going to play a "gotcha" game here?

[Madamfluff]

Put it this way, would the great british public find it acceptable for the police to randomly pick someones name then go knocking their door asking to come in and check their I.D, bank statements and see if any illegal activity is being carried out within the house?

No?

Then why is it acceptable because I claim benefits?

 

 

If you are claiming means tested benefits then its annoying and maybe offensive to you but perfectly acceptable for you to have to prove that you are entitled to it.

 

 

Take my situation before April this year I was claiming JSA for both my self and my husband in a couples claim, due to his age our payment was £222.05 per week (the minimum amount of money the laws allows a couple to live on plus extra due to my Husbands age) this was means tested /income based and the DWP and the council ( I was also claiming CTB) had a perfect right to satisfy themselves that we had no other money coming in.

 

 

When my Husband got his state/private pension in April I had to sign off as we were then over the minimum amount, if I had not signed off and we continued to claim income based benefits like JSA Pension Credit or CTB then the DWP and the council would have every right to investigate our claim and have sight of our bank statements and my husbands private and state pension payments and lump sum from his annuity to ensure we were actually entitled to the income based benefits.

 

 

Now I have a job, however my earnings do not affect my husbands state pension award because that pension is not income based or means tested, I could be earning 100k a year (I wish) and he would still be entitled to the amount of pension awarded when he turned 65, therefore the DWP ( we of course no longer claim CTB) would not have the right to look at our bank statements or know how much I earn as its none of their business.

[dyfed]

The answer to your last question is simple - it's acceptable because you claim benefits. I mean, don't get me wrong, I fully support our system of social welfare and wish it were more inclusive and less dehumanising, but do you really expect it to be free of terms and conditions?

 

Yes it should be free of intrusive conditions like banging my door and expecting to come into my family home to check my id and personal documents.

[dyfed]

Rarely ever random and it's not always to check for illegal activity. They are also there to ensure you are getting the full entitlement of any benefits.

 

You agree to this happeneing when you sign for your benefits, if you do not want or need them, don't sign and agree to this.

 

Oh of course, silly me. They want to come to my house, check my id, bank statements and other personal information just to make sure that I am getting my full entitlement of benefits!

 

Just because its in the small print dont make it right. So just because I have worked for years, paying into the system and then through very serious health problems I have to claim benefits and sign to get them you are saying that its right that I have to give up my rights to privacy and be treated like a criminal?

[dyfed]

The overwhelming number of home visits are notified.

 

I don't get the "they even want to restrict what we spend our benefit money on" though- have I missed something ?

 

 

Yes "this is just big brother, big state gone mad. THEY"...:

 

The government, right wing think tanks, the media etc etc

 

Yes THEY want to restrict what we spend our benefits on. You hear them complain all the time. They accuse all scroungers of blowing all our ill gotten gains on alcohol, fags, sky, flat screen tv's and bingo, instead of buying food. Then off course we got to beg at food banks.

There is talk of following the example of some other countries where claimants are issed with a debit type card which can only be used in certain shops and for "essential items".

I think Austrailia do this.

[antone]

Yes it should be free of intrusive conditions like banging my door and expecting to come into my family home to check my id and personal documents.

 

If you don't want them to come in, tell them to go away. I already addressed this, as did others. But note that you will at times be asked to show ID and personal documents, and that's not (IMO) an unreasonable condition of claiming state benefits.

 

Funnily enough, I actually agree that unannounced home visits from COs should not happen (although in practice they rarely do anyhow, as they're a waste of everyone's time) - what I was primarily objecting to was the sheer sensationalism of the link in the OP. This is not some evil new intrusion, this has been going on as long as there have been benefits. Given that fact, I think that those who would advocate a change to the system might consider adopting a less hysterical approach. People who claim benefits are often, and justifiably, concerned. This sort of scaremongering helps no-one.

[Surfer01]

Just to add that as per another thread of mine of this forum, my spouse had a phone call on her mobile phone advising that the DWP wanted to visit on a Sunday! I now suspect that they turned up at the house and when they got no answer phoned the mobile number which we cannot recall giving to them. They were politely told that we would not be home until end of the July and that they must stop harassing her. However we think it was for an assessment of her DLA or the fact she is getting Pension credit on top of her State pension.

[Shoelover]

Just to add that as per another thread of mine of this forum, my spouse had a phone call on her mobile phone advising that the DWP wanted to visit on a Sunday! I now suspect that they turned up at the house and when they got no answer phoned the mobile number which we cannot recall giving to them. They were politely told that we would not be home until end of the July and that they must stop harassing her. However we think it was for an assessment of her DLA or the fact she is getting Pension credit on top of her State pension.

How many visits had they made then?

 

As Antone says, this is nothing new. Wonder if somebody did a FOI request for visits both notified & Unnotified in the past 4 years if it will show less visits. I think it would.. Visits are expensive & time consuming

[worried33]

Someone turning up to do a spot check is one of the more acceptable fraud checks, I don't think its that bad.

[Surfer01]

How many visits had they made then?

 

As Antone says, this is nothing new. Wonder if somebody did a FOI request for visits both notified & Unnotified in the past 4 years if it will show less visits. I think it would.. Visits are expensive & time consuming

 

No visits yet as we are away and have no objection except to object to a visit on a Sunday or even a Saturday.

[dyfed]

Wrong post

[Shoelover]

No visits yet as we are away and have no objection except to object to a visit on a Sunday or even a Saturday.

 

Surprised they are paying anyone Sunday overtime to do Un notified visits! When I worked for the DWP Sunday was double time..

[DarwinUK]

Got this about Baliffs, and the same (should hopefully) apply to everyone.

 

"There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). It is case law, so no matter what their intention of their visit it, if they come onto your property without your permission or without you agreeing to any appointment for them to visit you at home, then as far as the law is concerned they are indeed committing an act of tort of trespass."

 

But then my attitude is that if some DWP ****** knocks on your door, then before letting them in, ask what its about, and dont let them make threats, then letthem in to get it over with asap asthey will only try and get back at you some other way.

 

Hope the MODS correct me on the above and not be too harsh in telling me Im wrong, again.

[antone]

Got this about Baliffs, and the same (should hopefully) apply to everyone.

 

"There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). It is case law, so no matter what their intention of their visit it, if they come onto your property without your permission or without you agreeing to any appointment for them to visit you at home, then as far as the law is concerned they are indeed committing an act of tort of trespass."

 

But then my attitude is that if some DWP ****** knocks on your door, then before letting them in, ask what its about, and dont let them make threats, then letthem in to get it over with asap asthey will only try and get back at you some other way.

 

Hope the MODS correct me on the above and not be too harsh in telling me Im wrong, again.

 

Well, the general idea is that anyone may walk up to your door, ring the doorbell and request access. DWP visiting officers can do this just as anyone else can, and you are entirely free to tell them to go away. Personally, I agree with you - I'd just let them in and get it over with, but if a person really doesn't want to deal with them, they have no more right to enter your home than any random person on the street.

 

Also, you are quite within your rights to ask to see ID and also to ask them why they are there, and if they make threats, that's grounds for complaint. But note that should they say "we need to see this information in order for you to continue to receive benefits" that's not a "threat". If you don't want to let them in there and then, the sensible option would be to negotiate another way to provide them with the documents they need.

 

I strongly advise people against making a crusade out of this. You will lose, and it's not a hill worth dying on.

[essexmat]

Just to add my little bit as some views differ. Personally, and this is just *my* case I would tell them to go away, in a polite manner of course as I live with my disabled parents who would not appreciate the stress of being spot checked even turning up unannounced or via a letter with notice. I would kindly inform them that if they required me to provide documentation to verify my ID etcI would happily send them this registered post or take it to my nearest JCP to be verified.

[dyfed]

Maybe I should serve the dwp with a refusal to implied right of access. Then if they knock my door I will phone the police as they have to enter my land to do so.