# DWP planning home visits to check benefits



## Theisticle (Jun 17, 2014)

WTAF?!

You may get a visit from a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) officer to check that your benefits payments are correct.

A Performance Measurement review officer may visit you if you’re claiming:


Employment and Support Allowance
Housing Benefit
Income Support
Jobseeker’s Allowance
Pension Credit
Your name is selected at random to be checked. You won’t always get a letter in advance telling you about the visit.

*What to expect*
The officer will interview you in your home and will want to see 2 forms of identification.

They’ll also ask to see documents about money, savings and rent, eg:


payslips
bank, building society or Post Office accounts
rent book or tenancy agreement
benefits and tax credit awards
Visits usually last up to an hour but may be longer.

You can reschedule your appointment if you need to.

*Check their identity*
You can check the identity of the Performance Measurement review officer by:


asking to see their photo identity card
calling the Business Support Team and giving the review officer’s name
*Business Support Team* 
Telephone: 0191 216 8050
Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm

https://www.gov.uk/dwp-visit


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

This is bad why?


----------



## Theisticle (Jun 17, 2014)

So you don't think the DWP potentially turning up at your house without notice and demanding financial information worrying?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> So you don't think the DWP potentially turning up at your house without notice and demanding financial information worrying?



Nope. Why do you?


----------



## Theisticle (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Nope. Why do you?



Fucking hell, evidently I do. This is more draconian bullshit from the DWP.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jun 17, 2014)

If you've applied for those benefits they've already had all the financial information they need.   You have to supply original documents when making a claim, I believe.

The actual purpose of the visit is to ensure there's no-one else living in your home who could be making a financial contribution.  They will most likely have been speaking to your neigbours before they knock on your door, too.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 17, 2014)

fucking hell


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Fucking hell, evidently I do. This is more draconian bullshit from the DWP.



I said "why do you?", not "why, do you?". it's not enough to cite Draco, who was an early codifier of law and as such rather a good egg (some of his sentencing was harsh, admittedly). But the onus is on you to explain what is so dreadful about residential entitlement assessment outreach.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 17, 2014)

Dunno really.

I am sure they (and council housing benefit departments) have done some home visits for years (and not always aiming at claimants either - some landlords have been known to give their imaginary friends tenancies and claim housing benefit on their behalf)

I'm not sure this is new.  

I also don't think they do it all that often.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Jun 17, 2014)

I wonder how they are going to fund this exercise?   It's going to cost them a lot of money.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I wonder how they are going to fund this exercise?   It's going to cost them a lot of money.



Presumably through savings found because people stop claiming as a result.

Why doesn't HMRC do this with businesses, too? Turn up on the doorstep, unannounced, and demand to see their books before they've had time to clean them with an accountant?

As with the DWP exercise, it's the threat of a visit as much as the actual feet on the ground that drive compliance.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jun 17, 2014)

This not new, I had home visits back in the 1980s when claiming unemployment and supplementary benefits. It was standard practice back then.
The current proposal is in line with the DWP's expectation that "everyone is a scrounger" to be checked up on and harassed.


----------



## agricola (Jun 17, 2014)

I note "pension credit" is on the list, something which will be good news for the artifice burgling community.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2014)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> If you've applied for those benefits they've already had all the financial information they need.   You have to supply original documents when making a claim, I believe.
> 
> The actual purpose of the visit is to ensure there's no-one else living in your home who could be making a financial contribution.  They will most likely have been speaking to your neigbours before they knock on your door, too.



There might be an argument that this info may have changed since you made your claim, so they want to see, eg, an up to date bank statement. There's clearly no need for them to visit you at home for this purpose, however, far less pay a surprise visit, so I understand why you're suggesting an alternative, unstated reason.

But if they're visiting specifically to see documents, you don't need to let them in, you can get them to wait on the doorstep while you spend half an hour looking for them, only to discover that you can't find an up to date bank statement (or whatever).

This is a bad idea, in my opinion, because it's a complete waste of time and resources, and will only succeed in catching out the gullible and easily intimidated.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> and will only succeed in catching out the gullible and easily intimidated.



The same is true of television licence evasion folk, though, and they seem to be cost-effective.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I said "why do you?", not "why, do you?". it's not enough to cite Draco, who was an early codifier of law and as such rather a good egg (some of his sentencing was harsh, admittedly). But the onus is on you to explain what is so dreadful about *residential entitlement assessment outreach*.





You seem very knowledgeable about the lingo. Is there something you'd like to share with us...?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 17, 2014)

they've been doing this for a while, i think its simply that the information about it has gone up on the gov website has caused a storm in a teacup


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> You seem very knowledgeable about the lingo. Is there something you'd like to share with us...?



I invented the term on the spur of the moment to wind up Theisticle, who still needs to explain why he is frightened by the idea.


----------



## Part 2 (Jun 17, 2014)

Years ago I worked with a couple who put in for a community care grant after moving to their first tenancy. In the meantime they'd borrowed things from friends and relatives. The grant was rejected and we had to appeal. 

At the appeal meeting the benefits agency rep said how she'd been round to their house and because they weren't in had looked through the windows and determined that they already had things. She then went on to give a history of the social fund before telling them how 'loads of gays move to Manchester because it's advertised in magazines as a good place to be'.

That's the sort of people who'll be doing these spot checks.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The same is true of television licence evasion folk, though, and they seem to be cost-effective.



On what basis are they actually cost effective though? 

I had umpteen letters threatening a TV license visit over a number of years, and when someone finally turned up, I said he was welcome to come in to see that I didn't have a TV, and he said the fact that I was happy to let him in was good enough for him and he wouldn't bother, but that I could expect more letters in the future...

Some people may be intimidated into buying a licence by the hypothetical threat, but there is no way of knowing how many and if it's cost effective.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 17, 2014)

Will they have legal right of entry?  Will there be a consequence i.e. sanction if you refuse them entry?  If not then they can fuck off really, can't they.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 17, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Years ago I worked with a couple who put in for a community care grant after moving to their first tenancy. In the meantime they'd borrowed things from friends and relatives. The grant was rejected and we had to appeal.
> 
> At the appeal meeting the benefits agency rep said how she'd been round to their house and because they weren't in had looked through the windows and determined that they already had things. She then went on to give a history of the social fund before telling them how 'loads of gays move to Manchester because it's advertised in magazines as a good place to be'.
> 
> That's the sort of people who'll be doing these spot checks.



Really warms the cockles of the heart that, doesn't it.  Jesus.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Years ago I worked with a couple who put in for a community care grant after moving to their first tenancy. In the meantime they'd borrowed things from friends and relatives. The grant was rejected and we had to appeal.
> 
> At the appeal meeting the benefits agency rep said how she'd been round to their house and because they weren't in had looked through the windows and determined that they already had things. She then went on to give a history of the social fund before telling them how 'loads of gays move to Manchester because it's advertised in magazines as a good place to be'.
> 
> That's the sort of people who'll be doing these spot checks.



They should have claimed money for proper curtains...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Why doesn't HMRC do this with businesses, too? Turn up on the doorstep, unannounced, and demand to see their books before they've had time to clean them with an accountant?



that.

and do more outreach exercises to see if people are claiming all the benefits they are entitled to.

ultimately, i've mixed feelings on this.  I'm reasonably relaxed about people on the dole who manage to get the occasional day's casual work and not bother to declare it.  

There is however a very small number of people who are already reasonably well off (e.g. the dodgy landlords i referred to, or people who have a well paying job / well paid partner that they manage to 'forget to' declare, or those - again a very very small number - who are blatantly faking a disability) who do take the piss in a big way.  I'm  a bit less relaxed about them, or that they (when they do get caught) help to stoke up the 'scroungers' narrative that many politicians and bits of the media are keen to publicise.

Although I find it hard to think of a way of getting the blatant piss-takers who are playing the system without intimidating people who are already vulnerable.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 17, 2014)

When there's a council worker doing a repair in your house (if you live in a council house, obvs) you're not supposed to be allowed to smoke as while they're there your home is a workplace. Would the same be true during a DWP visit?


----------



## StoneRoad (Jun 17, 2014)

When I lived in a terraced flat, to prevent people looking into the downstairs, I put privacy film on the windows. Better than blinds or net curtains.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> On what basis are they actually cost effective though?
> 
> Some people may be intimidated into buying a licence by the hypothetical threat, but there is no way of knowing how many and if it's cost effective.



Good question. But the BBC reckons that there is 5% license fee evasion, costing it £216m a year. Every 1% by which noncompliance grows, therefore, costs it £42m. The contract with Capita for collection costs £560 over eight years, so £70m per year. So if 50% of this activity is enforcement (which would be terribly high) it only needs to drive a tiny increase in compliance in order to cost in.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 17, 2014)

StoneRoad said:


> When I lived in a terraced flat, to prevent people looking into the downstairs, I put privacy film on the windows. Better than blinds or net curtains.



It looks quite unpleasant though.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> When there's a council worker doing a repair in your house (if you live in a council house, obvs) you're not supposed to be allowed to smoke as while they're there your home is a workplace. Would the same be true during a DWP visit?



If you smoke while they're doing a visit they'd go away and argue that either you don't need all your benefits or you have an additional source of undeclared income


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Good question. But the BBC reckons that there is 5% license fee evasion, costing it £216m a year. Every 1% by which noncompliance grows, therefore, costs it £42m. The contract with Capita for collection costs £560 over eight years, so £55m per year. So if 50% of this activity is enforcement (which would be terribly high) it only needs to drive a tiny increase in compliance in order to cost in.



We're going off at a bit of a tangent here, but "the BBC reckon" does not seem like a totally solid basis on which to make calculations about cost effectiveness


----------



## 8115 (Jun 17, 2014)

Apart from anything else this is probably a waste of money given the actual rather than perceived scale of fraud.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> We're going off at a bit of a tangent here, but "the BBC reckon" does not seem like a totally solid basis on which to make calculations about cost effectiveness



http://www.tvlicensingannualreview.co.uk/facts-and-figures/

I'm trusting them to calculate evasion on a reasonable basis, but the maths, the basic research and the assumptions wouldn't be too hard.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2014)

8115 said:


> Apart from anything else this is probably a waste of money given the actual rather than perceived scale of fraud.



Especially when compared to the scale of tax evasion etc and the money which could be recovered there


----------



## J Ed (Jun 17, 2014)

8115 said:


> Apart from anything else this is probably a waste of money given the actual rather than perceived scale of fraud.



Yes, this is yet more expensive scapegoat theatre


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> But the onus is on you to explain what is so dreadful about residential entitlement assessment outreach.


I think he did!

This is hideous! Turning up unannounced (one assumes - what if you have to go out? What if you tell them no thanks not today?) is outragous, demanding to come in and see your bank statements and what have you? I'm not even sure I have two forms of ID!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

Did you even read the OP? You can reschedule if you need to.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

I wonder (he says tempting fate) if this is even real. Whether it's just something solely intended to put the wind up people. Turning up at people's doorsteps, unannounced? How can that work? Demanding that you, in  your property, identify yourself? 

Why do they need to see bank statements? Check up on your spending habits? 

FFS!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Did you even read the OP? You can reschedule if you need to.


YOu really think that if a pair of DWP goons arrive unnaounced it will go in your favour if you refuse by telling them to leave and reschedule? What happens when they turn up announced a few days later? You did read the part where it says they aren't obliged to even give prior notice!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Why do they need to see bank statements? Check up on your spending habits?



without wishing to justify any particular viewpoint here, it's more about spotting undeclared imcome


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> without wishing to justify any particular viewpoint here, it's more about spotting undeclared imcome


I would be, and am, deepl;y unfomrotable with giving them access to my bank statements. Showing them something and having them scrutinise it for this or that is bang out of order. How would they necessarily know whether something is the result of a job you shoudln't be doing?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

8115 said:


> Apart from anything else this is probably a waste of money given the actual rather than perceived scale of fraud.


I imagine it's more fag packet mathematics: they will have projected an amount saved based on how many people they estimate they can harass of benefits and then offset the cost of sending people to doorstep. 

It's IDS economics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2014)

as I tell all cold callers, I don't do business on the doorstep. Good day to you sir. I SAID GOOD DAY'

this even extends to robert peels ruffians unless they have a proper order.


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Did you even read the OP? You can reschedule if you need to.



Reschedule a surprise assessment outreach visit? This seems conceptually flawed.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells 

Is your position, broadly, that absolutely all claims for benefits should be taken on trust, and that there should be no process at all (no matter how triggered) for entitlement assessment? It's a point of view, I suppose, and no more barking than opt-in citizen's wage.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would be, and am, deepl;y unfomrotable with giving them access to my bank statements. Showing them something and having them scrutinise it for this or that is bang out of order. *How would they necessarily know whether something is the result of a job you shoudln't be doing?*



I reckon it's more to do with checking if your balance is above the 8 grand threshold where it begins to affect your entitlement. Not that I'm supporting the idea of home visit spot checks.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

xenon said:


> Reschedule a surprise assessment outreach visit? This seems conceptually flawed.



Yes, I suspect that they want to see who answers the door as much as anything, and of course they have to offer the right to reschedule.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would be, and am, deepl;y unfomrotable with giving them access to my bank statements. Showing them something and having them scrutinise it for this or that is bang out of order. How would they necessarily know whether something is the result of a job you shoudln't be doing?



you're already required to show proof of savings / 'capital' in respect of means tested benefits, and that means showing bank statements etc when you first claim and every so often when you renew.

and ultimately, if a benefit is dependent on having an income below X / savings below Y /  not having a job, then is it entirely unreasonable for the system to check rather than take people's word for it?

although i'm inclined to think that most of the (few) people who have got an undeclared job would either do it cash in hand or have a bank account they make sure that the DWP etc don't find out about...


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yes, I suspect that they want to see who answers the door as much as anything, and of course they have to offer the right to reschedule.



What if you're out all day pounding the streets, looking for work, attending the job centre, drinking heavily in the park? I would hate my reluctance or inability to answer the front door during business hours to be taken as a sign I was committing fraud. I don't have a problem of course, with providing bank statements when claiming or claim's are reviewed. I am not at home to random callers though. I don't even answer my landline during the day if I'm there to hear it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yes, I suspect that they want to see who answers the door as much as anything, and of course they have to offer the right to reschedule.


because the dwp always play fair.

maybe i'm overly paranoid (it's one of my more attractive qualities) but i don't see them being amenable to being told to go away and reschedule after travelling all the way to your door.

TBH isn't there a privacy issue? ESA claimants will include those that are vulnerable - even shy ffs. You can't expect people to just invite strangers from the DWP in at the drop of a hat.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Awesome Wells
> 
> Is your position, broadly, that absolutely all claims for benefits should be taken on trust, and that there should be no process at all (no matter how triggered) for entitlement assessment? It's a point of view, I suppose, and no more barking than opt-in citizen's wage.


That would pretty much correspond to the procedure for the self-employed and other Hard Working Small Business People IME. I was never asked to provide a single jot of information, even before the Tories went and cut whatever % it was of HMRC, at which point it just became a complete joke. But I think we can all recognise a clear political and ideological motive here.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That would pretty much correspond to the procedure for the self-employed and other Hard Working Small Business People IME. I was never asked to provide a single jot of information, even before the Tories went and cut whatever % it was of HMRC, at which point it just became a complete joke. But I think we can all recognise a clear political and ideological motive here.



I agree with you; #11.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I agree with you; #11.


Yes, but it's not going to be a question of savings - benefit fraud is relatively tiny, and even given the fact that this is probably 50-100% empty threats and intimidation, the difference it makes would be minimal. It does however make claimants more miserable, and demonstrate that the Tories are keen on making claimants more miserable, as well as boosting the connection between claiming benefits and being fraudulent. Those are political and ideological motives rather than (directly) financial.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 17, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yes, but it's not going to be a question of savings - benefit fraud is relatively tiny, and even given the fact that this is probably 50-100% empty threats and intimidation, the difference it makes would be minimal. It does however make claimants more miserable, and demonstrate that the Tories are keen on making claimants more miserable, as well as boosting the connection between claiming benefits and being fraudulent. Those are political and ideological motives rather than (directly) financial.



That might be true if this is a new initiative which is going to affect large numbers of claimants; less so if it's an existing power which is deployed sparingly and which happens to have been written up on gov.uk and noticed by some liberty fetishists.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I invented the term on the spur of the moment to wind up Theisticle, who still needs to explain why he is frightened by the idea.



Perhaps Theisticle is more likely to be on the sharp end of this policy than you are.
As someone who claims housing benefit and is likely to need to for some years yet, I can say that_ I _am frightened by the idea. Well, not so much frightened as angry, to be honest.

I've just done my annual review form for housing benefit, wherein I told them honestly enough about a payrise of a few pounds a week which I had a few months ago. Of course as soon as I told them they immediately suspended payments and required to see x number of payslips, my P60, proof of how much child maintenance my kids' dad is paying, bank statements for the last y months, proof of what colour pants I was wearing when I filed the claim etc etc. They gave me a month to provide this information, some of which I didn't even possess yet (payslip for June); in the meantime I suddenly and unexpectedly had to find all of my rent myself (with two days' notice, as the letter came shortly before my rent was due). Then they sent me another threatening letter which I came home from work to on the day I had posted it all off, twelve days before their deadline, telling me that they hadn't received a reply yet and that I now had to send it all within 5 days of the date of that letter, and listing all the ways in which you are required by legislation to tell them of any changes in income, and how it is in my best interests to comply etc etc. And saying that if I didn't send it in 'it is likely we will not be able to pay you any benefit', which I know to be a nonsense as at most they've overpaid me by £100 since November. Basically an outright threat.

And now, they might not _just_ send me obnoxious threatening letters that keep me awake at night worrying about how I'll pay the rent on the house I share with my children, they might come unannounced to my house and demand to sit on my sofa and rifle through my paperwork, the paperwork which I've already shown them when I claimed and to which they have access already, in my own private space, in front of my children, with my neighbours peeking round their door? Fuck _that_ for a game of soldiers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That might be true if this was a new initiative which was going to affect large numbers of claimants; less so if it's an existing power which is deployed sparingly and which happens to have been written up on gov.uk and noticed by some liberty fetishists.


I don't really know the provenance of this story, but it would certainly fit modern policy initiatives if it had been recently announced or re-announced.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jun 17, 2014)

Get a spyhole, don't answer the door.

If they wanna see you they can make an appointment.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2014)

agricola said:


> I note "pension credit" is on the list, something which will be good news for the artifice burgling community.



What with the hipster tide sloshing East from Hoxton, round here we have _artisanal_ burglars now.


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2014)

They have been doing this on and off for many years , there used to be the 'Benefit Integrity Project around 1990, but believe it or not protests by disabled people stopped that, shouldn't forget Blunkett wanted cameras installed in disabled people's homes, ostensibly for safety, but not really, its the holy grail for the state to have access to the persons home, it should be robustly challenged.

V/P should be able to add to this.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yes, I suspect that they want to see who answers the door as much as anything, and of course they have to offer the right to reschedule.



And do they have any right to ask any questions of anyone who does not admit to being the claimant?


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Did you even read the OP? You can reschedule if you need to.



Speaking as someone who works for DWP, has done for the past 12 years, I must admit i'm laughing at that. I've seen people sanctioned because they were minutes late to see the wanker they have to sign on with. Where claims are closed if they haven't received a letter from the 'Benefit Integrity Centre' who have sent an A2 annual review form. And then being told well they didn't reply to the A2, ie the form they didn't recieve. Kafkaesque doesn't quite cover it....


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> <snip> V/P should be able to add to this.


Resting and relapsed at the moment.


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2014)

hope he gets better soon, really value his contributions

even the scatological ones he often makes


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> They have been doing this on and off for many years , there used to be the 'Benefit Integrity Project around 1990, but believe it or not protests by disabled people stopped that, shouldn't forget Blunkett wanted cameras installed in disabled people's homes, ostensibly for safety, but not really, its the holy grail for the state to have access to the persons home, it should be robustly challenged.
> 
> V/P should be able to add to this.


ViolentPanda probably can.


treelover said:


> hope he gets better soon <snip>


Probably well enough to post by tomorrow afternoon, for a few hours.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Perhaps Theisticle is more likely to be on the sharp end of this policy than you are.
> As someone who claims housing benefit and is likely to need to for some years yet, I can say that_ I _am frightened by the idea. Well, not so much frightened as angry, to be honest.
> 
> I've just done my annual review form for housing benefit, wherein I told them honestly enough about a payrise of a few pounds a week which I had a few months ago. Of course as soon as I told them they immediately suspended payments and required to see x number of payslips, my P60, proof of how much child maintenance my kids' dad is paying, bank statements for the last y months, proof of what colour pants I was wearing when I filed the claim etc etc. They gave me a month to provide this information, some of which I didn't even possess yet (payslip for June); in the meantime I suddenly and unexpectedly had to find all of my rent myself (with two days' notice, as the letter came shortly before my rent was due). Then they sent me another threatening letter which I came home from work to on the day I had posted it all off, twelve days before their deadline, telling me that they hadn't received a reply yet and that I now had to send it all within 5 days of the date of that letter, and listing all the ways in which you are required by legislation to tell them of any changes in income, and how it is in my best interests to comply etc etc. And saying that if I didn't send it in 'it is likely we will not be able to pay you any benefit', which I know to be a nonsense as at most they've overpaid me by £100 since November. Basically an outright threat.
> ...


Any thoughts Maurice Picarda  ?


----------



## Nylock (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> liberty fetishists


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 18, 2014)

This is not new though, I was on the dole in the 80s & after 6mnths a car load of them came round, 2 men & a woman, to 'check my claim', which apparently they did with anybody who had been on the dole for over 6mnths. I recall they were slightly pushy & asked to come in. I let them in as I had nothing to hide. The bloke was telling me the usual shit & the other 2 were standing there swivelling their necks, looking for big colour TVs & music centres of which there were none & then left. In those days though there was a lot of claiming dole & working cash in hand & mostly you could get away with it if you were sensible. One dipstick got caught when he went in to sign on covered in dirt from a building site. After he signed on they followed him to the building site he was working on just around the corner.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Awesome Wells
> 
> Is your position, broadly, that absolutely all claims for benefits should be taken on trust, and that there should be no process at all (no matter how triggered) for entitlement assessment? It's a point of view, I suppose, and no more barking than opt-in citizen's wage.


No.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 18, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> In those days though there was a lot of claiming dole & working cash in hand & mostly you could get away with it if you were sensible. One dipstick got caught when he went in to sign on covered in dirt from a building site. After he signed on they followed him to the building site he was working on just around the corner.



A bloke I went to school with signed on for years while working cash in hand on a fruit and veg stall that was just round the corner from the Job Centre. He used to bring the staff tangerines when he came to sign on.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Chilli.s said:


> Get a spyhole, don't answer the door.
> 
> If they wanna see you they can make an appointment.


More likely they'll mark you as uncooperative and accuse you (worst case admittedly but they wouldn't be coming around otherwise) of fraud. At the very least refusing to open your door is itself an open door to a sanction.


----------



## muscovyduck (Jun 18, 2014)

Yet another reason why I just don't bother answering my door.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Any thoughts Maurice Picarda  ?



The suspension of payments is shocking and absolutely shouldn't be the first response to a minor change of circumstances. Wanting to get full information swiftly sounds reasonable, although the timing and wording of the second letter sounds a little off. So it sounds as if there are significant flaws in process and case management, which could leave people in serious financial trouble. 

That's separate as an issue from the residential entitlement assessment outreach programme, though. And all Weeps says on this is that it's bad, because children. I don't really get this but I'm not going to argue the toss over it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

muscovyduck said:


> Yet another reason why I just don't bother answering my door.



Is there a legal position on this? Are you obliged to answer the door to these people: they usually issue threats about 'your beneifts may be affected' - they aren't shy about this - but that'snot the case here.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/185667/response/457421/attach/3/reply 5456.pdf



> 22. If a home visit is requested can the jobseeker refuse this and not risk a sanction as a
> consequence? If not what is the legal basis for enforcing a home visit? Can the jobseeker
> accept the home visit but conduct it on the doorstep, i.e. not allow the Customer Compliance
> Officer into their house and not be subject to a sanction for doing so?
> ...



Not sure if this applies to this latest scheme/idea.

source.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2014)

Nylock said:


>



What does 'liberty fetishist' even mean anyway? Is a 'liberty fetishist' just someone who thinks that the poorest in society should have at least few of the same liberties as everyone else? Fuck it, why not just make it illegal for anyone claiming anything from the state to put up curtains? Nothing to hide and all that.

Funny how we can't make citizen visits unannounced to members of the political class, well maybe we can one day...


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> liberty fetishists.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> They have been doing this on and off for many years , there used to be the 'Benefit Integrity Project around 1990, but believe it or not protests by disabled people stopped that, shouldn't forget Blunkett wanted cameras installed in disabled people's homes, ostensibly for safety, but not really, its the holy grail for the state to have access to the persons home, it should be robustly challenged.
> 
> V/P should be able to add to this.


BIP was about wholesale reassessment of DLA claimants, this is about home visits to check your circumstances, as I and others have pointed out already, DWP has effectively always been able to do this to check claimants. Yes, it's very intrusive, yes, it's scary when the fuckers turn up, but will righteous indignation about government officials having the power to require people receiving services from the state allow people to object and refuse to such access? well, sadly in the current climate I doubt it. tbh, the continual maladministration that Fedayn mentions is probably more of a real problem for the vast majority of people and causes much more heartache and stress.


----------



## sim667 (Jun 18, 2014)

What if you're not in?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2014)

sim667 said:


> What if you're not in?


sometimes they'll push a card through your door to say they called and for you to call them back.

however, i have heard of clients whose benefits have been suspended because they weren't in when they were called upon and the first they've known about it is when they check their bank/PO account and find nothing in it. when they've called DWP, they've been brazen about the fact that this has been done so that the person will contact them and agree to the visit to discuss their circumstances. again, that kind of maladministration is far more worrying than the simple fact of someone from DWP coming round and asking to see your tenancy agreement.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 18, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I wonder how they are going to fund this exercise?   It's going to cost them a lot of money.


The Tories, being economically illiterate, haven't considered the financial implications. The real reason for this, as anyone knows, is to further demonise and stigmatise benefit claimants. This is the kind of 'idea' that goes down well with their supporters.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> <snip> i have heard of clients whose benefits have been suspended because they weren't in when they were called upon and the first they've known about it is when they check their bank/PO account and find nothing in it. when they've called DWP, they've been brazen about the fact that this has been done so that the person will contact them and agree to the visit to discuss their circumstances. again, that kind of maladministration is far more worrying than the simple fact of someone from DWP coming round and asking to see your tenancy agreement.


The trouble is that it's frequently not just one benefit which is stopped - if your IS, JSA or ESA is stopped, your HB and CTB also stop.  Once stopped, it can take months to get them restarted, by which time the landlord is losing patience and your credit record is wrecked.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> The trouble is that it's frequently not just one benefit which is stopped - if your IS, JSA or ESA is stopped, your HB and CTB also stop.  Once stopped, it can take months to get them restarted, by which time the landlord is losing patience and your credit record is wrecked.


well exactly, but like i say, that's related to the administration of your claim more than the fact of the visit.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> well exactly, but like i say, that's related to the administration of your claim more than the fact of the visit.



They are both really, really bad - why do we have to choose one or the other to focus on?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> well exactly, but like i say, that's related to the administration of your claim more than the fact of the visit.


Tell that to the stressed benefit claimant who now has one more bloody thing to deal with. 

Merely the fact of having one of these people come to your door is more than bad enough - it's degrading. 

Will the apologists for these home visits be equally happy if the HMRC drops in on them unannounced and demands to see all the relevant paperwork (relating to the last 6 years of tax) at such short notice?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> They are both really, really bad - why do we have to choose one or the other to focus on?





Greebo said:


> Tell that to the stressed benefit claimant who now has one more bloody thing to deal with.
> 
> Merely the fact of having one of these people come to your door is more than bad enough - it's degrading.
> 
> Will the apologists for these home visits be equally happy if the HMRC drops in on them unannounced and demands to see all the relevant paperwork (relating to the last 6 years of tax) at such short notice?


what bit of they have always always always been able to home visit claimants don't you understand? since the days of National Assistance, the DWP/DSS/DHSS/etc have always always always had the power to do this. indeed, in the days of NA, every single claimant was visited at home, and often told they would get 2 weeks money and if they didn't like it, why not sell that armchair and your table until you get a job?

whereas the maladministration of claims affects literally hundreds of thousands of people every single month, causing people to go hungry, causing people to be at risk of losing their homes, causing people untold stress and adding to mental health problems,  causing people to go into debt and use payday loans etc etc etc.

i know which i'm more concerned about, but hey, you jump up and down and shout at me about it....


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2014)

What bit of both of these situations are completely unjust and cause the exact same problems in varying degrees do _you _not understand? True, I did not know that home visits went back that far, when I have been on JSA I have been lucky enough that it has been for short enough periods that I haven't been subjected to any of that and I am genuinely horrified to find out that it has happened albeit I knew that home visits were possible in some circumstances with the ATOS assessments.

Tbh I don't think you even have much of a point here, it's not as if we're using this discussion to allocate resources towards getting rid of either, you just come across as an argumentative contrarian. I have no idea why you are behaving as if people who are against these home visits are somehow in favour of people getting their benefits stopped since no one here is.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What bit of both of these situations are completely unjust and cause the exact same problems in varying degrees do _you _not understand? True, I do not know that home visits went back that far, when I have been on JSA I have been lucky enough that it has been for short enough periods that I haven't been subjected to any of that and I am genuinely horrified to find out that it has happened albeit I knew that home visits were possible in some circumstances with the ATOS assessments.
> 
> Tbh I don't think you even have much of a point here, it's not as if we're using this discussion to allocate resources towards getting rid of either, you just come across as an argumentative contrarian. I have no idea why you are behaving as if people who are against these home visits are somehow in favour of people getting their benefits stopped since no one here is.


because the serious problem is maladministration and artificial shit storms about something that affects very few people actually distract from an issue that is of far more importance to far more people in a far greater way, and in some respects, actually allows that problem to persist. further, if you're receiving money from the state, the state will give itself powers to check whether you should be getting that money.

for example, forget about them coming round your house, the DWP and HMRC now have data matching powers so that they can check all your credit records, your bank accounts, your mobile phone accounts, and so on and so on. this, home visits, is a distraction, pure and simple, and it gives people something to jump up and down about - it won't change anything, it won't help people getting the home visits, it won't prevent them. anyway, enough from me, i'm off.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> what bit of they have always always always been able to home visit claimants don't you understand?<snip>


Calm down.  

Home visits have always been part of it, but the lack of notice and demanding to see all the relevant paperwork _without notice hasn't been._


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2014)

I've had home visit re housing benefit, ten yrs ago, no warning. Thought this was normal.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> I've had home visit re housing benefit, ten yrs ago, no warning. Thought this was normal.



That may have been local authority rather than DWP?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> WTAF?!
> 
> You may get a visit from a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) officer to check that your benefits payments are correct.
> 
> ...



They've been able to make home visits at 7 days notice for years.  Greebo and I have been subject to several.
This is an attempt to regularise what has generally been a complaints-led investigative visit (i.e. some mug cunt reports you to the "Benefits Hotline") into a standard procedure.
It's clever, too.  It plays just right with the wiberals (you know, the middle class mugs like Maurice Picarda who'll come out with their "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" delusion), as well as playing to the shires as "tough on welfare dependency".

It's yetanother way to scare another few thousand people off of benefits, and make another few thousand new claimants throw away the forms and think "fuck that for a game of soldiers!". "Performance Measurement Review" is newspeak for "persecution of claimant".


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It plays just right with the wiberals (you know, the middle class mugs like Maurice Picarda who'll come out with their "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" delusion),.



Please don't call me a liberal. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is precisely what I think, and that is because I am a social democrat and decidedly not a liberal. It's liberals who whine about draconian intrusion and ignore outcomes.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That may have been local authority rather than DWP?


Yes, of course. The principle's the same. Oh! And they do it for council tenants, turn up, no warning, make you do a DNA sample (I'm only slightly joking here).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> Will they have legal right of entry?  Will there be a consequence i.e. sanction if you refuse them entry?  If not then they can fuck off really, can't they.



Quite.  No right of entry or no warrant, they can kiss my arse, and even with a warrant, they're only getting in if I let them (steel security gate over front door).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Please don't call me a liberal. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is precisely what I think, and that is because I am a social democrat and decidedly not a liberal. It's liberals who whine about draconian intrusion and ignore outcomes.



I didn't call you a liberal. I called you a wiberal, you wet middle class wiberal.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 18, 2014)

I think, as ever, context is everything.

I don't think anyone could reasonably completely rule out the idea of a benefits department ever having the option of conducting home visits under certain circumstances: for the tiny minority of claimants who abuse the system, and to keep it to a tiny minority, some element of policing and even deterrence is necessary.

But the context of this particular announcement is a long, long series of other policy initiatives which, in practice - and in the face of repeated denials from DWP - operate to intimidate claimants and seem to be designed to discourage them from claiming what is legally their right to claim, via sanctions, skewed assessments, deliberate misleading of claimants as to their rights, jobcentre targets for sanctioning, Work Programme, the list goes on. Viewed through this lens - and why shouldn't we? - the idea of staff from a Government department already legendary for its oppressiveness having the right to turn up at your door as and when they consider it acceptable to do so, with - apparently - no right on the claimant's part to any kind of privacy.

We can deconstruct all this to its component parts, and make it look quite reasonable - and that is no doubt exactly what the DWP will do, in between banging on about "helping people into work". But, taking the broad view, this seems to me to be another significant step in the direction of completely dehumanising benefits claimants, and regarding them as simply not entitled to any privacy, freedom, or dignity. While I can accept that there may be a debate to be had as far as whether some of those need to be sacrificed to some degree in the name of maintaining the integrity of the benefits system, it needs to be a fair, and nuanced debate: it's not simply enough to say "if you want the Government to support you, then all bets are off when it comes to treating you like a human being". That's just wrong.

And, even if you leave the moral argument out of it, the harsh reality is that if you treat people like scum, they will respond accordingly. There is no better way of ensuring that your claimant community become disempowered, hopeless, resentful, bitter, lazy and criminal than by treating them as such. And I defy anyone to try and claim that the DWP is doing anything other than treating them as such.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is precisely what I think


Shame. I always thought you were more intelligent than that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Years ago I worked with a couple who put in for a community care grant after moving to their first tenancy. In the meantime they'd borrowed things from friends and relatives. The grant was rejected and we had to appeal.
> 
> At the appeal meeting the benefits agency rep said how she'd been round to their house and because they weren't in had looked through the windows and determined that they already had things. She then went on to give a history of the social fund before telling them how 'loads of gays move to Manchester because it's advertised in magazines as a good place to be'.
> 
> That's the sort of people who'll be doing these spot checks.



And it's not as if the application process itself doesn't delve into your financial status, so for some office arsehole to "yea" or "nay" an application on the basis of a peep through the windows is indicative of how low the benefits Agency are happy to sink in their mission to protect the public purse from we vicious scrounging creatures.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I didn't call you a liberal. I called you a wiberal, you wet middle class wiberal.



Is a dirigiste social democrat a wiberal, then, after Woy Jenkins? In that case I will wear the badge with pride.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Please don't call me a liberal. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is precisely what I think <snip>


You'll be happy to provide all the paperwork pertaining to your tax returns then, on the doorstep or in your home, at short notice or none at all?  You'll be happy to have to take a day off work and tell any adults within your household to do likewise?  FYI I was out during one of the checks (a very urgent errand) and that caused the DWP person to raise doubts about me.

While we're at it, let's see some bedroom footage or at least let's have a listen to everything you say in private.  After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> They should have claimed money for proper curtains...



Pah! Mouldy blankets and plastic pinned over the window are good enough for us claimants! It's what we had when I were a lad, and it never did me no harm (twitch, shudder)!


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2014)

Still, vote labour to make all this increase twentyfold.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> While we're at it, let's see some bedroom footage or at least let's have a listen to everything you say in private.  After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear...



It's an open book. Would be terribly boring for the government agents, though.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's an open book. Would be terribly boring for the government agents, though.


And the paperwork?  Come now, surely you keep it in order, going back at least six years, just in case it's ever checked?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And the paperwork?  Come now, surely you keep it in order, going back at least six years, just in case it's ever checked?



More or less, I have been in and out of self-assessment regimes for ten years or so.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> More or less, I have been in and out of self-assessment regimes for ten years or so.


So, basically, your attitude is "if it's not hard for me, anyone else should have to do it, too"?

Can you see the flaw in this argument?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> More or less, I have been in and out of self-assessment regimes for ten years or so.


This is possibly a bit too much information, but do you also starch your underpants?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> that.
> 
> and do more outreach exercises to see if people are claiming all the benefits they are entitled to.
> 
> ultimately, i've mixed feelings on this.  I'm reasonably relaxed about people on the dole who manage to get the occasional day's casual work and not bother to declare it.



It's also significant that most of our mainstream Parliamentary politicians will decry that bit of casual work, while not acknowledging the part that "grey" and "black" labour play in the functioning of the economy.



> There is however a very small number of people who are already reasonably well off (e.g. the dodgy landlords i referred to, or people who have a well paying job / well paid partner that they manage to 'forget to' declare, or those - again a very very small number - who are blatantly faking a disability) who do take the piss in a big way.  I'm  a bit less relaxed about them, or that they (when they do get caught) help to stoke up the 'scroungers' narrative that many politicians and bits of the media are keen to publicise.
> 
> Although I find it hard to think of a way of getting the blatant piss-takers who are playing the system without intimidating people who are already vulnerable.



As I've said many times before, the last piece of research I read (from the mid-2000s, as the DWP have significantly tightened up data publication post-"credit crunch") reckoned on a "hardcore" of 80,000-120,000 "pisstakers" across the UK (a statistical rather than a concrete conclusion, obviously!).  If we held that as accurate across benefits, then that's all of, what, 1.65% of total claimants actually taking the piss, and this is the blaggers we're talking about!


----------



## existentialist (Jun 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's also significant that most of our mainstream Parliamentary politicians will decry that bit of casual work, while not acknowledging the part that "grey" and "black" labour play in the functioning of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said many times before, the last piece of research I read (from the mid-2000s, as the DWP have significantly tightened up data publication post-"credit crunch") reckoned on a "hardcore" of 80,000-120,000 "pisstakers" across the UK (a statistical rather than a concrete conclusion, obviously!).  If we held that as accurate across benefits, then that's all of, what, 1.65% of total claimants actually taking the piss, and this is the blaggers we're talking about!


Also worth noting that these wheezes the DWP are regularly coming up with will differentially affect the hardcore blaggers a lot less than the more genuine claimants.

The serious blaggers will know what investigations are likely to come their way, and they'll be practically prepared as well as emotionally armoured up. The genuine claimant won't quite know what's going on, and won't necessarily know to get his ducks in a row in order to ensure that a suspicous (or malicious) DWP employee doesn't find a loophole to attack...and, of course, is going to be much more distressed and petrified by the whole situation anyway.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

Would somebody please remind me roughly how much benefit is underclaimed every year, compared to the amount overpaid (fraudulently or otherwise)?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> This is possibly a bit too much information, but do you also starch your underpants?



Of course not. I use an executive laundering and starching service.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> you're already required to show proof of savings / 'capital' in respect of means tested benefits, and that means showing bank statements etc when you first claim and every so often when you renew.
> 
> and ultimately, if a benefit is dependent on having an income below X / savings below Y /  not having a job, then is it entirely unreasonable for the system to check rather than take people's word for it?
> 
> although i'm inclined to think that most of the (few) people who have got an undeclared job would either do it cash in hand or have a bank account they make sure that the DWP etc don't find out about...



Mostof which I entirely agree with, except for the last sentence.
It's *very* difficult to have an "unknown" bank account in your own name, due to the fact of having to produce ID; ID where the serial numbers are listed on your application by the bank/building society/credit union.
It's even harder, as Johnny Punter, to have a "snide" bank account under an assumed name, as the same issues with the need to present ID apply.

Basically, you might be OK if your hooky account is 25-30 years old, and has been in use all that time, but otherwise the various anti money-laundering and anti-terrorism measures have put hooky accounts off the agenda.

it's Bank of Mattress all the way!


----------



## fishfinger (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Would somebody please remind me roughly how much benefit is underclaimed every year, compared to the amount overpaid (fraudulently or otherwise)?





> FRAUD VS UNDERCLAIMING
> Created 09/01/2014
> The government have launched a small pilot in 6 areas to highlight fraud. Methods include posters, newspaper adverts, Facebook adverts and letters to claimants – urging people to report suspected beneft fraud or changes to their circumstances.
> Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud said 'It is only a small minority who commit fraud – but it costs the country over £1bn a year.' The 6 pilot locations are Southwark, Blackburn, Hounslow, Blackpool, Epping Forest and Cardiff.
> ...



From here:

http://www.socialwelfaretraining.co.uk/news/fraud-vs-underclaiming


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Please don't call me a liberal. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is precisely what I think, and that is because I am a social democrat and decidedly not a liberal. It's liberals who whine about draconian intrusion and ignore outcomes.


 I'm not a social democrat, but for anyone who claims it as a positive description you'd expect there was a commitment to certain things: reformism, minimising the rich/poor gap, using the welfare state to achieve such goals etc.  Do you see these home visits - particularly in the context of the coaliton, sanctions on claimants, the bedroom tax, the cuts - as compatible with those 'social democratic' beliefs?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I'm not a social democrat, but for anyone who claims it as a positive description you'd expect there was a commitment to certain things: reformism, minimising the rich/poor gap, using the welfare state to achieve such goals etc.  Do you see these home visits - particularly in the context of the coaliton, sanctions on claimants, the bedroom tax, the cuts - as compatible with those 'social democratic' beliefs?



I see the home visits as absolutely compatible, yes. The wider context you've introduced mixes the specific (the bedroom tax - where the policy might make limited sense if the housing market wasn't like it is) and the very general concept of "cuts" (is all spend automatically good and justifiable? Of course not. Is the coalition going about spend reduction in a haphazard and doctrinally skewed manner? Of course), so it's quite a tall order to relate them all to the concept of social democracy.

Job guarantees are clearly a better mechanism than sanctions to achieve the same goal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

laptop said:


> And do they have any right to ask any questions of anyone who does not admit to being the claimant?



No, they can't require you to answer, but I think it's obvious they'll put a coercive twist to their questions along the lines of "but if you don't co-operate, we'll have no option but to stop all benefits to this address" or some such pustulent arm-twist.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I see the home visits as absolutely compatible, yes. The wider context you've introduced mixes the specific (the bedroom tax - where the policy might make limited sense if the housing market wasn't like it is) and the very general concept of "cuts" (is all spend automatically good and justifiable? Of course not. Is the coalition going about spend reduction in a haphazard and doctrinally skewed manner? Of course), so it's quite a tall order to relate them all to the concept of social democracy.
> 
> Job guarantees are clearly a better mechanism than sanctions to achieve the same goal.


We've been in an era of neoliberal restructuring since the 1970s - in both periods of economic expansion and crisis. FWIW, there hasn't actually been much social democracy around for a long time.  All the specific policies I mentioned are part of that neoliberal restructuring.  They might be incompetent, they might have unintended consequences, but they are also primarily ideological - and aimed at claimants.  In that context it's a bit daft to present these home visits as neutral, nothing to be worried about, only aimed at 'the scrounger'.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jun 18, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> From here:
> 
> http://www.socialwelfaretraining.co.uk/news/fraud-vs-underclaiming


 
Fuck! ... £16 billion!


----------



## fishfinger (Jun 18, 2014)

Chilli.s said:


> Fuck! ... £16 billion!


Yeah vs £3.5 billion overpayments - So £12.5 billion net


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> <snip> http://www.socialwelfaretraining.co.uk/news/fraud-vs-underclaiming


Thanks - I thought it might be something like that.  

You should have seen my father in law's face when he was told just how much people who can't face the forms or give up on a claim save the government every year.  He's one of those natural conservatives who hates forms and doesn't believe in claiming what he doesn't need (even if entitled to it).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> They have been doing this on and off for many years , there used to be the 'Benefit Integrity Project around 1990, but believe it or not protests by disabled people stopped that, shouldn't forget Blunkett wanted cameras installed in disabled people's homes, ostensibly for safety, but not really, its the holy grail for the state to have access to the persons home, it should be robustly challenged.
> 
> V/P should be able to add to this.



BIP was 1997-2000-ish, after the transition from Invalidity Benefit to Incapacity Benefit didn't yield the claimant reduction that was anticipated, but actually garnered *more* claimants.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> hope he gets better soon, really value his contributions
> 
> even the scatological ones he often makes



Relapse is mostly physical, rather than physical *and* cognitive, so I'm thankful for small mercies.


----------



## fishfinger (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Thanks - I thought it might be something like that.
> 
> You should have seen my father in law's face when he was told just how much people who can't face the forms or give up on a claim save the government every year.  He's one of those natural conservatives who hates forms and doesn't believe in claiming what he doesn't need (even if entitled to it).


Sounds a lot like my father was.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Sounds a lot like my father was.


Realising that you're being taken advantage of (the underclaim doesn't go to people even more in need than you think you are) is a very powerful incentive to face the forms.


----------



## fishfinger (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Realising that you're being taken advantage of (the underclaim doesn't go to people even more in need than you think you are) is a very powerful incentive to face the forms.


I think I must have misunderstood you. My father was so stubborn in his beliefs (he was even proud to be a bigot ffs), that even that knowledge wouldn't have persuaded him to claim benefits. He hated bureaucracy, the "nanny state" etc. He was a total fuckwit.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I think I must have misunderstood you. My father was so stubborn in his beliefs (he was even proud to be a bigot ffs), that even that knowledge wouldn't have persuaded him to claim benefits. <snip>


I should perhaps add that this was after the man had already had to claim Incapacity Benefit when the industrial injury payment ran out.  He was convinced that benefits were on a par with charity.

So, before he'd even claim IB, VP had to sit down with him and show him roughly how much NI he'd paid in (a long and very physically hard working life), compared with how little he'd ever get out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I think I must have misunderstood you. My father was so stubborn in his beliefs (he was even proud to be a bigot ffs), that even that knowledge wouldn't have persuaded him to claim benefits. He hated bureaucracy, the "nanny state" etc. He was a total fuckwit.



TBF my dad (the aged git Greebo is talking about!) only claimed after we'd pestered him for about 4 years *solid*, and even then, we filled out the forms for him!
Of course, once he was getting Attendance Allowance (we started pestering him when he was 62, when he'd have been able to claim both components of DLA, he caved in when he was 66, so only entitled to the "care" element of DLA, AKA "Attendance Allowance") he became quite evangelical about it, and as Greebo says, once he was sat down and shown how much NI he'd paid in real terms throughout his working life, versus how much he'd likely get back post-retirement, he no longer felt any guilt whatsoever.  He no longer saw it as "charity", but as an entitlement he'd paid for, over and over again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

doppel-post!


----------



## fishfinger (Jun 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF my dad (the aged git Greebo is talking about!) only claimed after we'd pestered him for about 4 years *solid*, and even then, we filled out the forms for him!
> Of course, once he was getting Attendance Allowance (we started pestering him when he was 62, when he'd have been able to claim both components of DLA, he caved in when he was 66, so only entitled to the "care" element of DLA, AKA "Attendance Allowance") he became quite evangelical about it, and as Greebo says, once he was sat down and shown how much NI he'd paid in real terms throughout his working life, versus how much he'd likely get back post-retirement, he no longer felt any guilt whatsoever.  He no longer saw it as "charity", but as an entitlement he'd paid for, over and over again.


I'm glad you finally got through to your dad about his entitlement. Mine was so ideologically blinkered, that the only benefit he didn't have an aversion to, was his pension.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I'm glad you finally got through to your dad about his entitlement. Mine was so ideologically blinkered, that the only benefit he didn't have an aversion to, was his pension.


Self-inflicted poverty


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I see the home visits as absolutely compatible, yes. The wider context you've introduced mixes the specific (the bedroom tax - where the policy might make limited sense if the housing market wasn't like it is) and the very general concept of "cuts" (is all spend automatically good and justifiable? Of course not. Is the coalition going about spend reduction in a haphazard and doctrinally skewed manner? Of course), so it's quite a tall order to relate them all to the concept of social democracy.
> 
> Job guarantees are clearly a better mechanism than sanctions to achieve the same goal.


waht do you think the consequence should be if i were to refuse to invite the DWP in?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> waht do you think the consequence should be if i were to refuse to invite the DWP in?



At a guess, they'd want to schedule another visit as soon as possible and would give your affairs additional scrutiny.


----------



## fishfinger (Jun 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Self-inflicted poverty


Pretty much. Still, he was a nasty, racist, homophobic, bully. So I'm not too sad he's gone.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> At a guess, they'd want to schedule another visit as soon as possible and would give your affairs additional scrutiny.


Would theat be another appointment they don't tell you about?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Would theat be another appointment they don't tell you about?



Why don't you ask them if you're so concerned? Robert.Devereux@dwp.gsi.gov.uk


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Why don't you ask them if you're so concerned? Robert.Devereux@dwp.gsi.gov.uk


My question was directed at you, I wanted to know what you think should happen. I think it's pretty clear what the DWP's position would be. Besides Devereux is a snide tosser.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Why don't you ask them if you're so concerned? Robert.Devereux@dwp.gsi.gov.uk


 I imagine Deveraux is one of those people who thinks that 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> My question was directed at you, I wanted to know what you think should happen. I think it's pretty clear what the DWP's position would be. Besides Devereux is a snide tosser.



It's what I would do if I was running the DWP.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's what I would do if I was running the DWP.


you didn't answer my question. I asked you: what do you think the consequence should be if i were to refuse to invite the DWP in?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> you didn't answer my question. I asked you: what do you think the consequence should be if i were to refuse to invite the DWP in?



Another visit. Increased scrutiny. As I said.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Another visit. Increased scrutiny. As I said.


So the solution to the problem is to repeat the problem?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So the solution to the problem is to repeat the problem?



What's the problem?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> What's the problem?


Oh dear.

so you want to just keep knocking at someone's door? What good will that achieve?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> so you want to just keep knocking at someone's door? What good will that achieve?



I suppose that if I ran a JC+ office and we were faced with a nutter who declared that his home was his castle, nailed garlic to the door and refused to let our home visit chaps in, then I'd suggest that we invited him to our offices for a meeting.

I'd also suspect that he quite possibly wasn't worth spending that much time on as he clearly didn't mind attracting the additional scrutiny commensurate with being a pain in the arse. So I wouldn't even ask for much additional prep to be done in advance of the meeting. If any of his claims didn't stand up to scrutiny, though, I'd be disinclined towards leniency.

Okay? Any other public services you want me to roleplay? Pest control? Parks horticulture?


----------



## Nylock (Jun 18, 2014)

fwiw you do a really good line in 'DWP Apparatchik'... So stick to roleplaying that...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I suppose that if I ran a JC+ office and we were faced with a nutter who declared that his home was his castle, nailed garlic to the door and refused to let our home visit chaps in, then I'd suggest that we invited him to our offices for a meeting.
> 
> I'd also suspect that he quite possibly wasn't worth spending that much time on as he clearly didn't mind attracting the additional scrutiny commensurate with being a pain in the arse. So I wouldn't even ask for much additional prep to be done in advance of the meeting. If any of his claims didn't stand up to scrutiny, though, I'd be disinclined towards leniency.
> 
> Okay? Any other public services you want me to roleplay? Pest control? Parks horticulture?


nice to know that you regard benefit claimants as "nutters".

reveals more about your motivations than the rest of the blurb you're spewing out.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

I certainly regard Awesome Wells as a nutter.

I don't, and didn't, equate claimants with privacy loons. There is some overlap, because privacy loons, like the rest of us, use a variety of public services.

Your point about my motivations is unclear but doesn't seem in any way fair.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I certainly regard Awesome Wells as a nutter.
> 
> I don't, and didn't, equate claimants with privacy loons. There is some overlap, because privacy loons, like the rest of us, use a variety of public services.
> 
> Your point about my motivations is unclear but doesn't seem in any way fair.


do you want me to give you a shovel so you can keep digging yourself a bit deeper?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I certainly regard Awesome Wells as a nutter.
> 
> I don't, and didn't, equate claimants with privacy loons. There is some overlap, because privacy loons, like the rest of us, use a variety of public services.
> 
> Your point about my motivations is unclear but doesn't seem in any way fair.


Are you saying a benefit claimant in the UK in 2014, in their concerns about home visits, will be primarily worried about abstract privacy issues?  Is it not likely to be something else?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Are you saying a benefit claimant in the UK in 2014, in their concerns about home visits, will be primarily worried about abstract privacy issues?  Is it not likely to be something else?



Explain what it is, then. Don't just say something question-begging like "it's intrusive".


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Explain what it is, then. Don't just say something question-begging like "it's intrusive".


You've had it explained to you - it's about tightening the regime surrounding claimants and it's about reducing the number _of_ claimants.  However, even in your social democracy, you _know this_.  However, you'd rather characterise it as being about 'nutters'.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> it's about tightening the regime surrounding claimants



No, it's adjacent to that.



> and it's about reducing the number _of_ claimants.



Absolutely. And almost all of us are agreed that fraudulent claimants exist (although we'd rather HMRC was similarly aggressive, and that entitlement assessment focused more on identifying people who should claim but don't), and that reducing their numbers is a valid policy goal.

So, aside from ickiness about nasty government men on the sofas where children play, what has been explained?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2014)

reducing numbers isn't a valid policy goal- a pool of unemployed labour is absolutely necessary for a neoliberal economy to function. Its nothing to do with policy review this or blue sky agenda that, its as plain as the penis on your forehead that these twonks are simply giving claimants a hard time again because it sells well with their little r/w fourth estate echo chamber


----------



## weepiper (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> No, it's adjacent to that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's really no need to be so deeply unpleasant. It's a beautiful day


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I certainly regard Awesome Wells as a nutter.
> 
> I don't, and didn't, equate claimants with privacy loons. There is some overlap, because privacy loons, like the rest of us, use a variety of public services.
> 
> Your point about my motivations is unclear but doesn't seem in any way fair.


'privacy loons'?

Really?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> reducing numbers isn't a valid policy goal- a pool of unemployed labour is absolutely necessary for a neoliberal economy to function. Its nothing to do with policy review this or blue sky agenda that, its as plain as the penis on your forehead that these twonks are simply giving claimants a hard time again because it sells well with their little r/w fourth estate echo chamber



Except that the policy goal relates to fraudulent claims, not to surplus labour per se, and that the policy is neither new nor a particularly  publicised initiative.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Except that *the policy goal relates to fraudulent claims*, not to surplus labour per se, and that the policy is neither new nor a particularly  publicised initiative.



ha, the other one has bells on


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Except that the policy goal relates to fraudulent claims, not to surplus labour per se, and that the policy is neither new nor a particularly  publicised initiative.


How does knocking at someone's door stop fraud? You can't force people to hand over personal data such as bank statements without, i imagine, a court order. If you can get one of those, why do you need to knock at doors, just go direct to the bank and look up the account details directly. 

What happens if the person tells you he doesn't keep his bank statements? Assuming he lets you into his house at all, which he, afaik, isn't legally obliged to do since, again afik, the dwp doorsteppers don't have right of entry. 

Mind you i wouldn't be surprised if they were given thus.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> How does knocking at someone's door stop fraud?
> .



Already been discussed at length - the main thing they are interested in is probably honesty about family circumstances, such as children, relationships and tenancies. This is where home visits help.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Already been discussed at length - the main thing they are interested in is probably honesty about family circumstances, such as children, relationships and tenancies. This is where home visits help.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Already been discussed at length - the main thing they are interested in is probably honesty about family circumstances, such as children, relationships and tenancies. This is where home visits help.


oh, so now it's _helping _the claimant!

Doorstepping you unannounced in a culture of bigotry fear and suspicious is a good thing?!?


----------



## weepiper (Jun 18, 2014)

It's got fuck all to do with reducing fraud and everything to do with making it more unpleasant to claim in an attempt to push people off their books.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2014)

weepiper said:


> It's got fuck all to do with reducing fraud and everything to do with making it more unpleasant to claim in an attempt to push people off their books.


Like council housing is meant to be seen as only for deserving etc. Harrassing people in their own homes. I don't know why after ten years of being here, they suddenly get suspicious!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2014)

wrt council housing there has been a complete number done. I grew up living on 'council estates' that had been before RTB. My nan talks of council housing post war when she was young, how it wasn't ghetto bullshit housing for the neediest people. It was just renting off the council.

its an important point man, can't emphasise this enough- all forms of state 'benefits' must be universal. Yea unto him who is rich and to him who is poor. If you make it means tested etc, ghettoisation. Maurice was giving it about social democracy earlier (but it wasn't a soc/dec I recognized). We are being run by headbanging ideologues and outright spivs (have you seen shapps record?)


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2014)

The culture against council tenants has stepped up so much since I even moved in here. There was an old lady at the housing office, who missed her rent by one _day_ because she was ill and there was snow on the ground, who was harangued by the council at ten o clock at night, just for being a day late with the rent. It wasn't like that when I moved in.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> wrt council housing there has been a complete number done. I grew up living on 'council estates' that had been before RTB. My nan talks of council housing post war when she was young, how it wasn't ghetto bullshit housing for the neediest people. It was just renting off the council.



certainly in its earlier days, and to a lesser extent until well after 1945, you pretty much needed a steady job to get a council house / flat...


----------



## campanula (Jun 19, 2014)

Having been twice on the receiving end of fraud investigations, let me tell you that the flimsiest of evidence (my son answering my phone) is enough to trigger an intrusive investigation which goes on for months and impacts on all aspects of life. Both times, allageations of fraud were unfounded yet the fear and anxiety that I was going to lose my home and be utterly destitute went on for months (recorded intervies, scrutiny of medical, financial and even household utility records.....feeling like a criminal, I had prove who is or is not at my house whether we ate together....who contributed in any way - demands to see my son's tenancies, letters from his landlord (he has never claime4d benefits but hey....he might have been subsidising me....or even staying in his old bedroom - not that he would have had ANY rights as a tenant despite having to pay rent to the council if he did live at home).....you have no idea of the level of scrutiny.....how often my adult children visit for example, whether they work and so on and so forth (I am in poor health and rely on them) Have you any idea, Maurice Picarda, just how much social engineering is deployed towards council tenants for example.....or the disgusting attitudes many of these investigators.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 19, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Calm down.


sorry, some times this kind of thing makes me quite cross


----------



## Greebo (Jun 19, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> sorry, some times this kind of thing makes me quite cross


And so it should.  

Although, thinking about it, maybe my joke in reply to the benefit fraud officer asking "Do you have anyone else living here?" was unwise and may possibly have led to repeat visits:  "No, unless they're bunking down in the boiler cupboard" - it and the adjacent gutted airing cupboard would be large enough for a single mattress, if not for the partition, the washing machine, a lot of pipes, and the boiler being in there.


----------

