I'm on the fence about that one, curious what others think

Ask yourself, if there is reasonable suspicion of people being overpaid and it is a wide-spread problem, should the state focus on solidifying the system or should it be given all sorts of extra powers to go on witch hunts through people's bank accounts in search of evidence that confirms their suspicions?

Which of the two is more dangerous you think?

For me it is obvious, since we had a case in the Netherlands that touches on this exact subject, the end result of which was thousands of families being crushed by the government apparatus for wrongs they had not committed.

If you want to know the types of damage: evictions, suicides, children being taken away, children being never found again, etc. - people and families utterly ruined at the hands of the state.

There is literally no greater danger in this world than the incompetence (and occasional malice) of governments.

yeah those kinds of things are my worry.

Do you have a link to the bill?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0167/240167.pdf

You said 'without a warrant', but they do need a court order. And warrants are still needed for entering people's premises.

I'm not too exercised about it either way. I was under the impression that benefit fraud is a relatively minor issue as compared to, say, the shocking lack of a wealth tax.

No, the Direct Deduction Order is not a court order. It's ordered from the bank by the state.

It's for overpayments from error too, which is quite common.

Oh, you appear to be right, I just can't quite believe it. So there's no judicial oversight? So a representative of the executive gets to review the evidence and make a binding decision?

If so that seems a bit shocking. Have I misunderstood?

OK, so the minister may (not 'must') transfer his powers under the bill to the newly created Public Sector Fraud Authority. However that authority doesn't look very independent to me. I wonder if there is an appeal process that can use the courts, or whether claimants will just have to rely on Judicial Review.

OK, so you can apply to the minister for a review, and then appeal to the first tier tribunal, so the courts can get involved. Jeez, I bet the first tier tribunal are looking forward to this (not). I'm not keen from what I've read so far.

On the other hand, if you needed a court order for every Direct Deduction Order, that might clog up the courts. Maybe it makes sense to the judiciary only to get involved at the appeal stage.

If you want to know the types of damage: evictions, suicides, children being taken away, children being never found again, etc. - people and families utterly ruined at the hands of the state. — Tzeentch

I heard about that. Sounded awful

Yes, you're spot on.

Even Reform abstained, and they're no friend of people on benefits.

There is literally no greater danger in this world than the incompetence (and occasional malice) of governments. — Tzeentch

What about private companies? The state is the only thing we have to protect us against them. Good systems of public governance are essential to mitigating both threats I suppose.

Even Reform abstained, and they're no friend of people on benefits. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I suppose they are very anti-state interference, even against people on benefits.

I do wonder if this is an expensive draconian solution to a non-problem. Apparently it's nearly 4% of benefit expenditure is overpaid. Is that a massive problem compared to other problems? So 4/100 people get a bit more than they are entitled to? Compare that to billionaires not paying taxes.

No. If a government agency suspects overpayment of benefits, then they should stop further payments until the dispute is resolved either by mediation or in court.

Who did the paying? Investigate that.

So some idiot pays a claimant too much money and before proving enough suspicion to obtain a warrant, that idiot gets to grab the money without the claimant’s consent? Terrible idea.

I do wonder if this is an expensive draconian solution to a non-problem. Apparently it's nearly 4% of benefit expenditure is overpaid. Is that a massive problem compared to other problems? So 4/100 people get a bit more than they are entitled to? Compare that to billionaires not paying taxes. — bert1

Exactly. The Green Party have a policy of a wealth tax, and I'm very tempted by them. I usually vote Labour as the lesser of the two evils, but I'm not actually sure it is the lesser of the two evils under this leadership.

I guess you vote SNP up there in Scotland? Hopefully they give Labour a kicking at the next election.

I guess you vote SNP up there in Scotland? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, but I'd rather vote Green. Electoral reform and a wealth tax, in that order, are my main political wishes. Then people can start taking an interest in the big issues like climate change when their vote counts and they're not in survival mode.

This is an aspect of UK life which I find so worrying and leads me to believe that the UK is becoming an experiment in authoritarian totalitarianism. The biggest problem is that such interventions are on the basis of 'suspicion of fraud' as opposed to proof of it. The DWP makes so many mistakes and this is going to be a potential area for great disaster and a means by which the state can just take anyone's money.

So many individuals and organisations, including banks are opposed. Nevertheless, it is being pushed through by the current government alongside an agenda of many reforms aimed at giving increasing power to the state.

Yes, putting aside the arguments of government overreach, checks and balances, etc, this does disproportionately affect disabled people. People that even if they understood what was going on, are not in the financial position to spend on lawyers to fight government barristers.

The state literally already takes everything from the people, money is generally a superfluous representation of power, power and productivity stolen by the state.

How come the state doesn't have enough money for public services then?

by the nature of the question, it appears to me that you're thinking I'm saying they're already stealing all the money. What I'm saying is the state loves to take the excess of power and productivity of a person and turns it into fiat money that represents a style of power and productivity within a given post-phenomenalist structure.

That fiat money isn't printed for public serivce is because your politicians aren't really giving a damn about that vs other interests.

Should the government suspect that some recipients have received too much in benefits, there are two obvious remedies:

The first is to improve the controls within the benefit-granting agency. Recipients are not 'guilty' of agency errors, but they might still be liable for repayment.

The second is to claw back the over-payment following due process. For instance, notifying the recipients of probable over-payment; providing a period during which the recipients can contest the probable-overpayment, and then an administrative hearing to determine whether an over-payment did occur. If it did, then the government can claw back the over-payment all at once or over time, whichever causes the least reasonable disruption to recipients' finances.

In the United States, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) allows for seizure of any assets from those identified by law enforcement as having ill-gotten gains. It is carried out through court orders. It allows the government to more efficiently dismantle organized crime*** operations. There aren't many limitations on what can be seized, so it is critical to government legal creditability that the RICO case be very solid.

RICO would not apply to government payment systems which might result in over-payment in most cases, unless there was a 'conspiracy' to obtain inflated benefits.

***As mafia operator Bill Bonanno said, "Crime doesn't pay UNLESS it's organized."

Generally my government policy is to starve it: I'd rather give the people too much control over themselves than the government too much control over the people.

The way things are done now, prior to the bill becoming law, is the government contacts the benefit claimant, demanding return of the overpayment, and failing this, issues proceedings at the local civil court. They would have to prove their case on the balance of probabilities to recover any monies.

You suggest an administrative hearing. Do you mean a hearing conducted by the judiciary, such as by way of a tribunal, or by the state itself? The problems is, in the UK the government picks the head of the other elements of the state, such as the Met Police, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ofcom, Financial Conduct Authority, National Health Service.

You say "generally". Where do you draw the line?

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. It seems to me that it's primarily private interests that take any 'excess of power and productivity'. States are not perfect of course for a range of reasons, but at least taxes get partially returned in some way in the form of services, infrastructure etc. The returns on private investment are lost forever to the wealthy.

Generally my government policy is to starve it: I'd rather give the people too much control over themselves than the government too much control over the people. — Bob Ross

But then who protects the weak from the strong? What happens to the rule of law?

"Administrative hearings" are not judicial, as I understand them. They are civil proceedings held by agencies. For instance, if you challenge a denial of unemployment compensation, a hearing will be held by the state labor department. Needless to say, the hearing officers are generally not on the claimant's side, but facts of the matter can still be established.

On the other hand the matter could be handled by a "small-claims court" -- a judicial unit that handles small cases, where people often represent themselves on both sides. Hearings are short, judgement is is usually swift. It's a low cost option.

Heh, well consider what a state does: presents pretty much a standard to live by while building a structure to govern people who can't govern themselves... that isn't to say that there aren't those that do... but by and large most fail at governing themselves. They look to the state to provide solutions.