UK spying bank accounts: Eligibility Verification Measure
Comments
-
theres also the following:
- penalties for wrongdoing – Banks and other financial institutions can be issued penalty notices for non-compliance with Eligibility Verification Notices. This includes if they fail to respond within the timeframe or if they share information that must not be shared under the measure (such as transaction information and special category data).
So, potentially a bank could share your spending habits “by mistake” with DWP and be fined for it.
now, it doesn’t say how much will the fine be and who would be receiving the fine money.Cause, if my bank were to share data about me that should not have, I expect that fine payment to be substantial and to be made to me.
Sounds all a bit strange to me.
2 -
I also don’t understand why ESA is mentioned if it were only to affect those on IRESA, cause that benefit is disappearing in April 2026
we need further clarification on what the government is planning on doing IMO1 -
Thanks. Something i can't work out is they say this will save around 300 million per year but the total loss is something like 9.5 billion per year. I read something on gov uk saying that for UC alone the loss to capital fraud was something like 1.1 for last year. Is it just me or is this new law only going to recover a fraction of what was lost? Just my thoughts. Could be rubbish
0 -
Income related ESA was included in the February 2025 Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill factsheet because it remained active at the time, and some claimants are still yet transitioned to UC. The transition will not be completed until April 2026, so DWP was required to include income related ESA within the scope of the proposed legislation.
If the Fraud Bill becomes law and takes effect before April 2026, the new bank account verification powers could apply immediately. This means that claimants who are still receiving income related ESA because they have not yet moved to UC would be affected while their ESA payments continue.
If you receive new style ESA (also known as CB ESA) and are not claiming UC, the proposed powers do not apply to you. CB ESA is not means tested and remains outside the scope of the legislation.
However, if you also receive UC alongside CB ESA, for example to help with housing costs, childcare, or as a top up to a low income, your UC claim will fall within scope of the proposed bank account verification powers, as UC is a means tested benefit.
0 -
thank you, however I still haven’t seen any official document from the government corroborating what you have written as the document in their website for instance, specifically mentions pension being outside the law, but it fails to mention all other benefits, PIP, DLA, CBESA, etc implying that those benefits are within the realm of the law proposed.
If what you are saying is true, they would have also stated that this law only applies to UC and IRESA.
0 -
The factsheet says banks can be fined if they wrongly share data with the DWP, such as spending patterns or sensitive information. But that fine would not go to the person affected. And we know that because the factsheet frames it as a regulatory penalty for banks, not a compensation mechanism for individuals.
If a bank is fined, the money is owed to the Treasury, not to the claimant. There is no automatic compensation. If a claimant’s data was wrongly shared, they would need to raise a complaint with the ICO or take legal action themselves to seek redress.
1 -
I agree the factsheet could be clearer in how it frames exclusions. The February 2025 factsheet states.
“The power would apply only to means tested DWP benefits. These include Universal Credit and income related Employment and Support Allowance. It would not apply to non means tested benefits such as State Pension.”
This wording sets the application by type of benefit, not by listing every excluded one. So while PIP, DLA and CB ESA are not named, they fall outside the law’s reach because they are not means tested, just like State Pension. Their omission does not imply inclusion, it reflects standard drafting practice where examples are given, not exhaustive lists.
0 -
The Eligibility Verification will also apply to Pension Credit.
1 -
not quite, it specifically says:
- limited to certain benefits – An Eligibility Verification Notice can only request information about accounts in receipt of the specified benefits set out in legislation. These are Universal Credit, Pension Credit and Employment and Support Allowance. If the Secretary of State wishes to expand the range of benefits covered, it will require a debate and approval by Parliament. This is except for the State Pension which is excluded from being added by the legislation.
No, the fact sheet never mentions the words: “means tested”
It’s not clear, as you can see they can investigate bank accounts in receipt of other benefits just by approval by parliament with no need for legislation.
this is just another step for mass surveillance set out by the government following the online safety act, the freedom of speech restrictions and by digital ID.
Checking bank accounts law should be abolished, unless we want to be ruled by an authoritarian regime which is where we are heading.Mass surveillance set in the name of security when you have the grooming gangs scandal, which happened not because we haven’t got enough surveillance, but because public institutions failed the victims.
We don’t need more surveillance or authoritarian laws, we need a decent political class and a decent civil service. That’s were the surveillance should start with if anywhere.
0 -
if we were to live in a country with proper ethical and transparency practices, the benefit claimant would receive a text message stating that an Eligibility Verification Notice has been sent to their bank provider. Following that, they would also receive correspondence of what was actually shared by the bank.
0 -
The bill doesn’t use the phrase “means tested,” but it lists benefits that are means tested in practice. The bill is currently with the House of Lords. Once it’s returned to the Commons, it will move to its third reading there.
Below is the proposed bill itself.
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/63076/documents/7197
1 -
thank you
Will have a read through in the coming days.
However, as per quick glance, no mention of the wording “means tested benefits” in there, nor of IRESA but Employment support allowance as a general term. So, legally they could send this eligibility verification to anyone on CBESA.
no exact wording on what exactly these Eligibility verification requests will be requesting either. What parameters etcAnd it also leaves the door open for other benefits to be added in a very simple way.
I don’t think is as straightforward as you think it is.
0 -
Hi, thanks for the information. Just out of interest how far back will these checks go? Thanks
0 -
It depends on how strong their fraud suspicion is, I guess, as some claimants have reported to have been asked for bank statements covering a fairly large number of years.
0 -
Thanks, i read somewhere that banks keep information for 7 years. Is that correct?
0 -
I have been reading through the proposed new bill and I am genuinely alarmed. It does not name “means tested” benefits or IRESA directly, but it lists benefits that are means tested in practice. That means CBESA could easily be swept in. I only receive PIP, but even that could be pulled in if they decide they want more data.
We should be terrified by how easily suspicion and control can be normalised, especially when the poorest are used to test the limits. I never thought I would see this in a democracy, a country where hardship is treated as a threat and the vulnerable as suspects.
This is not just a technical issue, it is dangerous. The bill gives the DWP powers most people would never expect in a democracy. They will be able to take money directly from people’s bank accounts without going through the courts. They can even ask a court to suspend someone’s driving licence. And the wording means these powers could quietly expand to cover more benefits later, with no public debate.
This is not about tackling fraud. It is about building a system where anyone who needs support is treated as a suspect by default, where control replaces care and fear becomes a tool of governance. When support is your lifeline, you cannot just opt out. The most vulnerable will be forced to endure scrutiny they never consented to, from a government they rely on to survive.
This is not just about one policy, it is about precedent. The ID scheme they want to roll out. It will become a tool to monitor every citizen, where spending, movement and private choices are scrutinised by default. That is why I oppose any government access to personal data without prior consent and a clear, justified reason. Privacy is not a privilege, it is the shield that protects the governed from the governing. And once that shield is breached, it is not the powerful who bleed first.
0 -
those are pretty much my thoughts.
I’m surprised the little backlash this bill has had.
0 -
The proposed fraud bill, which I believe is fraud itself, is all about a brouhaha deterrence scheme, which will never be in place as it's currently being advertised and made to believe.
It's all about scaring and deterring potential benefit fraudsters - I mean the big fish.
For banks to identify accounts of benefit recipients, police them permanently, flag them, and feed back to the DWP, they would need relevant banking software, which would cost hundreds of millions of pounds. annual running costs, and dedicated staff to also liaise with the DWP. Who is going to pay for all these? Banks won't pay a penny for these, as these are not adding any value whatsoever to their profit making mission.
In addition, banks won't pay any wages to staff that are not contributing to their money making vocation. Banks hire their employees for them to contribute to revenue generation, cost management and operational efficiency, and strategic contribution, etc. Banks won't hire or dedicate employees to police benefit recipients' bank accounts, as this doesn't fit banks' strategy, mission & vision.
The only thing banks would be doing is to disclose financial information of benefit fraudsters that are being prosecuted and taken to court, rather than keep policing benefit claimants' accounts. Banks have already been disclosing financial information of criminals or those who are being prosecuted for ages. Simply, it's now going to be made a law in order to make banks obligated in this respect.
Banks will never police benefit recipients' bank accounts blanketly, flag anyone who has got more than 16k in their accounts, and provide written detailed evidence to corroborate what their software has flagged. Neither will they ever be in a position to supply financial details of any benefit claimant who's going through benefit eligibility verification process.
This is not as easy as it's being made to believe, which is all about a deterrence by scaring strategy.
0 -
I agree that the bill fosters a climate of fear, though I wish I shared your optimism.
Banks would not need to hire additional staff to monitor accounts. They already deploy algorithms to identify suspicious financial patterns for anti money laundering purposes. If granted the necessary legal powers, similar systems could easily be repurposed to flag risks related to benefits.
That is precisely what makes it troubling. Once programmed, these systems can operate continuously, scanning millions of accounts at virtually no cost and quietly targeting thousands of individuals. Often, only those in charge of programming would know it is happening.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.6K Start here and say hello!
- 7.3K Coffee lounge
- 100 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 137 Announcements and information
- 24.4K Talk about life
- 5.9K Everyday life
- 445 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 881 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 542 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 625 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 870 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 929 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.4K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.9K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.7K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income