SW Means Test - account for expenditure?

RoYoBo

A bit of a weird question - when submitting bank statements for a means test in ROI do SW ask about listed expenditure/debits, as in what you spent your money on? I always thought it was just investigating income only, but I could be wrong. We're not talking gambling sites or anything, just general spending.

A niece who lives and works in NI (applying for childcare support) was asked recently to provide details of random amounts spent from her bank statements, which I thought was a bit invasive.

Snow_White1987

RoYoBo wrote: »

A bit of a weird question - when submitting bank statements for a means test in ROI do SW ask about listed expenditure/debits, as in what you spent your money on? I always thought it was just investigating income only, but I could be wrong. We're not talking gambling sites or anything, just general spending.

A niece who lives and works in NI (applying for childcare support) was asked recently to provide details of random amounts spent from her bank statements, which I thought was a bit invasive.

When my SW was up for review previously, they asked me to point out some expenses that ate up a significant amount of my income – transport, medical, physio costs etc – but as I'm disabled (Cerebral Palsy) I thought it was good they asked this as it meant they were taking everything about my situation into consideration when doing the means test.

I think it very much depends on the officer reviewing the case and the SW payment you're on. It's hard to do a box-ticking exercise when you're on DA, for example, but it might be just the way it is in NI.

Jerry Attrick

RoYoBo wrote: »

A bit of a weird question - when submitting bank statements for a means test in ROI do SW ask about listed expenditure/debits, as in what you spent your money on? I always thought it was just investigating income only, but I could be wrong. We're not talking gambling sites or anything, just general spending.

A niece who lives and works in NI (applying for childcare support) was asked recently to provide details of random amounts spent from her bank statements, which I thought was a bit invasive.

They are entitled to ask about anything that they see on the bank statements.

(Also bear in mind that some childless taxpayers may consider it "a bit invasive" of her to put her hand into their pocket to obtain child support! )

RoYoBo

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

They are entitled to ask about anything that they see on the bank statements.

(Also bear in mind that some childless taxpayers may consider it "a bit invasive" of her to put her hand into their pocket to obtain child support! )

Just to point out that she is a taxpayer herself and she is claiming what she is entitled to in order to do that work, incidentally as a front line NHS worker during a pandemic.

It's a childcare subsidy/tax credit that enables her essential work to continue and other taxpayers (childless or otherwise) to get the treatment and care they need.

I don't think most decent people would begrudge her that, though I accept there may be a very few who would prefer to treat her as some kind of pariah. It's understandable that all sources of MEANS should be open to question and scrutiny.

I have more of a problem having to account for her spending with a fine toothed comb. I have never heard of this for people claiming unemployment support bere, for example, but maybe it does happen.

Jerry Attrick

RoYoBo wrote: »

Just to point out that she is a taxpayer herself and she is claiming what she is entitled to in order to do that work, incidentally as a front line NHS worker during a pandemic.

It's a childcare subsidy/tax credit that enables her essential work to continue and other taxpayers (childless or otherwise) to get the treatment and care they need.

I don't think most decent people would begrudge her that, though I accept there may be a very few who would prefer to treat her as some kind of pariah. It's understandable that all sources of MEANS should be open to question and scrutiny.

Perhaps, in your urge to defend her you may have missed the winking emotiicon in my parenthetical remark!

RoYoBo wrote: »

It's understandable that all sources of MEANS should be open to question and scrutiny. I have more of a problem having to account for her spending with a fine toothed comb. I have never heard of this for people claiming unemployment support here, for example, but maybe it does happen.

Evidently, they do things differently in that other place! Perhaps it's the Presbyterian mindset!

Hopefully after our two great tribes have eventually united/re-united, all such petty red tape nonsense will immediately be abolished.

Saudades

They look at expenditure to check that you're not deliberately depriving or hiding capital in order to increase or maintain benefits.

RoYoBo

Saudades wrote: »

They look at expenditure to check that you're not deliberately depriving or hiding capital in order to increase or maintain benefits.

Yeah, I suppose that makes partial sense but, if income is already below the stringent limit allowed, I'm not sure how one could amass enough to needlessly deprive oneself of (or hide) capital by spending it on day to day things? If all the income that goes into the account is clearly the only credit showing on the statement, it seems very OTT to require an explanation for every debit.

It's not as if the limits are so generous that you could accumulate and save anything - far from it, in NI especially. I'm just curious if this kind of in-depth check on expenditure applies for SW benefits and allowances in ROI? Anyone I've spoken to is aghast at the notion of having to provide explanations for every purchase made. But I guess it is what it is ...

JustAThought

RoYoBo wrote: »

Yeah, I suppose that makes partial sense but, if income is already below the stringent limit allowed, I'm not sure how one could amass enough to needlessly deprive oneself of (or hide) capital by spending it on day to day things? If all the income that goes into the account is clearly the only credit showing on the statement, it seems very OTT to require an explanation for every debit.

It's not as if the limits are so generous that you could accumulate and save anything - far from it, in NI especially. I'm just curious if this kind of in-depth check on expenditure applies for SW benefits and allowances in ROI? Anyone I've spoken to is aghast at the notion of having to provide explanations for every purchase made. But I guess it is what it is ...

AKAIK every bank, savings or credit account is asked for and official bank details to be provided for the time periods specified - usually 6 months buy can be asked for any period specified - income and expenditure for each account - along with breakdown of costs, income, trusts,
pensions, directors salaries or expensed only roles, shares, dividens, assets including property or income from property at home and abroad and the same for your spouse/ partner & everyone in your home. And credit union accounts or loans and receipts and expenditure tallies from these and repayments. etc

RoYoBo

Yes, I appreciate that all income has to be declared, computed and scrutinised. I also understand that regular checks to establish that there's no change in circumstances are equally necessary. That makes perfect sense.

However, having established said income/means and that it's below the statutory limits, why go further and require someone to account for their every expenditure? You can only spend the income that you have, the income that is within the prescribed limits. I just don't see the point!

Thanks for the replies everyone - I guess it's just one of those things. My niece is quite resigned to having to submit her bank statements randomly when required, complete with expenditure explanations, so people do what they have to do.

Edit: Just to add, the childcare subsidy she receives (and more) clearly goes out of her account every week. What they want accountability for is actually spent from her own earned income - and it goes on food, rent, fuel and other essentials, with precious little left for anything else.

JustAThought

Guess this is why the black market exonomy is so stong & cash in hand payments are so popular. Subsistance payments I suppose are supposed to help you subsist - not much of an existence. People often have other sources of income too - online sales of goods/services, payments coming in from second or other jobs etc . Nobody minds the checks if it stops the chancers. And if equally applied.