5 Filters

Data Protection Act advice #interrogation (recommended)

“I was pleased to be able to attend a telephone appointment today with Mr.Idara, however, I was not pleased that my adviser should be the one with knowledge of my financial affairs, I would far have preferred an unknown (to me), third party (to whom I was previously also unknown), who was versed in such matters as the Data Protection Act and acting in it’s accordance, I believe that behaving otherwise may contravene (at least the spirit of), the Data Protection Act (for instance I pay subs to UNITE Community once a year) . It is for this reason (and this reason alone), that I now request that I be allocated an adviser other than Mr.Idara from this point onwards. I also hope that U.C will feel able to respond to my criticisms asap.” This my most recent post to my Universal Credit journal.

Idara told me that they were only doing an I.D check but asked me specific details about specific purchases and withdrawals …I recently underwent “enhanced review” and had to present all my bank statements for the last three months and a host of other stuff…all an I.D check…I really objected to the way I was interrogated today…they’ve had the kitchen sink what more are they after? They swear they won’t use the information…but “ahem” he’s my U.C claim adviser!!! Sorry???

V

"Hi Gerard,
Thank you for your journal message. I have read your concerns regarding the confidentiality of your financial information. To enable us to conduct an accurate review of your circumstances we must see complete four months bank statements and as well ask questions about the transactions on it. As you are a recipient of Universal Credit, you are required to provide information when it is requested to verify your entitlement. Please see the DWP Personal information charter which can be found on https://gov.uk. (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab)
Your information which you provide is managed securely in accordance with GDPR and is treated with dignity and discretion. The information is only available to the staff who are conducting the review and their managers. Kindly note that your information would not remain permanently on the to-dos.
I hope this helps.
Kind Regards,
Idara.

Quote; “Your information which you provide is managed securely in accordance with GDPR and is treated with dignity and discretion. The information is only available to the staff who are conducting the review and their managers”

Nevertheless if these same staff are those routinely dealing with the client’s case I feel it is totally inappropriate for these staff to be aware of any of the personal transactions of their clients. I have no right to know what theirs are. In such cases surely the review should be carried out by specific members of the staff*, staff who do not otherwise interact with clients and staff who do not communicate any of the specifics of the information they are party to to anyone else? Mr.Idara informed me that my information was for I.D purposes only (conversation recorded), how can this be the case if those dealing with my case are also aware of my affairs? I am seeking further advice on this subject and would very kindly ask that U.C respect my wishes and hand my case over to someone who is not (and will not be), party to any of the specifics of my financial affairs. I also question the necessity of asking questions about specific transactions of clients.

May I ask U.C what the procedure is for taking up such matters with the senior administration?"

Gerard

*Or another agency/governmental branch with its own security protocols and legal obligations.

2 Likes

Good luck with challenging this Gerard. I would be outraged to have someone presume the right to question my expenditure, let alone discuss that with their colleagues, which is how I interpret their response. Since I’m not dependent on the State at the moment I could probably fob off any such enquiries with “no comment”. The onus is then on the investigatory agency to prove misconduct (daring to spend money as I see fit) or get their noses out.

I presume they can sanction you somehow for refusal to cooperate, reversing that onus in typical Nanny State heavy-handed way. Vile bastards.

2 Likes

No I did co-operate…but knowing what I know now I want a change of adviser…

Re: "satvir.kaur.mp@parliament.uk

Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2024 at 18:16:53 GMT

Subject: Fw: Where do I stand?

Dear Satvir

Please see the following correspondence detailing a problem I am currently having with U.C/Job Centre, having complied with all their previous requests I was subjected to a telephone appointment that was nothing short of an interrogation. I think I deserve to be heard by my M.P as I regard the breach of privacy as a serious infringement of my human rights. You may well be aware of the issues with which my HOS case is concerned and I hope you will feel that you can support me. In-fact following previous (polite), conversation with Mr. Idara and with others via my journal we had established that I needed to inform U.C about a worsening of my over-all condition (COPD, osteoarthritis), and my need for a loan to get a suitable bed, something I have not now done as result of the stress caused by this infringement of my personal liberties as such is colouring my relationship with U.C/Job Centre (esp. re: status of adviser). I intend to also contact my bank with regard to legality of the government’s behaviour in this regard. Thank you.

regards Gerard Hales

47 Fritham Rd.

Harefield

Southampton

SO18 5GG

02381845778

----- Forwarded message -----

From: Gerard Hales gerard.hales@yahoo.co.uk

To: glynoliver13@gmail.com glynoliver13@gmail.com; Tony Twine twinetony@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2024 at 17:57:43 GMT

Subject: Fw: Where do I stand?

Following Tony’s advice to contact you I would also add guys that although some of the sums inquired about were largish some were of the £30 size so anyone’s subscriptions could easily be demanded to be revealed! This means my adviser is allowed to know my political affiliations. The notion that anyone could “un-hear” what had been said to them is ludicrous, no this is ersatz rubbish, Starmer trying to get in the backdoor re: bank account oversight, however, any information they tried to use would surely be rendered inadmissible by the simple breach of protocol. This is why we must fight this for others, not so well versed, will undoubtedly fall to this illegal practice. I don’t know if U.C will change my adviser, I’m now in another battle that is a pouring stress on my existing stress and I’d like some of it removed immediately. Glyn and Tony know that my (very serious), case against SUA is currently with the HOS and that I am suffering long term health problems as a result of both the issues with which my case is concerned and the stress of bringing it (for which I have still received no advocacy or legal support). Thank you.

Gerard

----- Forwarded message -----

From: Tony Twine twinetony@gmail.com

To: gerard.hales@yahoo.co.uk gerard.hales@yahoo.co.uk

Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2024 at 12:49:27 GMT

Subject: Re: Where do I stand?

Hi G,

Appalling invasion of privacy by a burgeoning police-state - I suggest you contact local UNITE (UCSA) legal office and ask for their advice (Glyn O. is branch secretary so he will know who to ask).
regards"

Also: Court hears disabled activist’s challenge to ‘cataclysmic’ cuts to out-of-work disability benefits – Disability News Service

Thanks for the added info. Good to see some people batting for you.

Squashing people at their lowest is out-and-out despicable.

But apparently Mark Rutte would much rather have the price of the protection racket increase by an extra 50% so.

1 Like

"MPs have joined disability activists calling for a public inquiry into deaths linked to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell MP has tabled an early day motion urging the government to set up the probe.

It states: “That this House notes the shocking evidence published by John Pring in his recent book [on] the harm, too often leading to fatalities, inflicted on disabled people by the DWP since the introduction of the work capability assessment.”

It calls on the government to establish an independent public inquiry into the role played by ministers, civil servants and advisers and their culpability for the suffering identified in this research.

Labour’s Jon Trickett, Mary Kelly Foy and Ian Lavery; SDLP’s Claire Hanna; and DUP’s Jim Shannon have sponsored the motion. Labour MP Grahame Morris has also backed it.

John Pring is the editor of the Disability News Service (DNS), whose book, The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, details how the DWP spent more than a decade covering up evidence that links its actions with hundreds, and probably thousands, of deaths of disabled social security claimants.

Mr McDonnell, a long-time disability rights campaigner, told a vigil outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday that it was difficult to describe the scale of the suffering caused by the work capability assessment (WCA), including “tragically, a large number of disabled people losing their lives.”

The vigil was held as the High Court heard disabled activist and author Ellen Clifford’s legal challenges to proposals by the last government to further restrict eligibility for WCA payments, which Labour says it will proceed with.": MPs back disability activist calls for public inquiry into DWP deaths | Morning Star

1 Like

“Southampton Itchen is my home constituency: it’s where my wife and I made our home, where our children were born, and it’s where they now go to our local schools. Since I was elected a Councillor in 2011, I’ve worked hard to speak up for people I meet, and to make our communities even better places to live, learn, and work.”: My story - Darren Paffey MP

I saw Paffey at his surgery yesterday re: questions posed to me during a phone appt. with a U.C adviser…I made the point that questions from unqualified staff who are otherwise dealing with clients on a regular basis must surely contravene the Data Protection Act, for having seen my bank statements under “Enhanced Review” I was subsequently interrogated over the phone concerning a number of individual purchases that appeared on my statement.
I made the point I made here that some of my acc. activity includes payment of subs to a union (for instance), & that I did not feel that it was appropriate for my regular adviser to know these things.
We agreed that the Enhanced Review process (instituted very quickly following Labour’s victory), has been a response to problems that manifested during the covid pandemic & had been (at least), formulated under the prev. admin. & probably represents an ad hoc response that requires review itself.
Personally I rather think that Starmer is running with it just to see what he can get away with!
Well, hopefully, he won’t get away with this esp. as (as I told Paffey), the Southampton UNITE branch are now looking into the case.
I see it as a test case against further totalitarian oversight.
Perhaps if all those paid from the public purse were subject to the same scrutiny we would see these authoritarian (& deeply hypocritical), policies scrapped immediately.
I’m going to fight this fellas.
What occurred to me this morning is the issue of privacy with regard to sex.
What are they saying? Is it a further articulation of the deeply ableist notion that the disabled & partially able don’t visit “WobblinDildoes.Com”!

G

Further to: "Thank you for attending my surgery on Friday. It was valuable to meet you in person and understand the concerns you had with the DWP and their access to information.

As discussed, I am going to write to the DWP to establish what their current process is with enhanced reviews, personal financial information, and data protection. It will be important to establish the origin of this process, as we said it may well have been from the previous government.

I am aware that this issue of access to and scrutiny of bank accounts is a concern for many and this has been raised by other constituents. People’s financial transactions are deeply personal, and it is vital that any measures taken to prevent fraud or abuse are proportionate.

I ultimately share the view that any scrutiny of bank accounts must be handled with the utmost care and with clear protections in place for individuals, as you also highlighted in our meeting. In terms of the wider issue, while the Government has outlined the intention to introduce safeguarding measures, I will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that any changes made are fair and respectful.

I can assure you that I will continue to raise concerns about the privacy of benefit claimants, particularly for those with disabilities, as we move forward with discussions on this policy.

Thank you again for meeting with me. I will be in touch when I have a response from the DWP about your case.

Kind regards,

Darren

Darren Paffey MP
Labour Member of Parliament for Southampton Itchen
Website: www.darrenpaffey.org.uk"

2 Likes

Good luck with all this Gerard. There can be no legit reason for snooping at this level, and one has to suspect a trial baloon to test the resistance, starting at those with the least legal clout.

A friend of mine told me that his professional job finder agency makes bank statements a requirement for their services; I wondered if that was legal. I guess so - so long as the service is optable out of. Unlike DSS.

2 Likes