The DWP has published guidance explaining how banks can be required to flag accounts where there is a possibility of fraud or error. The checks can include joint accounts and any other account into which the relevant benefits are paid. However, banks cannot supply full statements or details of how you spend your money under this measure.

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act passed into law in December 2025.  One of its provisions allows the DWP to require banks and other financial institutions to examine their records to highlight where someone may not be eligible for the benefits that they are being paid.

The DWP has now issued guidance about how these powers are used.

Which benefits are affected?

The checks cover Universal Credit, Pension Credit and New Style ESA. They apply to England, Scotland and Wales.

PIP is not included, although if you receive both PIP and UC you could have your account checked because it receives UC.

The guidance was published on 13 October. It explains existing powers rather than announcing their introduction.

Does the DWP need grounds to suspect you?

The DWP does not need to suspect an individual of wrongdoing before these checks take place.

Instead, it issues an Eligibility Verification Notice requiring a bank to identify accounts meeting criteria based on benefit rules. For example, accounts could be flagged where savings exceed a capital limit or overseas transactions suggest someone may have been abroad longer than their benefit rules allow.  

But a match does not establish that someone has been overpaid or is committing fraud and requests cannot target named claimants.

What can banks disclose?

Where the criteria are met, banks may supply:

  • Account holders’ names.
  • Account numbers and sort codes.
  • Details of linked and joint accounts.
  • Information about balances.
  • Dates of transactions abroad.

They cannot supply full statements, transaction histories, spending details, specific transaction locations or sensitive information such as religious beliefs. The DWP cannot access your online banking or watch your account in real time.

Linked accounts are other accounts held by someone who holds the account receiving the relevant benefit payment. These could include savings accounts which do not receive any benefit payments. Non-claimants can be affected, including appointees receiving someone else’s benefit into a personal account.

Will you know your account has been checked?

The guidance does not require an individual to be notified whenever a bank checks an account or passes information to the DWP. Nor does it give a deadline for telling you.

In fact, the DWP’s code of practice says it will not tell account holders every time a bank shares information with it. However, if it contacts you because action is needed to check your entitlement, it says it will explain what information led to that contact

You can request personal information held about you by the DWP, including evidence used in an investigation. This is called a subject access request.

If the DWP reviews your claim, it may ask questions or request evidence through your journal, by telephone, letter or text.  If you are investigated in this way, try to get support from a local advice agency or law centre. 

You can read the new DWP guidance here.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    The government has announced it is going to remove UC eligibility from those detained under section 37 of the mental health act. The government and media are portraying this as being for serious convicted criminals guilty of horrific crimes being held in secure hospitals. The figures cited for those who would be effected are however for all section 37 detentions.

    People can be detained under section 37 by a magistrate court or a crown court for any crime that can be punished by a prison sentence not just the most serious offences. And can be imposed for crimes in theory punishable by prison that under sentencing guidelines would actually result in a fine or community order not prison. Also it can be imposed by the court based on preponderance of guilt, the court is satisfied they did it, it does not require criminal conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt. And detention can be hospital inpatient treatment or guardianship of social services.

    Removing UC eligibility will require a change in the law so parliament will have to approve. But anyone trying to oppose this will presumably be portrayed as on the side of monsters. As this saves very little money being cynical I think it is designed to pollute the debate on people with mental health conditions receiving benefits, rather than being held to account, expected to take responsibility for their lives. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @JBob1234 The change will not apply to all those detained under section 37. Despite previously using figures that are for all both for number of people effected and savings in £. The government has now listed the serious criminal offences that will result in loss of UC. So it will only apply to those offences not all.

      So the government appears to have originally accidently exaggerated the number of people and savings. They have not yet provided corrected figures.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @JBob1234 Yep, all politically motivated. Making savings just a cover for demonising the disabled.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    Are they checking just the account your benefits get paid into, or all bank accounts?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Jake They check all bank accounts listed in your credit reports, eg Experian. Check your credit report and see. They also see if your in debt. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Scorpion
      @Scorpion When they've a strong suspicion of fraud the DWP literally allows itself to even check under mattresses, because it can issue a warrant.

      My understanding of the new surveillance methods is that the bank is instructed to scan the benefit account. If that account itself has too much capital it triggers an alert with dwp. Additionally, if that account, combined with other accounts at that bank or linked to accounts at other banks, amounts to too much, that will also trigger an alert. I don't think the dwp will be scanning the claimant's details across the whole financial system in the country, yet.

      Problems could arise with lower thresholds (£6000 for uc and £10000 for pc) where the dwp has already made deductions at the deemed income tariff, and with exempt capital, even if the correct capital has been declared by the claimant, because the nuances are not picked up by the bank.

      Flagged accounts have to be handed to a dwp agent to investigate as they deem appropriate, which means there is scope for plenty stressful and unnecessary enquiries and demands of the claimant.

      I can't give an exhaustive list of all the checks that can be made - as JBob1234 says, 'It is not clear' - but the eligibility verification is a blunter than blunt instrument which has the potential to inflict serious injury on the innocent.

      It's really important to keep evidence of declared finances and award letters based on those, so as not to be falsely accused.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Jake This very same question has been asked X times across the internet, and no one has been  able to give a precise answer to it. I think the only ones who could provide such a precise answer are people who are part of the Universal Credit Claim Review (UCR) teams or staff working on Targeted Case Reviews (TCR) within the Department for Work and Pension.

      I haven't come across yet an adequate answer to whether they only focus on the bank account(s) a claimant has provided to them and any other account(s) that might be linked to this or these, or they also check how many bank accounts a claimant has got at the bank(s) the claimant has stated, across all the banks, Post Office, etc., by scanning the claimant's details across the whole financial system in the country.

      I mean on a regular review, not when they've a strong suspicion of fraud in which case the DWP could allow itself to even check under mattresses.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @JBob1234 It looks like I was wrong. The DWP does not just check linked accounts (consolidated accounts). They can check all accounts held by the person with the financial institution, be they individual accounts or joint accounts with someone else. And can check any accounts held by other people that are linked to your accounts through for example regular payments from your accounts, so if you pay rent your landlord's account. Checks on other people's accounts are to check they are actually other people not you.

      It is not clear. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Jake The DWP website says

      "Financial institutions will check the information they hold on accounts receiving certain DWP benefit payments. They will tell DWP when a personal account into which a relevant benefit is paid meets an eligibility indicator. This includes linked accounts. The account may belong to either a claimant or a non-claimant"

      (Linked accounts are where you have consolidated accounts, so they can act as one big pot of money spread across multiple types of accounts. So they can instantly transfer money between them. Typically you would get one bank statement with all the consolidated accounts on it)

      "Where an eligibility indicator is met, financial institutions will only share limited information with DWP to help identify incorrect benefit payments, and check benefit entitlement.

      They may share:

      the names of all account holders
      details of any accounts you hold, including linked accounts and joint accounts
      account numbers
      sort codes, if the accounts have these
      information about how much money is in the relevant accounts
      the date of transactions that took place in another count"
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    Means testing is broken.
    The poor are kept poor while the better off are protected.

    For working households dependent on circumstances people can still get means tested UC even with net monthly incomes in excess of £7,000

    And for non working households major stores of better off people's wealth are not counted and are accessible, and a potential income stream is also ignored as income.

    Income for lodgers in your own home is disregarded as income for UC.

    Overpayments to a mortgage account are not treated as savings. Even if the mortgage lender permits payment holidays. So you could access the equity if you wanted to.

    Personal possessions are generally not counted as capital regardless of if they are excessive to need and easily sellable.

    For people aged 55+.

    Pension pots do not count as capital despite being accessible. And Adhoc pension lump sum payments into a bank account are not treated as income they are treated as capital. So you can literally have tens or hundreds of thousands of cash in a pension pot you can access at whim and as long as you never take your bank balance over £6,000 you never fall foul of means testing.

    Homes excessive to need are not treated as capital, even when life time mortgages where you only pay off the loan at death are available, or you could downsize. So you can have tens or hundreds of thousands you could access if you wanted to, and not be means tested.



    While for poorer people the savings caps for people who just have a current count have been frozen for 20 years. When if the £6,000 and £16,000 caps had been increased with inflation they would now be £10,765 and £28,707. And any income they make is deducted penny for penny from UC, unless earned income in which case it is tapered. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @JBob1234 We saw how the very poorest came off worse during covid - furlough for the employed, top up for uc and nothing for legacy benefits. 

      There's a risk that mistakes from bank surveillance will play out like the post office horizon miscarriages of justice. It's a brute system, there are no subtleties built in to recognise individual circumstances or exempt capital, for example. 

      Results have to be investigated by a human dwp agent anyway, so I can't see the point of the AI scan. It's going to be like bottom trawling, pulling in a load of non-target catch and doing a load of collateral damage, leaving a wasteful stinking mess.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    These welfare cuts are all political moves, all about the optics and not even a genuine drive for savings. The surveillance is a hugely cumbersome and costly exercise fraught with potential errors which will compound the cost years into the future.

    An obvious way to save money would be to raise the capital thresholds so far fewer people risked infringing them. There would be no need then to fund these intrusive measures, developing the computer systems and all the staffing in banks and the dwp.

    It's outrageous that the savings thresholds have remained the same for decades, when the cost of everything has risen and a crisis can rip through your reserves in no time, if you even have reserves.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @a2012 Ah, in our dreams, @a2012. Can't imagine many on means tested benefits would infringe those highest thresholds. Just goes to show what a vicious fiasco this bank surveillance is. If the government just raised the the capital limits to the mid range it would be a win win. More margin for claimants, government money saved on inordinate checks.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Frances In the 1990's, capital limits used to be £3k lower / £8k upper. These were raised to £6k lower / £16k in 2006 (ie, they doubled to account for inflation for *that decade alone*, which speaks for itself). These now frozen solid for 20 continuous years capital limits should be at least £11k / £29k CPI (or £13k / £35k RPI) using "official" Bank of England inflation figures that are still well below actual observed real-world cost of living increases.

      If you want more honest figures, look at the quadrupling in house prices (passed on as rent / mortgage / soaring house-price:income ratio), 3.5x increase in electricity, all the grocery bill increases in just the past few years alone, annual home / car insurance increases, the cost of other sudden large unexpected bills today vs then (replacing a car, emergency vets / roof repair bills, etc), gold vs GBP (18oz / 48oz @ £330/oz in 2006 = £56k / £150k equivalent thresholds today), and official CPI / RPI figures themselves are a joke to the point even a new £16k lower / £42k upper threshold introduced today, would still be merely a low-ball baseline to work from.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    Alan Milburn says, "Cut benefits to fund work support for young people. Ministers should cut welfare spending to fund more employment support if it wants to end the youth Neet crisis. We need to redistribute money from the welfare system to more employment support if we are going to end the Neet crisis."

    He told the Guardian he believed ministers should reduce benefits payments to help pay for more employment support!

    I always had the feeling that his argument was to cut benefits and nothing else. Both his previous report (Pathways to Work Commission Report) and the upcoming are intended to justify benefit cuts.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Scorpion Should cut their own salaries first due to the mess we're in. Didn't someone once say "we're all in this together"😁 many year's on and looks like we're still not.

      Cutting the younger generations benefits won't miraculously cause businesses to have 1m vacancies become available. And I'd say if that miracle ever happened, the young would still need to claim universal credit due to obscene rent prices etc.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Scorpion Burnham has written this morning that he's going to take Milburn's recommendations seriously!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    An observation: like many who receive PIP, I also work full time. If the DWP get powers to view my bank details etc, which I would object strongly, would the ultimate aim (for control purposes) be for PIP to be an out of work benefit only?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Matt @Matt It would have to be means tested, and they've ruled that out, for now anyway.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    If they are not allowed to see transaction details and spending then why is it they are asking for unredacted bank statements from people?  They are threatening if you redact anything they will stop your payments.  That is 'under duress' and as far as I know it is illegal.  

    Even the ICO said they cannot demand unredacted transaction and spending data and yet the ICO are not taking action against it and DWP are still doing it.

    I have also seen many people receiving PIP who are saying they are being forced to unredacted bank statements.  I don't know if they are all receiving UC or other means tested benefits but, I have seen quite a few say they only receive PIP and had a benefit review demanding months of statements.

    Just another dystopian move towards authoritarian control and spying on everyrhing we do.  Couple this with their plans for costs based PIP and all the age verification etc coming and they'll be checking that we spend every penny only on what and where they say we can!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Mick unredacted bank statements.  They do and their wrong to do so. Research for info in regard to that aspect. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    New style ESA doesn't have capital limits, but it's being checked because it's subject to residency and income rules, 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    The DWP shares its claimant information with Councils/Local Authorities. This is an extract from Policy in Practice on the MOU " Local authorities receive a full update on residents’ Universal Credit claims in April, providing insights into household status and their benefit claims. They also receive daily updates on changes in circumstances throughout the year ". 
    CIS Searchlight is now the data hub for all DWP Benefits and LA's have been given access to some of the Searchlight screeens. So the question is if these flags are on Searchlight ( a new version has just rolled out ) can they be viewed by Council staff and their subcontractors such as Capita ( eg for Council Tax ). Council staff are allowed to use Searchlight for Resilience Fund applications and CT reduction. But in the future this could apply to other means tested Council services ( free school meals ). One could imagine a future Badenoch or Farage government in favour of intrusive surveillance.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    Still dont understand why NEW ESA is being checked as last time I looked at the GOV site it said there were no capital limits on this benefit. I smell a rule change.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Mintro man The new spying measures can't observe how you spend cash.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Tim New style ESA they could be looking for:

      Occupational disability pension income in excess of permitted threshold.
      Earned income fom employment in excess of permitted work threshold.
      Transactions made abroad over a duration exceeding permitted stays abroad.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Tim @Tim Don’t know about esa I know that they are targeting pension credit next all their spying and snooping and being treated like criminals is really disgusting I can’t wait for the day I close my uc claim down and have nothing more to do with it hope they don’t turn on pip next the whole thing has taken over my life now as constantly having to watch what I withdraw where I take my money out and where I spend it  and live in fear in case  of a interrogation by the dwp