PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe Information Commissioner did not say the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would be allowed to inspect claimants’ bank accounts or spending. The later Eligibility Verification Measure is designed for banks and other financial institutions to check their own records against specified benefit-eligibility indicators and share limited information when an account matches. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said changes to the later proposal addressed some earlier concerns, but called for clearer safeguards on data minimisation, people who share accounts with claimants, and regular review.
What did the Information Commissioner question?
The ICO’s response focused on whether the measure’s privacy safeguards are sufficiently clear and practical—not on giving DWP staff direct access to bank accounts. The Commissioner said government must establish that the measure is necessary, proportionate and fair, and that the organisations handling the data must comply with data-protection law.
The Commissioner’s response put particular emphasis on the code of practice that is to guide how the measure is used. It called for the code to:
- Explain how information about account holders who do not receive the specified benefit will be handled, and how those people can exercise their data-protection rights.
- Reinforce that only the minimum information necessary should be shared to identify accounts and account holders and explain how an eligibility indicator was met.
- Provide for regular review of the measure and the benefits within its scope.
The ICO’s response put its central point this way: “Ultimately it is the responsibility of government to determine whether this measure is necessary, proportionate and fair.” The response attributes that statement to the Commissioner institutionally; it does not name an individual speaker in that passage.
#1 Best Overall
How would the later measure work?
Under DWP’s 2025 description, financial institutions would check their own data for accounts receiving a specified DWP benefit and linked accounts. They would compare those records with indicators based on the relevant benefit’s eligibility rules. If an account met criteria set out in a notice, the institution could share specified information with DWP.
DWP gives the Universal Credit capital limit of £16,000 as an example of an eligibility indicator, subject to specified exceptions. That is an eligibility-threshold example in DWP’s 2025 factsheet—not a claim about how many people are affected or how effective the measure will be.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
What information could be shared?
DWP says the information may include specified account details, details of account holders, and an explanation of how the account met the indicators in the notice. Its factsheet says transaction data and special-category data are excluded, and that financial institutions may face penalties for sharing more than permitted.
What might DWP do with a match?
A match may lead to further DWP inquiry. DWP says information obtained through the measure would not, on its own, determine a person’s entitlement to benefit. A human would be involved in subsequent decisions that affect eligibility or awards.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Which benefits and account holders are in scope?
DWP’s initial list names Universal Credit, Pension Credit and Employment and Support Allowance. The State Pension is explicitly excluded. DWP says another benefit could be added only with parliamentary approval through affirmative regulations.
The measure is framed around accounts receiving specified benefits and accounts linked to them, rather than every bank account held by everyone receiving means-tested support. The ICO’s call for clarity about people who do not receive the specified benefit matters because another person may be an account holder on an account that is checked or may otherwise have information handled under the measure.
Rank #4
The ICO also noted that using information to identify incorrect payments in associated benefits can be reasonable where people are clearly told how those benefits relate and how eligibility for one can affect another.
How does this differ from the earlier proposal?
The concern first raised in the title’s “monitor bank accounts” framing relates to an earlier proposal in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (DPDI), which fell in 2024. In a February 2024 parliamentary answer about that proposal, the government said designated third parties would check their own records and provide relevant information where it might indicate that a claimant did not meet benefit criteria; DWP would not receive direct account access.
Recommended Free Tools
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
The later Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill was introduced on 22 January 2025. In its response to that proposal, the ICO said the design had changed in ways that mitigated some of its earlier concerns. The key differences described by the ICO and DWP are:
| Issue | Earlier DPDI proposal | Later Eligibility Verification Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Who checks the records? | Designated third parties would check their own data, according to the February 2024 parliamentary answer. | Financial institutions check their own data against indicators set out in a notice, according to DWP’s 2025 factsheet. |
| What does DWP receive? | The February 2024 answer said DWP would not have direct access to accounts and would receive relevant information from the designated third party. | DWP says institutions may share specified account and account-holder details and how the account met the indicators. Transaction data and special-category data are excluded. |
| Safeguards identified | The February 2024 answer describes the earlier proposal; the ICO’s later response identifies the added safeguards in the later design. | The ICO identifies tighter limits on shared information, defined scope and use, a required code of practice before notices, and independent review. |
| Effect on benefit decisions | The February 2024 answer describes relevant information being provided where it might signal that a claimant did not meet criteria. | DWP says a match may prompt further inquiry, but the information alone will not determine entitlement; a human will be involved in subsequent decisions affecting eligibility or awards. |
The comparison is not a choice between account access and no account access: the February 2024 answer also said DWP would not have direct access under the earlier proposal. The ICO’s updated position is that the later design added constraints and oversight, while some practical questions—especially around minimum disclosure and non-claimant account holders—still needed clear treatment in the code.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about implementation?
The ICO’s consultation page records that the DWP codes-of-practice consultation opened on 8 December 2025 and closed on 27 February 2026. A consultation closing does not itself establish that the final code has been published or that banks have begun receiving notices. The official materials cited here do not establish when first notices will be issued or how the measure has operated in practice.
Earlier parliamentary statements should be read in their dates and context. A December 2024 written answer also said the measure would not give DWP account access or spending data and described limited information as a basis for further inquiry. In a May 2025 House of Lords debate, a government minister similarly said DWP would not be able to access accounts or look at spending, and that collected data alone would not decide entitlement. Those are statements of the government’s position, not independent findings by the ICO.
Quick Recap
What claimants and joint account holders should take from this
- The later measure describes financial institutions checking their own records and sharing limited information if an account meets specified indicators; it is not a system for DWP staff to browse account transactions.
- A match is described as a possible reason for further inquiry, not as an automatic finding of fraud or a stand-alone decision to stop or change benefit.
- People who do not receive the specified benefit may still have a privacy interest if their details are part of an account or information checked under the measure. The ICO specifically asked for the code to explain how such information is handled and how rights can be exercised.
- The Commissioner’s concern is therefore about the limits and administration of data sharing as much as the basic distinction between checking records and accessing an account.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
