header-logo header-logo

24 June 2026
Issue: 8167 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Fraud
printer mail-detail

New debt enforcement powers introduced

As of this week, driving bans could be imposed on people who refuse to pay benefit debts of £1,000 or more, under powers introduced by the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

The Department of Work and Pensions will also be able to go directly to a person’s bank to take cash owed, without needing a court order.

Ministers have dispatched letters to thousands of people with outstanding debts, warning them of the new enforcement powers.

Cabinet Office minister Satvir Kaur said: ‘Fraud against the public sector and unrecovered debt deny our vital frontline services of the funding they deserve.’

Issue: 8167 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Fraud
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll