Gov.UK Verify decommissioned

[XFool]

Clearly there are occasions when I can recognise things make no sense whatsoever...

As can I

Um...

Discuss.

[csearle]

Moderator Message:
This Lootman XFool, er, discussion isn't very edifying. Please stop for the sake of everybody else. Thanks, Chris

[modellingman]

Just a heads up for anyone who was accessing government services through Gov.uk Verify. This service was decommissioned at the start of this month with little to no publicity and you will now have to go through the laborious and unnecessarily difficult process of registering with the Government Gateway service and use that from now on (or as the link below suggests go back to pen and paper).

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/ ... -and-paper

HM Revenue & Customs has sprung a cruel April fool trick on me and potentially millions of other self-employed citizens. Until now, it has operated a system called Gov.uk Verify which allows people to confirm their identity via the Post Office or Experian, using a driving licence or credit records. This was vital to enable those of us who don’t have a UK passport to access government services, including self-assessment tax accounts. HMRC now informs me that, from 1 April, I can no longer use my Gov.uk Verify account to sign in to HMRC digital services. Instead, I’ve been told to set up a “Government Gateway” account.

To do this, applicants have to have two items from a list of acceptable ID – a UK passport, pay slip, tax credit or a Northern Ireland driving licence. I don’t have any of these. When I called HMRC, an agent told me he was in the same situation. I was referred to the self-assessment team which was unaware of the change, and advised that I would have to revert to paper tax returns, which, the agent told me, was absurd as the government is trying to encourage all returns to be filed online.

LW, Todmorden
.
.
.

Remarkably, such little publicity has been given to this development that even .gov.uk seems uninformed - see this page which is still showing that "users" can sign into a variety of government services, including those of HMRC, using Verify.

The system was conceived as using private sector resources to be the verifiers of identity, based on information such as credit records, etc. At the initial launch in 2016 there were 5 identity providers and a further 4 were added subsequently. However, for one reason or another, the number had reduced to just two by 2020 - the Post Office and a Dutch company, Digidentity (though the Post Office's service actually uses systems provided by Digidentity).

A lot of issues were encountered by users trying to verify identity through credit records largely through mismatches of names such as Mr J Smith not being recognised as the same person as John Smith. IIRC some of these were reported within these forums. HMRC clearly saw the way things were going (not very well) and took a strategic decision not to abandon the Government Gateway - which it had been mainly responsible for developing. DWP also took the same view, developing its own approach to user identity as it slowly rolled out Universal Credit.

Not mentioned in this Wikipedia article is the target to have around 25 million users by 2020. It has undershot this by a considerable margin of about 80%.

For anyone interested here are a few articles on Verify from El Reg which provide some insights into its troubled history.

• 2017: Roses are red, violets are blue, HMRC confirms Verify can STFU
• 2018: UK.gov withdraws life support from flagship digital identity system
• 2021: UK's Government Digital Service extends contracts with Post Office and Digidentity for wobbly Verify ID system

modellingman

[mc2fool]

Remarkably, such little publicity has been given to this development that even .gov.uk seems uninformed - see this page which is still showing that "users" can sign into a variety of government services, including those of HMRC, using Verify.

On the contrary, the page says:

"From April 2022 the following services will use their own identity verification instead of GOV.UK Verify:

Check your Income Tax for the current year (HMRC)
Help friends or family with their tax (HMRC)
Sign in and file your Self Assessment tax return (HMRC)
Sign in to your personal tax account (HMRC)
Apply for Universal Credit with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
Check your State Pension (DWP and HMRC)
Get your State Pension (DWP)"

[XFool]

...Yes.

Guidance
GOV.UK Verify
Updated 1 April 2022

And, if everything goes as expected, it is likely that from April 2023 no government department will be on the GOV.UK Verify list.

[modellingman]

Remarkably, such little publicity has been given to this development that even .gov.uk seems uninformed - see this page which is still showing that "users" can sign into a variety of government services, including those of HMRC, using Verify.

On the contrary, the page says:

"From April 2022 the following services will use their own identity verification instead of GOV.UK Verify:

Check your Income Tax for the current year (HMRC)
Help friends or family with their tax (HMRC)
Sign in and file your Self Assessment tax return (HMRC)
Sign in to your personal tax account (HMRC)
Apply for Universal Credit with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
Check your State Pension (DWP and HMRC)
Get your State Pension (DWP)"

Indeed. My error.

[Alaric]

A lot of issues were encountered by users trying to verify identity through credit records largely through mismatches of names such as Mr J Smith not being recognised as the same person as John Smith.

Indeed. But surely fuzzy matching of names had been developed decades ago, not least by credit agencies. For credit purposes, agencies had no particular problem in guessing that a Mr J Smith and John Smith sharing the same billing address were very likely the same person.

[mc2fool]

A lot of issues were encountered by users trying to verify identity through credit records largely through mismatches of names such as Mr J Smith not being recognised as the same person as John Smith.

Indeed. But surely fuzzy matching of names had been developed decades ago, not least by credit agencies. For credit purposes, agencies had no particular problem in guessing that a Mr J Smith and John Smith sharing the same billing address were very likely the same person.

Beh. My electoral roll registration is at 3 Sunny Court, Acadia Road, London SW59 1AA (not really!) but the postcode database comes up with Flat 3, Sunny Court, Acadia Road, London SW59 1AA. Checking the address you give against your electoral roll registration is a primary factor in the electronic ID verification done by the credit agencies.

Some online address forms allow you to fully enter your address but with many you just enter your postcode and then choose from a list of addresses supplied from the postcode database. TransUnion and Equifax will match the postcode database address ("Flat 3...") to my electoral roll address ("3..."), recognising that they are, in fact, the same address. Experian, however, will not and report that I can't be verified as living at the address. It's been that way for at least 15 years. Not in the least fuzzy.

[Lootman]

Checking the address you give against your electoral roll registration is a primary factor in the electronic ID verification done by the credit agencies.

Some online address forms allow you to fully enter your address but with many you just enter your postcode and then choose from a list of addresses supplied from the postcode database. TransUnion and Equifax will match the postcode database address ("Flat 3...") to my electoral roll address ("3..."), recognising that they are, in fact, the same address. Experian, however, will not and report that I can't be verified as living at the address. It's been that way for at least 15 years. Not in the least fuzzy.

There may be checking done versus your electoral roll address but it cannot be necessary or sufficient. I am not on the electoral register. And the address I use for financial matters is not my home address. Yet I have no problem with creditors or government departments identifying me.

I hate those systems that try and insist on you merely entering your postcode and then they fill in the rest. For various reasons that won't work for me. But usually there is the ability to over-ride it and manually enter your address.

[mc2fool]

Checking the address you give against your electoral roll registration is a primary factor in the electronic ID verification done by the credit agencies.

Some online address forms allow you to fully enter your address but with many you just enter your postcode and then choose from a list of addresses supplied from the postcode database. TransUnion and Equifax will match the postcode database address ("Flat 3...") to my electoral roll address ("3..."), recognising that they are, in fact, the same address. Experian, however, will not and report that I can't be verified as living at the address. It's been that way for at least 15 years. Not in the least fuzzy.

There may be checking done versus your electoral roll address but it cannot be necessary or sufficient. I am not on the electoral register. And the address I use for financial matters is not my home address. Yet I have no problem with creditors or government departments identifying me.

So you have said before. but you've also said before that you haven't opened an account with a new institution (e.g. a bank you don't already have an account with, not a new account with a bank you're already a client of) for many years. When was the last time you did so online and it being opened straight away (without them asking for paper ID)?

[Lootman]

There may be checking done versus your electoral roll address but it cannot be necessary or sufficient. I am not on the electoral register. And the address I use for financial matters is not my home address. Yet I have no problem with creditors or government departments identifying me.

So you have said before. but you've also said before that you haven't opened an account with a new institution (e.g. a bank you don't already have an account with, not a new account with a bank you're already a client of) for many years. When was the last time you did so online and it being opened straight away (without them asking for paper ID)?

I opened a new bank account in 2019 and a new credit card account in 2021, both with institutions that I had no prior relationship with.

Of course they asked for iD as that is part of the anti money laundering rules. My point was that being on the voting register cannot be mandatory. At best it is just one of several alternative checks.

[mc2fool]

So you have said before. but you've also said before that you haven't opened an account with a new institution (e.g. a bank you don't already have an account with, not a new account with a bank you're already a client of) for many years. When was the last time you did so online and it being opened straight away (without them asking for paper ID)?

I opened a new bank account in 2019 and a new credit card account in 2021, both with institutions that I had no prior relationship with.

Of course they asked for iD as that is part of the anti money laundering rules. My point was that being on the voting register cannot be mandatory. At best it is just one of several alternative checks.

I didn't say that being on the voting register was mandatory. I said that it is a primary factor in electronic ID verification and your answer proves my point: they did the electronic check, found you're not on the electoral register at the address you gave, and asked you for ID.

I open accounts with new-to-me banks all of the time (I'm a bit of a rate tart ) and I got a new credit card with a new-to-me provider just a few months ago, and I cannot remember the last time I had to actually provide ID, 'twas many many years ago.

I've had the conversation with several banks (inc. HSBC and Lloyds), and with Experian themselves. While they, of course, won't tell exactly what their electronic ID verification algorithm is, all say that being on the electoral register at the address you give is a very heavy factor and not being so will almost certainly result in you being asked to provide "one from list A and one from list B..." instead of just being waved through electronically.

[Lootman]

I've had the conversation with several banks (inc. HSBC and Lloyds), and with Experian themselves. While they, of course, won't tell exactly what their electronic ID verification algorithm is, all say that being on the electoral register at the address you give is a very heavy factor and not being so will almost certainly result in you being asked to provide "one from list A and one from list B..." instead of just being waved through electronically.

It could well be a "primary factor" or "very heavy factor". But I have suffered no disadvantage to not being on it, other than that need to produce two pieces of ID, which is not a hardship for me. And my Experian credit score is over 800.

In that same period I also successfully renewed my passport and driving license, and registered with DWP for my state pension, with no problem. And I signed up for the NHS App (not the NHS Covid app) which required only various online checks. including a weird video protocol.

So I genuinely do not believe that I am persona non grata on account of not being on the voting register.

[mc2fool]

I've had the conversation with several banks (inc. HSBC and Lloyds), and with Experian themselves. While they, of course, won't tell exactly what their electronic ID verification algorithm is, all say that being on the electoral register at the address you give is a very heavy factor and not being so will almost certainly result in you being asked to provide "one from list A and one from list B..." instead of just being waved through electronically.

It could well be a "primary factor" or "very heavy factor". But I have suffered no disadvantage to not being on it, other than that need to produce two pieces of ID, which is not a hardship for me. And my Experian credit score is over 800.

In that same period I also successfully renewed my passport and driving license, and registered with DWP for my state pension, with no problem. And I signed up for the NHS App (not the NHS Covid app) which required only various online checks. including a weird video protocol.

So I genuinely do not believe that I am persona non grata on account of not being on the voting register.

I didn't say anything about anyone being a persona non grata. I simply said that electoral roll registration is a primary factor in electronic ID verification, and not having that almost always requires you do provide paper ID instead, as you have confirmed. You may consider that an OK cost, I understand that. I consider it a p.i.t.a. and am glad not to have had to do so for very many years.

P.S. You may not be a persona non grata, but in not having registered to vote you are, of course, a criminal. I think you knew that already.

[Lootman]

It could well be a "primary factor" or "very heavy factor". But I have suffered no disadvantage to not being on it, other than that need to produce two pieces of ID, which is not a hardship for me. And my Experian credit score is over 800.

In that same period I also successfully renewed my passport and driving license, and registered with DWP for my state pension, with no problem. And I signed up for the NHS App (not the NHS Covid app) which required only various online checks. including a weird video protocol.

So I genuinely do not believe that I am persona non grata on account of not being on the voting register.

I didn't say anything about anyone being a persona non grata. I simply said that electoral roll registration is a primary factor in electronic ID verification, and not having that almost always requires you do provide paper ID instead, as you have confirmed. You may consider that an OK cost, I understand that. I consider it a p.i.t.a. and am glad not to have had to do so for very many years.

P.S. You may not be a persona non grata, but in not having registered to vote you are, of course, a criminal. I think you knew that already.

Fair enough. Interestingly Paypal signed me up without any ID checks or verification. Perhaps they get away with it because they are not holding or lending funds, but merely acting as a conduit for funds.

Actually I thought that not being on the voting register was a civil infraction rather than criminal, leading to a statutory fine rather than a criminal prosecution. Although giving false information on the form can lead to a prison term. In any case it would appear not to be enforced by my local authority.

[JohnB]

Update article. TLDR HMRC not handling it well. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/ ... e-accounts

It mentions HMRCs customer engagement report, https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ruary-2022, but given it only covers a year, its not much use

[stevensfo]

I didn't say anything about anyone being a persona non grata. I simply said that electoral roll registration is a primary factor in electronic ID verification, and not having that almost always requires you do provide paper ID instead, as you have confirmed. You may consider that an OK cost, I understand that. I consider it a p.i.t.a. and am glad not to have had to do so for very many years.

P.S. You may not be a persona non grata, but in not having registered to vote you are, of course, a criminal. I think you knew that already.

Fair enough. Interestingly Paypal signed me up without any ID checks or verification. Perhaps they get away with it because they are not holding or lending funds, but merely acting as a conduit for funds.

Actually I thought that not being on the voting register was a civil infraction rather than criminal, leading to a statutory fine rather than a criminal prosecution. Although giving false information on the form can lead to a prison term. In any case it would appear not to be enforced by my local authority.

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for not being on it. Likewise, people who put their name on the electoral register but no longer live there are probably unlikely to have problems unless they actually vote.

Steve

[ursaminortaur]

Fair enough. Interestingly Paypal signed me up without any ID checks or verification. Perhaps they get away with it because they are not holding or lending funds, but merely acting as a conduit for funds.

Actually I thought that not being on the voting register was a civil infraction rather than criminal, leading to a statutory fine rather than a criminal prosecution. Although giving false information on the form can lead to a prison term. In any case it would appear not to be enforced by my local authority.

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for not being on it. Likewise, people who put their name on the electoral register but no longer live there are probably unlikely to have problems unless they actually vote.

Steve

It happens though the council will make repeated attempts to contact the person before resorting to taking them to court see this from 2012

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local ... up-4200256

A man and woman have become the first people in Wokingham borough to be prosecuted for not filling out and returning their annual canvass forms for the 2011/12 Register of Electors.

Johnny Burne, of Kingfisher Drive in Woodley, and Tay Maddams, of Martineau Lane in Hurst, each admitted the offence at Reading Magistrates Court on Tuesday, June 12.

Burne was fined and ordered to pay costs totalling £595, while Maddams was ordered to pay £290, including a fine and court costs.

Alison Wood, Wokingham Borough Council electoral services manager, said: “We have never prosecuted before and this really was as a last resort as we had made several attempts to get them to complete the forms, but they refused.

“By law, we have to take certain steps to obtain the canvass form from households. If occupiers do not return the initial form they receive by post, we have to send a personal canvasser to call at the property on more than one occasion.

“This incurs cost, which ultimately comes out of council tax.

“If someone does not return their form, then it’s their neighbours that have to share the cost and this, we feel, is not fair.

[Lootman]

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for not being on it. Likewise, people who put their name on the electoral register but no longer live there are probably unlikely to have problems unless they actually vote.

It happens though the council will make repeated attempts to contact the person before resorting to taking them to court see this from 2012

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local ... up-4200256

A man and woman have become the first people in Wokingham borough to be prosecuted for not filling out and returning their annual canvass forms for the 2011/12 Register of Electors.

“By law, we have to take certain steps to obtain the canvass form from households. If occupiers do not return the initial form they receive by post, we have to send a personal canvasser to call at the property on more than one occasion.

“This incurs cost, which ultimately comes out of council tax.

“If someone does not return their form, then it’s their neighbours that have to share the cost and this, we feel, is not fair.

Ah but that is a bit different. They were refusing to complete and return the form.

In the case I mentioned the form was completed and returned. It was just missing a name.

It would be relatively easy to check that an address had no associated form returned. Much harder to know that a resident of that address had been omitted.

[RockRabbit]

It happens though the council will make repeated attempts to contact the person before resorting to taking them to court see this from 2012

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local ... up-4200256

A man and woman have become the first people in Wokingham borough to be prosecuted for not filling out and returning their annual canvass forms for the 2011/12 Register of Electors.

“By law, we have to take certain steps to obtain the canvass form from households. If occupiers do not return the initial form they receive by post, we have to send a personal canvasser to call at the property on more than one occasion.

“This incurs cost, which ultimately comes out of council tax.

“If someone does not return their form, then it’s their neighbours that have to share the cost and this, we feel, is not fair.

Ah but that is a bit different. They were refusing to complete and return the form.

In the case I mentioned the form was completed and returned. It was just missing a name.

It would be relatively easy to check that an address had no associated form returned. Much harder to know that a resident of that address had been omitted.

Hmm, that is probably worse than not returning the form. If the person signing the form knowingly provided false information, that potentially constitutes a criminal offence. The attached isn't the form you would have ben sent, but I suspect the declaration (page 2, section 10) will be similar.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ngland.pdf