DLA fraud check

zzzLazyDaisy

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

IF everybody getting it meets the criteria - that's a pretty big if!

I am not sure what you mean by that comment?

I am sure you know that the only way to get a motability car is to be in receipt of HRM, so by definition, everyone who has a motability car meets the qualifying criteria.

When you consider how very difficult it to get HRM DLA - and then consider that only a small percent of people who do get HRM actually exercise their right to have a motability car (for example, for a more mature driver with a good insurance history it is often a significantly more expensive option), then it seems to me to that in terms of benefit fraud, motability cars are probably a long way down the list.

Or maybe I have misunderstood?

Edited to add: also do bear in mind that not all disabled people drive their own motability cars, the person who appears to be perfectly healthy and mobile may in fact be the carer/designated driver.

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

IF everybody getting it meets the criteria - that's a pretty big if!

It is not an if at all, they have all had to apply, and have their eligibility checked to ensure they meet the criteria.

WhiteHorse

krisskross wrote: »

If carers were to be paid minimum wage then I reckon DLA would be reduced to pay for it.

Something like that might well be the way forward.

After all, there are thousands of unpaid carers whose efforts take a huge load off the NHS. Acknowledge what they do, pay them properly, and dispense with a clutch of complicated benefits.

There have been huge strides made in the last couple of decades to help disabled people financially but it honestly seems as if some people will never ever be satisfied and always looking for more.

Unfortunately, there is some truth in this.

Even disabled people have to accept that the money available for benefits is finite and needs to be shared out.

True, there is a limit, particularly with an aging population. That said, if they sorted the benefits system out and streamlined the NHS, what we do have would go a lot further.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

It is not an if at all, they have all had to apply, and have their eligibility checked to ensure they meet the criteria.

Presumably the much publicised cases of fraud (disco dancer, football player, football referee etc) all applied and passed the eligibility criteria.

I expect there are many many cases where investigation reveals the person is not eligible but the DWP just stops the benefit and does not prosecute.

Vicky123

Unfortunately it is possible to pass the criteria for High rate by exagerating care needs, the problem is how to seperate the genuine from the others.
Thing is there is also the thought that some people genuinely think their needs are very high.
I know that if a parent had a child like my oldest son and not have another more severe child then they will think their child does have very high needs because compared to normal children they do.
I don't agree with all this my neighbour down the road is getting everything and they are fine because we don't know that, and it seems to breed a mind set that says if he/she is getting it then I must be eligible also, but there needs to be a better system in place.
I definitely think though the professional scroungers will just be inconvenienced for a while but will know what to say and do in order to continue claiming and the more vulnerable are going to get the short straw.

cit_k

krisskross wrote: »

Presumably the much publicised cases of fraud (disco dancer, football player, football referee etc) all applied and passed the eligibility criteria.

I expect there are many many cases where investigation reveals the person is not eligible but the DWP just stops the benefit and does not prosecute.

Read back to the post in question, I already took into consideration the 0.5 percent fraud rate, and was referring to the 99.5 percent of genuine claimaints.

krisskross

Vicky123 wrote: »

Unfortunately it is possible to pass the criteria for High rate by exagerating care needs, the problem is how to seperate the genuine from the others.

The government has decided this will be via a medical. The sooner the better I think.

I for one am happy that taxes go to support anyone claiming sickness benefits who has had a Work Capability assessment and has been found unfit to work. This is as it should be and I am sure the DLA medical will reassure taxpayers that only those truly eligible are getting the benefits.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

Read back to the post in question, I already took into consideration the 0.5 percent fraud rate, and was referring to the 99.5 percent of genuine claimaints.

You no more than anyone else can have any idea what the fraud rate is. It will always be a guesstimate. However you plonk these ridiculous 'statistics' in and think they will be taken as gospel.It is obvious that out of 200 claimants there will be more than 1 who has exaggerated, fabricated, not reported improvements etc

Why would the government think they can reduce the number of claimants by 20% if they do not have suspicions there is an amazing amount of fraud, or at best exaggeration of conditions to receive higher rates?

Vicky123

krisskross wrote: »

The government has decided this will be via a medical. The sooner the better I think.

I for one am happy that taxes go to support anyone claiming sickness benefits who has had a Work Capability assessment and has been found unfit to work. This is as it should be and I am sure the DLA medical will reassure taxpayers that only those truly eligible are getting the benefits.

I'm not convinced that a medical will sort it out there will be genuine cases slip through these medicals for sure and as I said the lead swingers will be one step ahead.
How will a medical prove the care needs of people with mental health problems or learning difficulties?

zzzLazyDaisy

krisskross wrote: »

Why would the government think they can reduce the number of claimants by 20% if they do not have suspicions there is an amazing amount of fraud, or at best exaggeration of conditions to receive higher rates?

That pre-supposes that the 20% reduction is not a financial cost cutting exercise, pure and simple.