False benefit cheat claim by national press

Peanuckle

dodger1 wrote: »

No that's not why they are being investigated. The investigation is about getting the truth by illegal methods.

To the OP providing your father has answered the reporters questions honestly then I woudn't be concerned.

If only that was true, some reporters choose to ignore the facts that don't back up their story.
A long time ago I was named in an article that stated I'd taken out a large loan in my husband's name and promptly left him to run away with another man taking all the money from the loan with me and he died of a broken heart a few weeks later.

That was the story my ex-in-laws gave the journalist, the facts were very different - the loan was in MY name, I was forced to sign the paperwork for it and the entire amount of money was in his bank account from the day it was issued (he'd spent some before he died apparently). I left within days of him getting the money when I discovered a backbone after 10 years of abuse and left the area on the advice of the police. I moved back to a neighbouring area just before he died (from a reaction to medication & alcohol being mixed) to be near my family.

As a result of the article I was spat at in the street, suffered people attacking my house and daubing insults on the walls and doors and had to take my 3 children and leave the area for good and therefore lose any support from my own family.

The local paper printed a retraction a few weeks later after a solicitor sent them a letter with the facts and threatened court action (an empty threat tbh as I couldn't afford any action and the solicitor helped for no charge) but there was no way I could take on the nationals so I just moved away and changed our distinctive surname and tried to start a new life.

So the journalist DID have all the facts but she preferred the version that painted me as a black widow and, even though there was no actual evidence to support it, that was the story that was printed.

MattLFC

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

Interesting that the focus is on alleged benefit cheats.

According to http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error,
The latest National Statistics report, Fraud and Error in the Benefit System: 2010/11 Estimates was released on 23 February 2012 according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. This report is produced by the Department for Work and Pensions.
The latest report estimates fraud and error levels in the benefit system in Great Britain.


Total estimated value due to fraud and error (no separate figures produced) was equal to £3.2b for 2010/11.


Underpayments (yet again no separate figure for what is the result of system error or unclaimed benefits) was equal to £1.2b for the same period.


It would help get a true reflection if the figures were able to be broken down to show the error and fraud amounts separately.



We have tax fraud and avoidance that has been estimated up to a value £120b. Even conservative estimates place it in excess of £50b.



Seems to me the wrong people are being subjected to the greatest scrutiny.

So are you therefore suggesting it is okay for benefit cheats to operate, and the government should not go after them?

I take it you don't pay tax then?

Anubis_2

Peanuckle wrote: »

If only that was true, some reporters choose to ignore the facts that don't back up their story.
A long time ago I was named in an article that stated I'd taken out a large loan in my husband's name and promptly left him to run away with another man taking all the money from the loan with me and he died of a broken heart a few weeks later.

That was the story my ex-in-laws gave the journalist, the facts were very different - the loan was in MY name, I was forced to sign the paperwork for it and the entire amount of money was in his bank account from the day it was issued (he'd spent some before he died apparently). I left within days of him getting the money when I discovered a backbone after 10 years of abuse and left the area on the advice of the police. I moved back to a neighbouring area just before he died (from a reaction to medication & alcohol being mixed) to be near my family.

As a result of the article I was spat at in the street, suffered people attacking my house and daubing insults on the walls and doors and had to take my 3 children and leave the area for good and therefore lose any support from my own family.

The local paper printed a retraction a few weeks later after a solicitor sent them a letter with the facts and threatened court action (an empty threat tbh as I couldn't afford any action and the solicitor helped for no charge) but there was no way I could take on the nationals so I just moved away and changed our distinctive surname and tried to start a new life.

So the journalist DID have all the facts but she preferred the version that painted me as a black widow and, even though there was no actual evidence to support it, that was the story that was printed.

How awful Where you not given an interview by the paper? AFAIK they are meant to give you the right of reply - you can of course choose to say nothing and then it may prevent the story being printed, but not always.

It is awful the impact the press have on people's lives

nonnatus

Peanuckle, your story is dreadful but I see similar ones all the time in the local press unfortunately.
The original, lurid accusations, complete with photo's are printed on the front page and continue to pages 2 and 3, so readers are hooked in and can't avoid seeing it.
The poor "victim" of the "reporter" makes a complaint and proves the paper printed inaccuracy or in some case, actual lies.
The paper prints an "apology" and sets the record straight. But it's hidden away in two column inches on page 34, sandwiched between a rescued cat and a village fete!!
Most readers will never see the correction and will only ever be aware of the original story/fantasy tale

Stuff of nightmares.

ab.da54

tartanterra wrote: »

Seems to me that your father has nothing to worry about. I can't see the Sun running a story on a 70 year old disabled man playing bowls. Unless they have pictures of him doing star jumps down the local gym, it's a non story.

That said, I applaud the Sun's campaign against benefit cheats. In fact, I applaud any campaign against fraudsters.

It would depend on what a person has claimed in their benefit application form and age has no bearing on that.

Say, for example, a 74 year old woman, who has been claiming DLA for 20 years, states she is unable to walk unaided, at all, and is then observed, on more than one occasion, playing either bowls or boules, and walking whilst doing so, that person would be committing fraud because they have stated they are unable to walk.

In the case of the OP, as long as what they have stated on their benefit application form relates to what they can physically do, then, I agree, they have nothing to worry about.

getzls

DylanO wrote: »

There's no such thing as "the sun group". Unless you supply more information on your claims - I can't understand what you're referring to.

Boy you are a tedious twit/!!!!. Spell that anyway you like Dylan. This comment of mine adds nothing to this article, but it makes me feel better saying it.;)

Murgatroyd21

MattLFC wrote: »

So are you therefore suggesting it is okay for benefit cheats to operate, and the government should not go after them?

I take it you don't pay tax then?

I don't recall saying anyone who has gained more than they are entitled to should not be subject to recovery action. I fail to see where you draw that conclusion from.

In a period of austerity where it would appear to make more sense to get the highest value return for any effort and cost expended from a reducing pool of resources available for the pursuit of unpaid money, it would seem more appropriate to target the highest potential value return. Is that beyond you?;)

If it is beyond you, please accept my apologies now.

cit_k

MattLFC wrote: »

So are you therefore suggesting it is okay for benefit cheats to operate, and the government should not go after them?

I take it you don't pay tax then?

The problem is how its done...

Done properly, no problem at all.

But take Incapacity benefit for example, instead of reporting the true scale (0.5 percent fraud at the time, down to 0.3 percent now) they use propaganda to deny benefits to 1 MILLION people (not far off 50 percent, if there are 2.6 million in total)

Plus, re tax - the scale of the fraud was costing 20 million a year.

Yet, it cost 100 MILLION a year to do the 'assessments' that were 'supposed' to combat this fraud (yet dont, and probably make things worse).

Thats just for the assessments, which due to their atrociousness lead to countless tribunals.

The cost of the tribunals is somewhere (I have posted all the figures before, cant recall them exactly off hand) around another 100 million a year at LEAST if you take into consideration the cost to the DWP and the Judiciary.

Then knock on costs to the NHS due to peoples conditions deteriorating through the stress of being wrongly told they are fit for work, and having to make repeat visits to GP's for fit notes/medical reports etc.

It costs more to do what they are doing, than it is to just accept a less than 1 percent fraud rate...

I would say, at least 10 times - possibly far more, if you take the NHS costs, possibly police costs and other associated costs such as coroners (for suicides) and welfare rights workers/legal aid etc.

Thats not even looking into the cost of all the legislation and debate around the issue - each time leading to the innocent suffering more.

cit_k

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

I don't recall saying anyone who has gained more than they are entitled to should not be subject to recovery action. I fail to see where you draw that conclusion from.

In a period of austerity where it would appear to make more sense to get the highest value return for any effort and cost expended from a reducing pool of resources available for the pursuit of unpaid money, it would seem more appropriate to target the highest potential value return. Is that beyond you?;)

If it is beyond you, please accept my apologies now.

Politicians if they noticed their water bill was to high, would spend a fortune replacing a dripping tap over and over again, but would never think of actually fixing the broken pipe that was spewing out hundreds of thousands of gallons of water over time.

Thats why the spend hundreds of millions to combat 20 million IB fraud, but let BILLIONS of tax fraud go on.

Thats why they concentrate on the smaller problem of benefit fraud, which is harder to fix, than fix the easier problem of official errors, which cost far more.

Murgatroyd21

You make a very good point, in that the if cost of recovery is greater than the amount recovered, the taxpayer is being hit twice. It would be interesting to know the total numbers if anyone knows them? (Benefit fraud £ + Recovery action £ - actual money recovered £ = Pyrrhic Victory?)