False benefit cheat claim by national press

krisskross

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

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?)

Easy way to deal with this is to stop ALL benefits for 3 months for a 1st offence, 6 months for a 2nd etc.

I find it most odd that someone who has knowingly defrauded benefits is still allowed to continue claiming.

I would not be bothered if a person convicted of deliberate benefit fraud was left with no money......but I bet fraud rates would decrease.

MattLFC

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.

You compared benefit fraud with tax avoidance; one is illegal, the other is not (something being morally wrong, does not make it illegal).

Thank you for questioning my intelligence btw, of course I can understand where you are coming from, but I for one am sick to freaking death of seeing these Jeremy Kyle scumbags claiming allsorts of benefits, whilst people like me (and you?) and many other hard working decent people have to pay taxation to fund their lifestyles. The worst thing nowadays, is people who do this sort of fraud, are not afraid of actually going so far as bragging about it, thinking they have one over on the rest of us, because we have to work hard for what we earn, whilst paying for them as well.

I'm betting it's probably a whole lot easier to catch someone playing bowls or 18 holes of golf every week, whilst they are claiming to be unable to walk 5 metres, than sifting through the public and private accounts going back maybe 6 years or more of multi-national corporation, in the hope that they can find some discrepancy that has not been covered by some bizarre legal loophole, or masked by using an extensive and elaborate system of investments etc, to ensure it remains "technically" on the right side of the law.

As was shown with Barclays last week, the government are going after bother tax avoiders and evaders, and as you say, the sums are gigantic when they are caught. But such investigations take a long time, and cost the taxpayer a lot of money (especially in circumstances where they have done things so well, the government just cannot find any/enough evidence of wrongdoing.

I am happy that the government goes after everyone guilty of fraud, deception and tax evasion. If your average Joe in the street, who is fraudulently claiming benefits, makes for the easiest picking, and thus the government spends more time, resources and money going after them, then that is okay.

As above, they should have their benefits restricted (halved or stopped imho) for 3 months, with further restrictions enforced until all the fraudulently claimed money is paid back, if they have been convicted. I don't buy all this "awww poor little benefit cheat, bless his/her cotton socks, don't deprive them or give them a hard time because their only a person, if Barclays can avoid tax, then they should be allowed to rob the taxpayer until all these companies are sorted" malarky. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Now if the concept/idea of going after the easiest target first, is beyond you, please accept my apologies.

dktreesea

DWP fraud investigations are a joke, imho. We have a neighbour who is mentally disabled. Severe depression. He hasn't worked in years. He went through a time when he was very reclusive, which probably didn't help his depression. Anyway, his doctor felt he needed to be outdoors more and helped him get an allotment (no mean feat around here where waiting lists run to 6 years and more) plus through a support group he was introduced to golf. I always thought golf was an expensive sport but apparently it is quite cheap if you play at a public course. So someone dobbed him into the DWP because he's walking around a golf course so is "clearly not disabled" and "must be" claiming benefits fraudulently. So the stupid DWP, instead of first checking the nature of his disability, send him a letter a few days later - at least they were quick smart to start invesitgating the fraud claim; maybe they didn't have much to do that week....to advise him that he was being investigated for fraud and has been observed walking unaided on a number of occasions so his benefit had been stopped. We only found out because one of them knocked on our door asking after him. Is that allowed? To cut a long story short first the CAB, then the local MP got involved and eventually his benefits were restored and backdated. I can understand the grief of the OP in this situation. Journalists seem to be even worse then DWP fraud investigators when it comes to investigating "cheats". As in too quick with the label "cheat" and no proper investigation to speak of. My main memory of that time is the man standing in his doorway crying, when one of our other neighbours knocked on his door to see how it was going and if he needed anything.

And it's surely about time that using disability as a yardstick to determine how much money one gets to live on should stop. A benefit is a response to someone not being able to earn their own income. Why should not having a disability mean you have to live on a far lower income, if you are unfortunate enough not to be able to earn your own living, for example because you can't get a job? It's common sense, surely, for anyone to attempt to do what they can to improve their income, given that £67.50 a week is pretty difficult to live on. We could solve all of this "is s/he disabled or isn't s/he?" angst by simply having the same benefit paid regardless of the person's condition.

Anubis_2

dktreesea wrote: »

And it's surely about time that using disability as a yardstick to determine how much money one gets to live on should stop. A benefit is a response to someone not being able to earn their own income. Why should not having a disability mean you have to live on a far lower income, if you are unfortunate enough not to be able to earn your own living, for example because you can't get a job? It's common sense, surely, for anyone to attempt to do what they can to improve their income, given that £67.50 a week is pretty difficult to live on. We could solve all of this "is s/he disabled or isn't s/he?" angst by simply having the same benefit paid regardless of the person's condition.

Because disability generally has extra day to day living costs. Equipment is expensive, carers, extra medical and dietry needs, travel expenses, the list goes on....

One example - a wheelchair reliant person has to go to a specific appointment. They can't walk there like you, they are feeling to poorly to operate their electric chair if they are fortunate enough to have one, they have to get a taxi and their carer, who they may be paying for, there and back.

You have an appointment, you an walk...no cost, and this is just a very simplistic example.

krisskross

Anubis wrote: »

Because disability generally has extra day to day living costs. Equipment is expensive, carers, extra medical and dietry needs, travel expenses, the list goes on....

One example - a wheelchair reliant person has to go to a specific appointment. They can't walk there like you, they are feeling to poorly to operate their electric chair if they are fortunate enough to have one, they have to get a taxi and their carer, who they may be paying for, there and back.

You have an appointment, you an walk...no cost, and this is just a very simplistic example.

Extra costs like those of a fairly recent thread by annbarbs where she NEEDED her disability payments to pay for her loan. She was quite honest and said she received £257 per week plus all her housing costs. Now how does someone with depression need almost £200 a week more to live on than a person on JSA? This lady lived alone, did her own shopping etc. I am not surprised so many on DLA are apprehensive about the introduction of PIP which hopefully will mean all disability claims will be scrutinised.

As for tax avoidance/evasion, one legal one not, I wonder how much the recent Harry Redknapp trial cost tax payers? I imagine it was £5M+ and only concerned a comparatively small amount of tax.

Murgatroyd21

krisskross wrote: »

Easy way to deal with this is to stop ALL benefits for 3 months for a 1st offence, 6 months for a 2nd etc.

I find it most odd that someone who has knowingly defrauded benefits is still allowed to continue claiming.

I would not be bothered if a person convicted of deliberate benefit fraud was left with no money......but I bet fraud rates would decrease.

Interesting, so if a lone parent with a number of children is caught, all benefits should stop? Increasing in duration? (You'd like to think they would be so destitute after the first time, what with being homeless too by this point by not being able to get the rent paid, there wouldn't be a 2nd time.)

Murgatroyd21

MattLFC wrote: »

You compared benefit fraud with tax avoidance; one is illegal, the other is not (something being morally wrong, does not make it illegal).

Thank you for questioning my intelligence btw, of course I can understand where you are coming from, but I for one am sick to freaking death of seeing these Jeremy Kyle scumbags claiming allsorts of benefits, whilst people like me (and you?) and many other hard working decent people have to pay taxation to fund their lifestyles. The worst thing nowadays, is people who do this sort of fraud, are not afraid of actually going so far as bragging about it, thinking they have one over on the rest of us, because we have to work hard for what we earn, whilst paying for them as well.

I'm betting it's probably a whole lot easier to catch someone playing bowls or 18 holes of golf every week, whilst they are claiming to be unable to walk 5 metres, than sifting through the public and private accounts going back maybe 6 years or more of multi-national corporation, in the hope that they can find some discrepancy that has not been covered by some bizarre legal loophole, or masked by using an extensive and elaborate system of investments etc, to ensure it remains "technically" on the right side of the law.

As was shown with Barclays last week, the government are going after bother tax avoiders and evaders, and as you say, the sums are gigantic when they are caught. But such investigations take a long time, and cost the taxpayer a lot of money (especially in circumstances where they have done things so well, the government just cannot find any/enough evidence of wrongdoing.

I am happy that the government goes after everyone guilty of fraud, deception and tax evasion. If your average Joe in the street, who is fraudulently claiming benefits, makes for the easiest picking, and thus the government spends more time, resources and money going after them, then that is okay.

As above, they should have their benefits restricted (halved or stopped imho) for 3 months, with further restrictions enforced until all the fraudulently claimed money is paid back, if they have been convicted. I don't buy all this "awww poor little benefit cheat, bless his/her cotton socks, don't deprive them or give them a hard time because their only a person, if Barclays can avoid tax, then they should be allowed to rob the taxpayer until all these companies are sorted" malarky. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Now if the concept/idea of going after the easiest target first, is beyond you, please accept my apologies.

Actually I specifically mentioned both fraud and evasion relating to tax. I suppose it's easier to get upset with the Jeremy Kyle types you refer to if that is what you are exposed to on a daily basis, than on those who take the system for vastly greater amounts, doing greater damage to the economy and financial wellbeing of the country.

Ultimately, as referred to already, if it costs more to recover than will be recovered, from a business point alone, wouldn't be cost effective.

You appear to have more of a hang up about a particular type of claimant and making sure those, if nobody else, is hounded into the ground irrespective of cost.

We can't afford to waste money making social and political points.

Soapn

:T:T:T:T spot on, why does someone with depression need an extra £200 MORE a week than someone on JSA

---

the ones who have got too comfy on money like that will hopefully be in for a big shock.

krisskross wrote: »

Extra costs like those of a fairly recent thread by annbarbs where she NEEDED her disability payments to pay for her loan. She was quite honest and said she received £257 per week plus all her housing costs. Now how does someone with depression need almost £200 a week more to live on than a person on JSA? This lady lived alone, did her own shopping etc. I am not surprised so many on DLA are apprehensive about the introduction of PIP which hopefully will mean all disability claims will be scrutinised.

As for tax avoidance/evasion, one legal one not, I wonder how much the recent Harry Redknapp trial cost tax payers? I imagine it was £5M+ and only concerned a comparatively small amount of tax.

Soapn

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

Interesting, so if a lone parent with a number of children is caught, all benefits should stop? Increasing in duration? (You'd like to think they would be so destitute after the first time, what with being homeless too by this point by not being able to get the rent paid, there wouldn't be a 2nd time.)

Yes, it should be stopped, why should the excuse of them having kids be their "get out of jail" card forever?

krisskross

Murgatroyd21 wrote: »

Interesting, so if a lone parent with a number of children is caught, all benefits should stop? Increasing in duration? (You'd like to think they would be so destitute after the first time, what with being homeless too by this point by not being able to get the rent paid, there wouldn't be a 2nd time.)

Quite frankly if people knew that these sort of penalties were possible and seen to be carried out how many would DELIBERATELY commit benefit fraud.