wrongly claiming benefits: my dilema

sunflower_2

jetplane wrote: »

Sorry if I am going to be controversial here, but I would say that even if you report it they have their backs covered. I do not agree with or condone what they are doing, it is disgraceful organised fraud, but how will it be proven?

1) Phil has his own address with bills in his name, therefore he can use this as evidence that he does not live with Louise, therefore his income is irrelevant. He rents out to family which is not declared, so he tells the authorities that they all live together.

2) Louise claims benefits as a single person and has proof that she lives in her parents home, any money that Phil gives her in maintenance for the child is not counted for any benefit purposes.

3) The childminder states that she looks after a child and completes the forms, she is not going to tell the authorities that she does not have the child as this would incriminate herself. She may keep records and journals as if she has the child and put payments through her books and offset costs for this child. Not all childminders are honest and this was a commonplace scam with minders and nurseries when tax credits were first introduced.

Now I would be well and truly !!!!!! off with this and at least if you report it you know that you will have tried. But don't be surprised if the authorities are unable to dispute what Phil and Louise claim. Unfortunately it would take a huge amount of time, surveillance and investigation to gather enough evidence.

wow - i wonder how many more people have this set-up.

sounds fool-proof

do the DWP even have enough time/budget to do surveillance these days? do they bother?

daska

It would be easy enough to prove with surveillance. There are a load of other people obviously sleeping where Phil claims to live - presumably with a 25% council tax discount - but he isn't there overnight. He can however been seen staying overnight in the same house as his 'single' ex partner and their child. And the child is never seen with the childminder. Given how much they must be claiming it would probably be cost effective as well.

meer53

jetplane wrote: »

Sorry if I am going to be controversial here, but I would say that even if you report it they have their backs covered. I do not agree with or condone what they are doing, it is disgraceful organised fraud, but how will it be proven?

1) Phil has his own address with bills in his name, therefore he can use this as evidence that he does not live with Louise, therefore his income is irrelevant. He rents out to family which is not declared, so he tells the authorities that they all live together.

2) Louise claims benefits as a single person and has proof that she lives in her parents home, any money that Phil gives her in maintenance for the child is not counted for any benefit purposes.

3) The childminder states that she looks after a child and completes the forms, she is not going to tell the authorities that she does not have the child as this would incriminate herself. She may keep records and journals as if she has the child and put payments through her books and offset costs for this child. Not all childminders are honest and this was a commonplace scam with minders and nurseries when tax credits were first introduced.

Now I would be well and truly !!!!!! off with this and at least if you report it you know that you will have tried. But don't be surprised if the authorities are unable to dispute what Phil and Louise claim. Unfortunately it would take a huge amount of time, surveillance and investigation to gather enough evidence.

Proven with surveillance.

lilibet1

Well, my take on it is.... Don't get involved. What they are doing is wrong but I 'shopped' someone this year, different case but I have had nothing but bad luck since. It makes me wonder whether I have brought bad luck on myself? Karma and all that. Oh and looking at recent cases of benefit fraud, I doubt very much that anything would happen. Sad I know xx

jetplane

I agree it could be proven with surveillance, I said so in my post, and I only wish that there were enough resources to enable this to happen.

But I am talking about the real world where under resourced departments are unable to deal with the fraud that is sat in front of them never mind when it is organised. The cases that we see in the media are the tip of the iceberg and it is infuriating when it is blatant fraud.

My point was that the OP may become more frustrated by the system and not get the satisfaction that they require by reporting them

In social security the test of law in balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

jetplane

daska wrote: »

It would be easy enough to prove with surveillance. There are a load of other people obviously sleeping where Phil claims to live - presumably with a 25% council tax discount - but he isn't there overnight. He can however been seen staying overnight in the same house as his 'single' ex partner and their child. And the child is never seen with the childminder. Given how much they must be claiming it would probably be cost effective as well.

I agree but to do this you would have to put both Phil, Louise and their houses under surveillance and the childminder. It is unlikely that Phil would be claiming 25% discount if he has family living in his house (although sometimes it is a greedy oversight like this that gets them caught). How long would they need to be under surveillance for? Even a couple of weeks could be explained away with the child was too poorly to go to the childminders and Phil stayed over to help. Sorry, I am absolutely not trying to defend them in any way.

snow_ball

Jetplane - depressing but yes, seems most likely! :mad:

Yorkie1

Tropez wrote: »

ETA: Technically speaking, everyone who knows about this is an accessory under criminal law for failing to report the crime taking place (although only those directly involved would be liable for prosecution).

This is not correct. There is no general duty on the public to report crime and there is no offence for this.

Aiding abetting counselling and procuring each requires far more involvement than omitting to report someone for a crime.

Tropez

Yorkie1 wrote: »

This is not correct. There is no general duty on the public to report crime and there is no offence for this.

Aiding abetting counselling and procuring each requires far more involvement than omitting to report someone for a crime.

You're right. The law I was thinking of was in regards to businesses. My apologies.

thehappybutterfly

OMG - the lengths some people will go to bleed money from the system! What a pair of leeches. It seems the more some people have the more they want.

To be honest, I wouldn't know where to begin to run a scam like this!

OP - grass them up. They're criminals at the end of the day whether 'Louise' is your friend or not.