Should I report my brother for benefit fraud, again?

clemmatis

deleted -- editing errors

Fire_Fox

bigboybrother wrote: »

So based on these comments, I should inform the DWP that my single mother daughter has the childrens' father round to stay in the house. They are accepted by all of the family as being together, yet she claims she is single and claims IS?

Should I also inform the DWP about my other daughter that still claims to be a single mum, claims WTC on that basis and HB/CTB as well yet lives with her partner?

If this country has come to accept that it is fine to pass information to the DWP/HMRC that will result in all manner of nasties happening to your children, then sorry, it isn't the country that I used to love and be proud of.

We probably all know someone in our close family that is breaking the law one way or another, but surely is it right that you inform the police or other government department?

Maybe people should 'shop' their wives' for having a little cash job on the side, maybe shop your grandmother because you don't think that she is providing a minimum of 35 hours of care every week for your grandfather yet claims Carers Allowance and says that she does?

If it's deliberate benefit fraud then you should indeed either approach the person OR report them. Being in a relationship with someone and having them stay overnight some of the time doesn't necessarily count as 'living together as man and wife' according to the DWP definition. The guidelines are online, it's absolutely worth bringing them to the attention of someone you care for in order to help them avoid prosecution. I've seen plenty of cases on MSE where the couple are genuinely unaware of the rules, they think maintaining separate homes is enough - it's not.

Personally I would not be proud to live in a country where fraudulent activity is widely accepted by people who claim to be law abiding, nor that turn the other cheek when nieces/ nephews/ grandchildren/ other vulnerable youngsters are at risk. I find it saddening that you would be. You would ignore rape, murder, child abuse, selling illegal drugs at the school gates too? After all we all break the law, right?

lazer

Personally - As much as I hate benefit fraud I would not report my close relatives or friends, instead I would approach them and encourage them to stop the claims.

I also wouldn't report someone who did a very small amount of cash in hand work - making the odd £20 quid here and there - if it was a regular job then yes, but if it was a few one-off bits and pieces then no i wouldn't.

dodger1

kaya wrote: »

I despair at what society has become when people are happy to report their family with the possibility of imprisonment simply because they are claiming a few quid that you think they aren't entitled to

If they are claiming benefits by fraud then the full weight of the law should be felt. Your case was completely different, you were not cheating the benefit system.

StormyWeather_2

If the brother was doing odd bits of work here and there, that wouldn't pay for 3 holidays a year, plasma TVs and all the other gadgets found by the fraud investigators.

The amount of fraud to pay for all those extras wouldn't result in a repayment schedule of £1 a month.

It doesn't add up.

Pollycat

clemmatis wrote: »

Would you care to provide ONE piece of evidence, just ONE, that I believe that? I really can't see why
anyone in their right mind would think I believe it. But as you do: quote something I said to that effect.

Here's ONE - just ONE:

clemmatis wrote: »

and your aiding and abetting of his claimant-bashing affects others.

in response to my post #18 where I commented on BBB's alleged family being benefit thieves and examples or others.

Only someone who has sympathy with benefit thieves could view my comments as 'aiding and abetting benefit bashers'.

If the cap fits, do wear it.

clemmatis wrote: »

Ah. I see. Your reading comprehension's weak. I suggest you re-read posts 26 and 27; you'll find my contention was that you'd libelled (your term) *me*.

My reading understanding is fine.
As I said, no libel (or slander) there.

clemmatis wrote: »

And now you have libelled me.

So sue me.

But first I suggest you re-read the comment that you erroneously believe is libel and then check the dictionary for the definition of 'maybe'.
And while you're at it, check what this symbol ? at the end of a sentence means.

clemmatis

Pollycat wrote: »

So sue me.

But first I suggest you re-read the comment that you erroneously believe is libel and then check the dictionary for the definition of 'maybe'.
And while you're at it, check what this symbol] ? at the end of a sentence means.

I suggest you check McAlpine v. Bercow and/or read up on defamation by insinuation, and bear your findings in mind before suggesting someone's a benefits fraud then saying you said "maybe" and used a question mark.

Pollycat

clemmatis wrote: »

I suggest you check McAlpine v. Bercow and/or read up on defamation by insinuation, and bear your findings in mind before suggesting someone's a benefits fraud then saying you said "maybe" and used a question mark.

I have.

My comment didn't have *Innocent face* in it.

clemmatis

Pollycat wrote: »

Here's ONE - just ONE:

in response to my post #18 where I commented on BBB's alleged family being benefit thieves and examples or others.

Only someone who has sympathy with benefit thieves could view my comments as 'aiding and abetting benefit bashers'l

OK, I'll try to explain. AndyTheTroll wants replies like yours -- he also wants attention in general, I suppose -- and posts to evoke them. By replying, you abet his benefits-bashing (maximising prejudice against claimants) project. But I accept you didn't know what was going on, so I should probably have ignored the matter.

clemmatis

Pollycat wrote: »

I have.

My comment didn't have *Innocent face* in it.

Now you're just trolling. I suppose you could have been all along. MAYBE you are an inveterate liar, really stupid, and a would-be bully QUESTION MARK.