Money Moral Dilemma: Should I report couple fraudulently claiming benefits?

NYM

Morglin wrote: »

Would I report them?

No, but I do know of an MP that was scamming, overclaimed £46000, and who the government basically let off Scot free, if that helps.....:whistle:


Lin

Ah, but has that MP's scamming trumped the 20 instances of fraud totalling £53,000 -(the largest single set of fraudulent claims uncovered in The Daily Telegraph's MPs' expenses investigation.) that was let off any criminal proceedings due to her being "not fit mentally to defend herself" ?

ALL fraud should be reported and ALL those where there is clear evidence to prove it, should face prosecution.

zagfles

dippy3103 wrote: »

This whole MP's get away with it thing bugs me. They absolutely shouldn't but just because they do it doesn't mean that other frauds should not be dealt with. The overall loss in benefit fraud is far higher (and yes I know tax evasion is even bigger but that's not the matter at hand either).

Exactly. It's like a burglar complaining he's been arrested when there are murders and rapists on the loose. As if a crime is OK, or should be ignored, just because others commit worse crimes. What utter bulls**t.

rogerblack

BillJones wrote: »

Yes, that's how criminal investigations work.

You do not know if someone is innocent or not before the investigation, and so it is a the "suspicion" not "proof" level that you need to report things.

I note that in order to have benefit removed, the 'crime' does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just 'on the balance of probabilities'.
This is a much weaker test, and much more likely to be found in error.

Those least able to defend themselves are most likely to get a bad decision in response to a claim from a third party.

'We have a report that you were walking to X on Friday...'
'Yes, I was'
'Ok, we are stopping your benefit and you will have to pay it back, or we will prosecute'.

vs.
'We have a report that you were walking to X on Friday...'
'As I outlined on my application form, that was an unusually good day. Most times I can't do that. I was in severe discomfort for the last half'
'Ok, I see that it was a mistaken report'.

zagfles

rogerblack wrote: »

I note that in order to have benefit removed, the 'crime' does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just 'on the balance of probabilities'.
This is a much weaker test, and much more likely to be found in error.

Those least able to defend themselves are most likely to get a bad decision in response to a claim from a third party.

Or a good decision, depending on whether their defence is true or not.

'We have a report that you were walking to X on Friday...'
'Yes, I was'
'Ok, we are stopping your benefit and you will have to pay it back, or we will prosecute'.

vs.
'We have a report that you were walking to X on Friday...'
'As I outlined on my application form, that was an unusually good day. Most times I can't do that. I was in severe discomfort for the last half'
'Ok, I see that it was a mistaken report'.

Perhaps the "reporter" should get a more detailed record before reporting (as appears to be the case in the OP). Eg "We have a report you walk to X every day". Or that "you live with X full time". Rather than "someone saw you walking to X once" or "you stayed over with X once".

Tr@cker

confuseddaughter wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it is a rented flat or house or even living with parents. If he has an address that for all intents and purposes confirms that he lives there, then he can't be living with his girlfriend. You can't be treated as living in two places at the same time.


It may well be a scam, but unless there is evidence to show that it is a scam and that he isn't living with his parents, there is nothing that can be done.

He's physically living with his wife all the time and at least a dozen other people know it. The difference is those other people have no interest in the benefits situation.

dippy3103

zagfles wrote: »

Or a good decision, depending on whether their defence is true or not.

Perhaps the "reporter" should get a more detailed record before reporting (as appears to be the case in the OP). Eg "We have a report you walk to X every day". Or that "you live with X full time". Rather than "someone saw you walking to X once" or "you stayed over with X once".

Its the investigations team to prove or disprove the allegation- though the more information someone gives when reporting a fraud then it's helpful

miss_kc

Report them - if they are doing nothing wrong then no problem. If however they are then that's another issue they are committing fraud and if there is less fraud there is more in the pot for genuine cases.

vixenl1984

I would report them, no question. I have even reported a family member who was doing it!

rde

Tr@cker wrote: »

A married couple living together full time, both unemployed and who you know to be claiming at separate addresses.

I believe there's quite a difference of income but dont know exactly how much.

I personally find it a moral dilemma but readily understand why many hardworking, honest people wouldn't think twice about reporting them.

Not a dilemma as far as I am concerned. They are misleading the authorities and it is up to DWP to investigate. If they have done nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about. But if they are lying they need to be caught.

The tax evasion /avoidance issue is a totally different issue. We all are looking for ways to reduce our tax bill whether that is by claiming uniform cleaning, putting money in ISAs or pensions, or paying accountants to look for loopholes etc. The amount of money avoided by wealthier individuals is the thing that annoys us but I think that most of us would do the same if we were in that situation. It is just we're not or ever will be.

gloriouslyhappy

Tr@cker wrote: »

They are both drug addicts and i know from a simple, free check on 192.com that they are on the electoral roll at separate addresses.

The dilemma for me is that im simply not comfortable with grassing anybody up. On the other hand all those who say there'd be more in the pot for genuine claimants cant be faulted.

But you seem to be comfortable with checking up on them via this 192.com site?

The current economic situation and the clunky welfare system seem to push us towards curtain twitching of the most intrusive kind, worried someone might get more than they're entitled to, which is why anonymous hotlines have been set up. In this case, I suggest ask yourself if you'd call crimestoppers if you thought you had relevant info they could use, and then apply this reasoning to this situation.

Otherwise, stop worrying about it.