Possible Benefit Fraud

dippy3103

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, but doesn't an anonymous allegation impose an obligation ofn the fraud investiagation team to investigate? Maybe different councils/areas have different policies? When it comes to housing benefit, our council sometimes suspends the benefit temporarily until the allegation is investigated. I say sometimes because this doesn't always seem to be the case.

No. Not all anon allegations are investigated. Some are about something that makes no change to the benefit, some are not part of the councils remit (for example about someone on DLA giving false information about their disability) or if it's suspected to be malicious.

Where I work we often send allegations which are not going to be investigated to benefits to arrange a review of the claim.

In your friends case they had conducted surveillance and had reason to believe that the claim was incorrect which was when they suspended and not just because an unsubstantiated allegation had been received. Your friend had an explanation for that and benefit was reinstated. However it wasn't stopped as soon as the call was received but once enquiries had been made and they had more than just a phone call.

antrobus

dktreesea wrote: »

.... The council presumably investigated without her knowledge - ....

Yes, that's normally the way these things work. If you think someone is committing what might be a criminal offence, it's normally a good idea not to give 'em any clue that you know what they're (allegedly) up to.:)

likelyfran

slenderkitten wrote: »

well i know about this because i know the neighbour that recently moved in, they had asked other neighbours about them like anyone would do to establish what is going on. The neighbour has reported these people and the housing officer has visited, most neighbours know the tenent as he has lived there for about 20 years, but like myself didn't know there was a woman living there. from what the neighbour told me the owner of her flat may have known something about the situation but chose to do nothing and hope that someone would move in for a cheap rent but is having to move out as they are losing days at work because of them.

A neighbour who had only recently moved in, quickly ascertained the living circumstances of a long-time resident and decided they needed reporting?
All sounds very strange!:cool:

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

From how you describe it, it doesn't sound like misery and that the council indeed had a good case to investigate. The fact she wanted him to move in back with her and that he didn't want to didn't mean in itself that they were not a couple from the definition used by the council. Surely the moment she was investigated, she knew there was a possibility that it would be stopped, so it couldn't have come as a huge surprised.

The way I see it is if you are going to be in a serious relationship with someone whilst claiming as a single parent, you are at risk of being reported, and I rather that very few are investigated wrongly with the risk of them having to borrow money for a couple of month to pay rent, than seeing someone milking the system for years because of not wanting to take that risk.

People on low incomes, particularly people who don't have a partner, so bringing up children on their own, are quite vulnerable. Of course they are likely to be upset if they are making an honest claim then end up losing their benefit through no fault of their own. Can you not see that?

If 95% of fraudulent claims resulted in suspension of claims and then prosecution, then fair enough, I would think that fraud officers are doing their jobs properly. But when, according to dippy3103, (who should know if he is a fraud investigator) only 50% of anonymous calls turn out to be correct, I'm surprised anyone would report suspected benefit fraud. There's no way I would want to be one of the 50% of "dobbers in" who had got it wrong. Especially knowing that the council/DWP/HMRC (or whoever else might be responsible for investigating) would have to at least look into every single claim.

dippy3103

Dippy is a she

It's about 50% where fraud is proven. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to the remaining percentage where the allegation was correct but there was insufficient evidence to go any further. I am not saying this is the case all the time but there is a proportion like that

Morglin

It should also be noted that a huge amount of benefit and housing benefit overpayments/under payments are down to mistakes made by the relevant departments.

Many housing benefit departments have been hived off to a certain private firm, who I had better not name, but who are a legend in their own lunchtime, across many counties and boroughs, for being so incredibly inept they tend to leave officials and an unsuspecting public with their jaws a-dropping.:eek:

However, it suits the council and government spin merchants to mix up those figures with actual fraud by the claimant.

Lin

FBaby

People on low incomes, particularly people who don't have a partner, so bringing up children on their own, are quite vulnerable. Of course they are likely to be upset if they are making an honest claim then end up losing their benefit through no fault of their own. Can you not see that?

But I'm talking about those who have boyfriends (as my response was about someone who did have not even a boyfriend but a partner), when they are reporting for allegedly have more of a relationship than this. Surely any person whose partner was accused of benefit fraud would want to help them financially during that time. If not, they should be ditched anyway!

redcard

K0SS wrote: »

So with 20+ years, exp you are on 35k to 40k after taxes not including perks and bonuses.

Is this relevant to anything? Two years ago you were on 'unpaid leave' (nudge nudge) from your £560 a month office job.

dippy3103

K0SS wrote: »

dippy3103 wrote: »

I just generally come across as an !!!!!!!, nothing personal.

You have reading comprehension problems, or fail to take all my posts on the subject in context, I'm talking about in actual costs to the benefits system. Provide evidence don't pull percentages out of your backside. You make the allegation the onus is on you to provide the proof the burden of proof is on you Mr. I study social anthropology with crime and English contract law.

So with 20+ years, exp you are on 35k to 40k after taxes not including perks and bonuses.

I earn much less than that, I don't get " perks", bonuses or anything like it. I don't get paid overtime. Beyond that I have no intention of posting on any forum.

I when you enter the world of work, I suggest you learn the art of disagreeing without being so damn rude. You'll get much further that way.

dippy3103

Sorry double posted. Luckily I am much better at "playing investigators" than I am at using forums.