Would you report someone for benefit fraud?

mro

going_nowhere_fast wrote: »

If you knew they were a two parent family but claiming to be a single parent so they get enough benefits not to work?

Is there anyway that the person can find out it is you that reported them?

Most reports are wrong or malicious.

dippy3103

BillJones wrote: »

Where do you think that the money comes from that you and your friends hold out your hand for?

Do you ever consider that real people have it taken from their wages?

Sadly too many people think it's "just government money". The government doesn't have any money of its own.. It administers public funds. There is only a finite amount in the pot.

SailorSam

dippy3103 wrote: »

For it to go to crown court it would need to be the more serious charge (there are two main benefit fraud offences, one is triable only in a magistrates court and the other is either way which can go to Crown) and the more serious charge is only used if there are real aggravating factors or if it had gone on for a very very long time- years.

What did he get?

It was a long time ago now, perhaps getting on for 20yrs so i can't remember all the details, but
He'd taken an early retirement when he must have got his private pension and perhaps some sort of unemployment benefit. This all came to light when he reached 65 and claimed his proper pension and he must have said about the private pension.
I think if he'd paid back any overpayment then it might not have gone any further, but he insisted the private pension was HIS and had nothing to do with anyone else, he'd paid for it. He must have left them no choice but to go to Court. As i said he came across as someone who'd never been in trouble all his life, relatively poor, and just a confused old man who couldn;t understand why money he'd worked for could be taken from him.
One man on the jury who elected himself chairman could only see black and white, everyone else saw shades of grey so we were out a long time discussing it. One by one the jury moved over with a couple of us adamant. I said i wouldn't be able to sleep at night if i were responsible for a poor old man who had never done a thing wrong all his life, to be locked in a cell in Walton jail with some scally criminal who was going to make this mans life Hell.
We weren't there at the sentencing, that was the next day but i was so worried about him i went out of my way to find out. As i say it was a long time ago but from memory i think he got 8mths. I accept that he was guilty but for that to happen to an 'innocent' old man when so many others are getting 'let off' for much more serious things, is in my opinion unfair.
I still think about that old man today, he's probably dead now, but i hope whoever he had to share a cell with didn't hurt him.

dippy3103

SailorSam wrote: »

It was a long time ago now, perhaps getting on for 20yrs so i can't remember all the details, but
He'd taken an early retirement when he must have got his private pension and perhaps some sort of unemployment benefit. This all came to light when he reached 65 and claimed his proper pension and he must have said about the private pension.
I think if he'd paid back any overpayment then it might not have gone any further, but he insisted the private pension was HIS and had nothing to do with anyone else, he'd paid for it. He must have left them no choice but to go to Court. As i said he came across as someone who'd never been in trouble all his life, relatively poor, and just a confused old man who couldn;t understand why money he'd worked for could be taken from him.
One man on the jury who elected himself chairman could only see black and white, everyone else saw shades of grey so we were out a long time discussing it. One by one the jury moved over with a couple of us adamant. I said i wouldn't be able to sleep at night if i were responsible for a poor old man who had never done a thing wrong all his life, to be locked in a cell in Walton jail with some scally criminal who was going to make this mans life Hell.
We weren't there at the sentencing, that was the next day but i was so worried about him i went out of my way to find out. As i say it was a long time ago but from memory i think he got 8mths. I accept that he was guilty but for that to happen to an 'innocent' old man when so many others are getting 'let off' for much more serious things, is in my opinion unfair.
I still think about that old man today, he's probably dead now, but i hope whoever he had to share a cell with didn't hurt him.

When you think about it... £10 a week overpayment a week, £520 a year, in four years that's prosecution level overpayment.

You are so right about not everything is black and white. Back then reviews were regular so during that time he would have failed to declare it on several claim forms. Each one of those being a separate offence. But then there's his age and previous (I assume) good character. Sad isn't it.

FluffyDuck3

going_nowhere_fast wrote: »

Yes thats right. The person in question does not work because their income is sufficient purely on housing benefit, tax credits, child benefit, and whatever income support they receive (not sure what that benefit is called sorry). Im presuming if they declared their partner living with them these would be reduced to take in to account the partners income.

There are a lot of positive responses to reporting it. Strange how doing that feels wrong somehow and makes me feel guilty.

You don't know what benefits they are receiving?

Is their partner working?

Morglin

Pity no one takes action against Duncan Smith who has been found to be lying AGAIN with his statistics and figures...

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/05/16/iain-duncan-smith-used-false-statistics-to-justify-disabilit

Lin :wall:

fluffymovie

Newly_retired wrote: »

I do think you need to be absolutely sure of the facts before reporting someone.someone I know has lost her Pension Credit and therefore her Council Tax reduction, because a neighbour reported her for having a partner, when in fact he is a lodger.
She has not been interviewed or anything, so is assumed to be guilty with no chance to defend herself, and now has mounting debts. Is that fair?

This just isn't accurate and not how we work. When someone's pension credit stops, we suspend their award and write to ask for information. If PC have reason to believe they are partners' they will have more evidence than just someone's word. There will be financial links between the parties as opposed to simply a shared address.

She should contact the council, declare the circumstances and await their decision. There is a lot of caselaw around what constitutes living together as husband and wife or civil partners and it's more than someone's say so. However, if people are discussing things like this, they aren't always going to tell you the full story which is why it is always dangerous to take someone's word for things!

tomterm8

tomtontom wrote: »

You seem to have misunderstood your role as a juror. You were there to decide if he was guilty on the facts of the case, which you acknowledge he was. It was then the role of the judge to consider the severity of the case and any mitigation. Perhaps best to get yourself excused from future service and leave it to people who can follow simple instructions?

That is not the role of a jury. The role of the Jury is to act in line with their conscience. A judge is entirely capable of deciding the facts of a case and if that was the only role of a jury in our system the jury would soon be abolished. The role of the jury is to decide what is right.

Jury nullification is legal in Britain. It's part of our justice system.

Not a reputable part, maybe, but it happens - regularly - and is a well established legal right of a jury and has been since before the bushell's case.

Mclark_2

Hi there, I received a letter yesterday to go for an interview because they have reason to believe I live with my partner. I have a complicated story and really need some advice as feeling so upset and low.

When I found out I was pregnant with my daughter I also found out that my partner had over £24000 worth of debt that he has not disclosed to me. This broke our relationship apart and I decided that he was too much of a liability to live with as his debts were more than our income.

He moved in with his parents and at that time we were not longer together which was a hard position to be in as a single parent and being pregnant. When our daughter was born she was premature therefor he stated in the house with my son while I was at hospital.

We grew closer together and although he did not move in we started a relationship which has grown from strength to strength. He would come down every morning to help with the kids and also come over after work to see them both and help me with the house etc. this went on from march 2012 - start of May this year when he finally moved back in after I began full time work as a child minder and he had payed a lot of debt due to a second weekend job.

My partners car was always at my home as I used it for my work and for the kids and he did not use it for work as always got the train. I received the letter yesterday and thought it was because I hadn't got round to phoning up the various benefits to inform the
That my partner had
Moved in just shy of 2 weeks ago.

After phoning to ask about the letter they then said they have evidence to believe he has always stayed here. What kind of evidence is this? It was genuine but I have a horrible horrible feeling I'm in huge trouble?

Thanks very much any advice would be much appreciated

Angelicdevil

tomterm8 wrote: »

That is not the role of a jury. The role of the Jury is to act in line with their conscience. A judge is entirely capable of deciding the facts of a case and if that was the only role of a jury in our system the jury would soon be abolished. The role of the jury is to decide what is right.

Jury nullification is legal in Britain. It's part of our justice system.

Not a reputable part, maybe, but it happens - regularly - and is a well established legal right of a jury and has been since before the bushell's case.

The role of a juror is to decide, based solely on the facts presented to them, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. What an individual deems to be right or wrong does not come into it! It's not about "conscience" it's about facts.

It is up to the judge to decide the severity of the punishment based on the circumstances.

Rules
Jurors must;
» decide the facts of the case only
» take directions relating to law from the trial judge, whether or not they agree with him/her
» remain impartial and independent
» remain uninfluenced by any person. It is an offence for any person who is not a member of the jury to attempt to influence a juror in any way. If any person speaks to a juror about the case, the juror should inform the court or a member of the Gardai.
» keep statements made in the jury room confidential. Jurors should not discuss the case with any person other than members of the jury. It is contempt of court punishable by fine and or imprisonment to repeat any statements made in the jury room.

The Juries Act, 1976, created the following offences punishable by fines;
» Failing to attend for jury service without reasonable excuse, or not being available when called upon to serve as a juror or being unfit for service by reason of drink or drugs.
» Making or causing to be made on your behalf false representations.
» Serving on a jury knowing you are ineligible or disqualified.
» Giving false or misleading answers to the presiding judge regarding your qualification for jury service.
» Making or causing to be made on behalf of a person summoned as a juror any false representations to enable him or her to evade jury service.