Would you report someone for benefit fraud?

trollopscarletwoman

dippy3103 wrote: »

Always baffles me how the state comes to either of those figures (bear with me on this).

How can they truly know "fraud" losses? Fraud by it's very nature is covert- so exactly what do they best those figures on? The same goes for unclaimed benefits? If those people have not made a claim then how can the government (or anyone else) know truly that those people were or were not entitled.

I know a lady of 74 who is riddled with arthritis (she's a relative) and certainly would qualify for AA - she struggles with basic tasks because of it. She is also as stubborn as they come so won't claim AA or visit a Dr - she's scared they will take away her independence and having grafted all her life in an old folks home she's determine to stay out if them.. But as she's not been to the dr how can the government know that she should be claiming it?

That's a very long winded way of me saying I am not convinced by either stat as I can't see how he government can know!

If your a relative get your relative what she should get.

dippy3103

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

If your a relative get your relative what she should get.

I have got her the forms and completed them for her- she can't grip a pen to fill in such a long form. It's getting her to go to the Doctors. Old school, worked and stood on her own two feet all her life - as stubborn as she is proud. Frustrates me because she would be entitled to it but it's her choice.

john539

sooty&sweep wrote: »

Yes I'd report them and if they are leaving children home alone I'd report them to social services too.

True we don't know where this saving will end up and you personally may not approve of what its used for.
However there is a massive national deficit which is leading to massive cuts which are hurting alot of people. People deliberately cheating the benefits system is feeding into this and hurting people.

Jen

The national debt & deficit are not a problem, you were misled by clueless Tory government.

john539

dippy3103 wrote: »

Always baffles me how the state comes to either of those figures (bear with me on this).

How can they truly know "fraud" losses? Fraud by it's very nature is covert- so exactly what do they best those figures on? The same goes for unclaimed benefits? If those people have not made a claim then how can the government (or anyone else) know truly that those people were or were not entitled.

I know a lady of 74 who is riddled with arthritis (she's a relative) and certainly would qualify for AA - she struggles with basic tasks because of it. She is also as stubborn as they come so won't claim AA or visit a Dr - she's scared they will take away her independence and having grafted all her life in an old folks home she's determine to stay out if them.. But as she's not been to the dr how can the government know that she should be claiming it?

That's a very long winded way of me saying I am not convinced by either stat as I can't see how he government can know!

Does mathematics baffle you, does science baffle you, does astronomy baffle you, does statistics baffle you, then move up to advanced level, does that baffle you ?

sh1981

going_nowhere_fast wrote: »

I just had to pick myself up off the floor, you made me fall over laughing...

You are clearly a little confused if you need to make assumptions about me.

The person I had in mind when starting this thread lives with her children and boyfriend in a house paid for by everyone who pays tax. The housing benefit pays all but £50 of the monthly rent. She does not work, I have no idea if her partner does or doesn't. Seeing as he is not claiming the benefits I really do not care.

The person in question owns an expensive car - one which drinks petrol and is very expensive to tax, she also goes out every weekend drinking.

The two adults regularly shout at the children, in fact i have overheard the boyfriend telling his girlfriend that he is "fkcing sick of those kids". This was said in front of the children who by this point are understandably very upset. The mother then shouts and her children and goes out to have a good time drinking with her boyfriend and mates because she is a hardworking soul who needs a bit of a break.

The children are left to fend for themselves.

This person is lying to the authorities in order to claim maximum amount of benefits to fund their own lifestyle, not to put food on the table.

Please do not insult me by making presumtions about me, just ask to get the correct facts,

Why are you so interested in them? With all due respect if you have so much time as to 'overhear' their conversation, I now think you might have something personal against them.

The car might be provided through DLA.

If you can't handle presumptions being made about you, then perhaps you ought not make presumptions about others. Secondly, I dont know you and I have a right to my opinion, which I most freely expressed!

Having children does not mean you never go out. Being on benefits does not mean you have to drive a crappy car, you CAN get a very good brand new car through motability.

By the way it also appears that you are more worried about the 'benefits' rather than the 'children'. Maybe social services would be the answer.

sh1981

jetplane wrote: »

You can report anonymously but you really need to give as much info as you can, it is difficult to prove and costs DWP a lot of time and money. Often the 'partner' has another address, separate finances, and the only evidence is hearsay or surveillance.

I'm with sailorsam on this one in the sense that our MPs have repeatedly been caught out fiddling yet we don't have a report an MP Expenses thief hotline or a campaign against stealing expenses. Actual fraud is a small percentage in benefits and anyone who believes that the government would redistribute unclaimed benefits to genuine claimants or back into our wage packet is only fooling themselves.

Yes, this is what I said as well, I also agree fully with sailorsams post. Britain has the LOWEST rate of benefit fraud in europe. It is a non-issue! Something like 2 billion in unclaimed benefits. And some people just can't bear to see a single woman going out for a pint once a week or drive a decent car just cause she has kids and is on benefits.

I mean I dont know, maybe I dont express my opinion in correct tone, but all I wanted to say was that there are cheats who conciously do it at a large scale, then there are people who at least i class as vulnerable such as disabled, single mothers or pensioners, and if they make a mistake unknowingly then there is no need to make it so hard for them really. At least that's the way I think about it.

FBaby

Yes, this is what I said as well, I also agree fully with sailorsams post. Britain has the LOWEST rate of benefit fraud in europe. It is a non-issue!

Or maybe that's because we have rules that are the easiest to manipulate? How many supposed single mothers are claiming all benefits they can do as a single parent, are very much in a relationship with their partner, but because they've picked up that if they ensure they have no financial link and he uses his parents address and crashes there once in a whilst, they are likely to get away with it.

Almost every week now we get someone here saying they are being investigated or a poster says they know someone who is in that situation, yet how many get away with it because they know perfectly well how to bend the rules and stay away from the radars?

There was a programme recently about such investigation and the extent to which the authorities had to go to to have even a small chance to prosecute was shocking. Ultimately, the authorities have to decide whether it is worth the cost and resources of a long investigation for a chance of prosecution, hence many cases highly likely to be fraud dropped from the start.

I personally have an moral issue with it that stems from the fact that benefits were set up to support vulnerable people at a time when many were dying of living in appauling conditions that no one in this country should endure. That some people who don't have the need for these benefits play the system to get the lifestyle they desire that they wouldn't have if they were honest about their relationship is as low as it gets.

dippy3103

FBaby wrote: »

Or maybe that's because we have rules that are the easiest to manipulate? How many supposed single mothers are claiming all benefits they can do as a single parent, are very much in a relationship with their partner, but because they've picked up that if they ensure they have no financial link and he uses his parents address and crashes there once in a whilst, they are likely to get away with it.

Almost every week now we get someone here saying they are being investigated or a poster says they know someone who is in that situation, yet how many get away with it because they know perfectly well how to bend the rules and stay away from the radars?

There was a programme recently about such investigation and the extent to which the authorities had to go to to have even a small chance to prosecute was shocking. Ultimately, the authorities have to decide whether it is worth the cost and resources of a long investigation for a chance of prosecution, hence many cases highly likely to be fraud dropped from the start.

I personally have an moral issue with it that stems from the fact that benefits were set up to support vulnerable people at a time when many were dying of living in appauling conditions that no one in this country should endure. That some people who don't have the need for these benefits play the system to get the lifestyle they desire that they wouldn't have if they were honest about their relationship is as low as it gets.

Exactly that.

Not all benefit frauds are equal- that's why lower value frauds tend to b treated as compliance issues and higher value ones result in court action.

I work in the public sector. If I were to fiddle my milage for "a bit extra", how much would you find acceptable? We all know the answer to that is zero. What's the difference?


I hasten to add I wouldn't dream of it.

BillJones

CCFC_80 wrote: »

I don't buy the argument at all that if people didn't commit benefit fraud there would be more money for genuine claimants. Millions of pounds in benefits are not genuinely claimed which balances it out.

That makes no sense at all. The underclaimed amounts would still go unclaimed even if the fraud were found out.

I'm one of those who didn't claim when I could, that doesn't mean I accept someone stealing that money for themselves when not entitled to it.

jetplane

going_nowhere_fast wrote: »

The person I had in mind when starting this thread lives with her children and boyfriend in a house paid for by everyone who pays tax. The housing benefit pays all but £50 of the monthly rent. She does not work, I have no idea if her partner does or doesn't. Seeing as he is not claiming the benefits I really do not care.

The person in question owns an expensive car - one which drinks petrol and is very expensive to tax, she also goes out every weekend drinking.

The two adults regularly shout at the children, in fact i have overheard the boyfriend telling his girlfriend that he is "fkcing sick of those kids". This was said in front of the children who by this point are understandably very upset. The mother then shouts and her children and goes out to have a good time drinking with her boyfriend and mates because she is a hardworking soul who needs a bit of a break.

The children are left to fend for themselves.

So you know that the man does not claim benefits so maybe she includes him on her claim and receives more money because of this. You have no idea if he works so how come you know she is fiddling?

I think this is why DWP have a problem with anonymous reports because often the information is half true.

How old are the kids and how often are they left to fend for themselves?