Letter about repayment of loan

rogerblack

There is of course no moral problem with loans being repaid - the problem arises as fraud was much easier in the distant past - and some very old indeed loans are being required to be repaid where it is utterly impossible to prove that you did not in fact take out the loan.
Once upon a time, it was possible to get a loan in person with little more than turning up at the jobcentre and giving the appropriate story.
Needless to say, identity theft was high, as no photo-id was required.

After a short while the DWP will (in principle) have written to the person in questions last known address, and after 13 months it will have been too late to challenge the decision on the overpayment.
If they'd moved, and weren't there to say 'no, I diddn't' - and appeal it at the time, they're now stuck.

missymish

Witless wrote: »

Not being in any way critical but I think the clue is in the bits I underlined. (As I say, not critical of you, but hopefully of help to others)

When you got notification of your backdated benefits was there anything to suggest the loan had been deducted?

When you moved did you inform the Benefit Paying Office of your new address?

There is a degree of inter-communication between government systems but they're not directly linked: AFAIK the main communication is benefits driven - HMRC will communicate with DWP about WTC/CTC vs JSA/IS etc and vice versa so if you weren't on benefits that might be how you slipped through the net.

In all honestly at the time I was glad just to have a new job and end the benefits. I didn't check the paperwork its no excuse but I was only 21 at the time and it was the first time I had ever accessed income support so really didn't know anything about it.

I agree you have to check and keep everything that benefit departments send you and keep them notified about any changes.

I would like to add that the loan I had was only taken because the benefit office lost my original application and I was without any money for 8 weeks and had 2 young children to support, I didn't even know about the crisis loans but when I went to my benefit office to chase up the application this was when it was discovered it was lost so I had to reapply and I was then advised to take the crisis loan to tide me over untill my payments came through this is when I assumed that the loan would be taken in a lump sum from what was being backdated. All I can say is you live and learn!

missapril75

deannatrois wrote: »

...To say I was paying for the 'privilege' of having him living with me was putting it mildly lol......Nothing I could do.., I had him living with me (not for much longer at that stage).

Didn't you "sense" something? :rotfl::rotfl:

missapril75

rogerblack wrote: »

Once upon a time, it was possible to get a loan in person with little more than turning up at the jobcentre and giving the appropriate story.
Needless to say, identity theft was high, as no photo-id was required.

I do think this is exaggerated somewhat.

Certainly what was accepted as ID in the issue of a giro in the office once a loan had been allowed was not at the level it should have been but the "appropriate story" had to include information about the person applying that an imposter would very likely NOT know.

Also there was so much abuse of the crisis loan system that typically most of those applying were "repeaters" who were well known to and recognised by staff.

With crisis loans being a fraction of the amount of benefit and generally only covering a few days as well, it's unlikely that those stealing the identity of others would be wasting so much effort, not to mention the risk, for what was typically £10 to £15 for a single person.

Any application likely to result in more than that would have involved so much more information to give in the appropriate story that it's unlikely someone would know enough of it.

Rollingstart

Hmm. I assume these debts cannot be statute barred?

What a bunch of crooks the government are, pursuing hard up people for miniscule amounts and letting multimillionaires off who commit tax evasion or avoidance on an industrial scale.

timbo58

Rollingstart wrote: »

Hmm. I assume these debts cannot be statute barred?

What a bunch of crooks the government are, pursuing hard up people for miniscule amounts and letting multimillionaires off who commit tax evasion or avoidance on an industrial scale.

Whilst I have some sympathy for the latter part of your comment, the loans that are outstanding are interest free emergency loans for the most part lent from the taxpayers pocket to those who were genuinely in need provided they understood it was a loan and they paid it back.

The benefits pot as we are all constantly reminded is not a bottomless pit and it's funded only by taxpayers paying in via tax and NI.
I know which I'd rather have if the choice is asking people who took out loans to repay them or asking taxpayers for even more money as we have waited so long for Mr Bloggs to repay us he's got away with it........

Rollingstart

timbo58 wrote: »

Whilst I have some sympathy for the latter part of your comment, the loans that are outstanding are interest free emergency loans for the most part lent from the taxpayers pocket to those who were genuinely in need provided they understood it was a loan and they paid it back.

The benefits pot as we are all constantly reminded is not a bottomless pit and it's funded only by taxpayers paying in via tax and NI.
I know which I'd rather have if the choice is asking people who took out loans to repay them or asking taxpayers for even more money as we have waited so long for Mr Bloggs to repay us he's got away with it........

For debts of this size, it most likely costs more to pursue people than it does to write them off.

Besides, many of these people have paid into the system that is set up to try and deny them help.