Why ESA is unfair for the sick!

nannytone_2

has anyone considered that ESA may not be fair because the DWP know that there are people that claim fraudulently?
this could mean that they scrutinise every claim and make wrong decisions because EVERY claimant is under suspicion because of those that try to play the system

Weary_soul

No It's not fair because the government play the system by stacking the cards in their favor, and making it harder and harder to qualify for any help whatsoever.

cifpower wrote: »

Low as percentage terms; what is it as cash terms?

The UK government estimates that total fraud across the whole of the economy amounts to £73 billion a year. UK government figures for 2012 estimate benefits overpaid due to fraud is £1.2 billion and tax credit fraud is £380 million. So just under £1.6 billion in total; less than 1% of the overall benefits and tax credits expenditure and less than benefits underpaid and overpaid due to error.

It's a lot of money, and it’s never right, but unfortunately fraud happens in many walks of life. Sometimes it helps to compare the figures with other fraud or error. More than this amount was overpaid in benefits due to claimant and official error. That was £2.2 billion in 2011/12 and is recovered by the UK Government. Equally claimant and official error led to £1.3 billion benefits being underpaid.

So to get some perspective, benefit fraud represents 2% of the estimated total annual fraud in the UK. Public sector fraud, which includes benefit fraud, is £20.3 billion a year, so within this category it accounts for just under 8%. The majority of this £20 billion is tax fraud which costs the economy £14 billion annually, or 69%. So we can see that both in absolute and percentage terms tax fraud is a much bigger issue than benefit fraud. In fact, out of all the categories of fraud calculated by the UK Government, benefit fraud is the second lowest. Only identity fraud which costs individuals £1.4billion a year comes below it.

http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud

FBaby

Totally agree with Nannytone. If people were honest, then there wouldn't be the scrutiny that now needs to be in place. Of course, fraud relating to ESA is almost none existent as we are constantly told on these forums.

Saying that, i don't believe OP as he is constantly contradicting himself. He start by saying that he was on the WRAG for 6 years, but strangely, it is when his time for reassessment comes that he realises that he could work. Then he goes on to say that he shouldn't be in the support group but the WRAG. Then he says that he is ending the claim? Yeah right!

In any case, I don't believe that the assessor said he should be in the suport group just on what he said with no evidence from clinicians.

rogerblack

tomtom256 wrote: »

But that figure is based on those caught and prosecuted. Not those claiming it that swing the lead.

It is based on the selection of claims randomly, and the determination that it was likely a fraudulent claim, if or not prosecution resulted.
For example, prosecution will not happen if fraud is discovered after death.
Or in some circumstances where the amount is low.
Or in some circumstances for compassionate reasons.

(yes, the person was intentionally defrauding, but their mental state was so disturbed that they were probably entitled anyway)

billywilly

abrockall wrote: »

I was on ESA WRAG group for 6 years.
Last year I had a re-assessment and lied during my questioning.

I do suffer from mental health issues but not severe ones, which is why I was originally put in the WRAG group.
I can work!!!

This time I lied and said I hear voices like a schizophrenic. And that I have feelings of hurting people.
They didn't even check with my GP if I was telling the truth.
A few weeks later I got a letter saying that I have been moved to the support group and no longer need to attend the jobcentre.


My mother on the other hand had a double brain haemorrhage and a stroke, leading to an uncontrollable bowel (she constantly messes herself),
needs a walking stick as the stroke left the left half side of her body almost paralised. Lost sight in her left eye and can't talk properly.
She was found fit for work and had to wait 20 months for a tribunal. She won but still in the WRAG group.

I realise this means I am admitting to benefit fraud.

Just letting you know just how unfair the system really is! A simple lie got me more money than I am entitled to under Conservative/LibDem rules.
It was to easy. When others suffer

My mother clearly needs to be in the support group and myself in the wrag group.
But that's not how it panned out.
I get the support group while seriously sick people are forced to go into work programmes.

NOT FAIR.

And I will be ending my claim on monday which is why I am telling you.

Use my story to complain to government, or use it to make your own claims. Up to you. Good luck

And IB was unfair on the taxpayers that funded a lifestyle for some.

themarsbargirl

Brighty wrote: »

I agree ESA is not fair at all.


My wife who's worked full time for 20yrs, has 2 years of reduced earnings due to maternity leave and working part time to have the kids, then gets ill and is signed off work, gets 6 months SSP and is then told she's not entitled to ESA as she hasn't paid enough NI in the last 2 tax years, so she gets nothing, zilch, no income whatsoever.


Her work have let her go, so even if/when she is ready to return to work, she won't be entitled to JSA either. She'll never be entitled to ESA or JSA for the whole rest of her life until she has returned to work full time for 2 tax years. Absolutely crazy I think, but thems the rules.


So instead we're taking them for every penny we can get by following their rules.
Applied for and received mid care component DLA for our son, which now means my wife can get carers allowance and also means we're now entitled to some tax credits again, when our son is 5 later this year, we'll also get low level mobility DLA for him too.
All in all we'll now be getting triple the money that we would have got if they gave her ESA. Oh well, thems the rules


Brighty

She needs to claim income-based rather than contributions based

Indie_Kid

themarsbargirl wrote: »

She needs to claim income-based rather than contributions based

She might not be able to if Brighty works.

TELLIT01

Brighty wrote: »

I agree ESA is not fair at all.

My wife who's worked full time for 20yrs, has 2 years of reduced earnings due to maternity leave and working part time to have the kids, then gets ill and is signed off work, gets 6 months SSP and is then told she's not entitled to ESA as she hasn't paid enough NI in the last 2 tax years, so she gets nothing, zilch, no income whatsoever.

All in all we'll now be getting triple the money that we would have got if they gave her ESA. Oh well, thems the rules

Brighty

The system is stacked against people who try to support themselves and put money away for the bad times. I saw many cases where people didn't want to claim, despite having worked all their lives. They ended up using all their savings and only then trying to claim. Because they had managed to support themselves they found themselves in the same situation as your wife, insufficient contributions in the qualifying tax years! The previous 20 or more years counting for nothing.
The one's who do well out of the system are those who spend every penny or never work at all. There is something seriously wrong with the system!:mad:

ohreally

billywilly wrote: »

And IB was unfair on the taxpayers that funded a lifestyle for some.

That "lifestyle" could easily be subsistence level existence, not what most of us would accept as a lifestyle.

billywilly

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The system is stacked against people who try to support themselves and put money away for the bad times. I saw many cases where people didn't want to claim, despite having worked all their lives. They ended up using all their savings and only then trying to claim. Because they had managed to support themselves they found themselves in the same situation as your wife, insufficient contributions in the qualifying tax years! The previous 20 or more years counting for nothing.
The one's who do well out of the system are those who spend every penny or never work at all. There is something seriously wrong with the system!:mad:

You are correct. From what I know of what has been the case with people that I know, it does seem to suggest that you should always spend what you earn as there will always be someone somewhere to bail you out.. Basically if you have the choice of putting money aside so that you don't need to claim benefits for a while or spending everything and having a good lifestyle on what you earn, I know what most would do.