Benefit fraud

Confuseddot

dktreesea wrote: »

She was offered some work. She decided she wanted to do it and got the job centre's permission. As I understand it, as long as they approve the work it is permitted work.


She wasn't doing supported permitted work - what I said was she was in the support group for ESA, not the WRAG. The way she understood it, because she was in the support group, she said the job centre told her she could earn up to x amount of pounds and work whatever hours she needed to. Hence her declaring her earnings but not her hours. I think though there would still have been a restriction on the number of hours.


She's being asked to repay some of the ESA because her earnings were too much in some of the weeks she worked. Fair enough. But at the same time, if she declared her earnings, why didn't the DWP reduce her ESA accordingly at the time?


To me, if someone is well enough to work more than two days a week, then why should they get ESA? At least for the weeks where they can work more than 16 hours a week, even if that isn't every week.


My point was people get all these benefits, but they are not on top of things like how to transition out of them. And there's a cash flow problem. She didn't receive her first pay from her work until six weeks later. It's the nature of commission work. The payment plans are quite complicated sometimes. So what's she meant to live on while she waits for the first payment? The ongoing problems all extend from that initial problem, imho.


Even if you're on JSA, if you ring up and say "I have a job, I start today", the JSA stops straight away. So does everything else you get - housing benefit, council tax benefit. How are you meant to live until your first pay comes in? UC is much better in that regard, because it's calculated based on the income you actually receive (as opposed to earn) in the period.

If someone is well enough to work 16 hours then according to the current rules they shouldn't be on ESA, they should be on working tax credit with the disabled element.

zaax

A DS once told me always give a no comment interview. It up to them to prove it.

nannytone_2

zaax wrote: »

A DS once told me always give a no comment interview. It up to them to prove it.

all that does is make you look like you have something to hide!

in my experience,an IUC is only given when they feel they have sufficient evidence to proceed with action.
it is the claimants opportunity to explain anything that may on the surface to appear fraudulent.

dippy3103

zaax wrote: »

A DS once told me always give a no comment interview. It up to them to prove it.

Poor sweeping advice. Adverse inference can bite you if you have a good explanation. Always take legal advice before going down the line of a no comment interview - unless of course you are guilty...

[Deleted User]

I'm afraid OP, £20k fraud is rather a big fraud, over a long period of time.

As has been said, they didn't 'trick' you.., they gave you an opportunity to be truthful, you thought about it, decided they wouldn't know about the 'part time' job you'd had previously and decided to lie.

So much for the original posting saying you 'forgot' you were on ESA.., although even the most nieve person would know that you'd be reminded every two weeks when your bank balance sprang up by £250 (ESA is £126 a week I believe).

Deciding to be dishonest could well mean a prison sentence, as could making two fraudulent claims over a long period of time. Game playing (as I am sure you are with the lying) can have serious consequences.

Try and not be stupid again.., if you received pay slips, HMRC know you are earning.

OldMotherTucker

robotrobo wrote: »

i have no qualms about the genuine people in our society that need help with various benefits.But why dont they put lists up in the townhall of the people who are on these benefits so they are open for anyone to see to see.
I think you would see a lot of the genuine fraudsters dont want to see their names highlighted in the town hall, i see them walking around my town on pip the higher rate & they are walking perfectly ok, because they think that people dont know about it , im pretty sure i wouldnt want my name up on the town hall wall unless i was really genuine.

:rotfl:

I think you'd see that a lot of genuinely sick and disabled don't want their names pinned up on the Town Hall wall simply because it's NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS. You'd probably want health assessments conducted in the Town Square and the vote put to the jeering mob:eek::eek::rotfl:

I love the way some people think they can police the benefits payments of strangers but slap each other on the back if they get one over on the Taxman or the CSA.

I'm talking about the insidious welchers who sell Duty Free Baccy and puppies down the pub, have cash in hand jobs, Mate's Rates, a creative accountant or a boss who'll fiddle their payslips. The Town Hall is one of the worst places for it!

Some people get mobility for fluctuating conditions and you can get mobility even if you walk.:eek::eek: You'll just have to get over that

That you can't get your tiny mind around this and the fact that getting help with mobility enables those with mobility problems to be mobile speaks volumes.
What would be the point of it otherwise? :rotfl::rotfl: Aren't you pleased that the contribution you pay in taxes is so effective?:T:T

When people say 'genuinely disabled', I think the majority of those would like to see us bleed for our money:rotfl::rotfl: dragging around on bloodied stumps, wailing in agony, humble and grateful!

JTA - I'm suffering a bit through not working at the moment so I've got a few options:

I can up my costly medication (By costly - I mean costly to the taxpayer:p)
I can book an appointment to see the GP knowing I'll be referred to Hospital. (More expense to the tax payer:p)
I can ring the Physio (More expense . . . are you starting to see a pattern:p)
I could ring adult services and re-ignite my previous and costly care plan!

OR

I can take a few pain killers, spray me some Ralgex, and go for a jolly old bimble round Town. By the time I get to the end of the road I hope to have a glow in my cheeks and maybe even a tiny spring in my step!

I'd go out of my way to wish you the cheeriest of 'Good morning's' just to get your goat:rotfl::rotfl:

NYM

.........When people say 'genuinely disabled', I think the majority of those would like to see us bleed for our money dragging around on bloodied stumps, wailing in agony, humble and grateful!....


When I use the term 'genuinely disabled' I mean exactly that. Without doubt, bona fide, exactly as claimed to be. I certainly wouldn't want the genuinely disabled to be humble and grateful for anything. So please, do not assume that the majority that think as I do, expect to see anyone dragging their bloodied stumps and wailing in agony.

What I do expect is for people to be honest.

OldMotherTucker

NYM wrote: »

.........When people say 'genuinely disabled', I think the majority of those would like to see us bleed for our money dragging around on bloodied stumps, wailing in agony, humble and grateful!....


When I use the term 'genuinely disabled' I mean exactly that. Without doubt, bona fide, exactly as claimed to be. I certainly wouldn't want the genuinely disabled to be humble and grateful for anything. So please, do not assume that the majority that think as I do, expect to see anyone dragging their bloodied stumps and wailing in agony.

What I do expect is for people to be honest.

I'm talking about people in general! It's feeble disclaimer. Along the lines of 'I'm not racist . . :rotfl:

I wish people would be honest too!

How do you define 'genuinely disabled' any way?

As a loose guide I use the DWP criteria.

sangie595

NYM wrote: »

.........When people say 'genuinely disabled', I think the majority of those would like to see us bleed for our money dragging around on bloodied stumps, wailing in agony, humble and grateful!....


When I use the term 'genuinely disabled' I mean exactly that. Without doubt, bona fide, exactly as claimed to be. I certainly wouldn't want the genuinely disabled to be humble and grateful for anything. So please, do not assume that the majority that think as I do, expect to see anyone dragging their bloodied stumps and wailing in agony.

What I do expect is for people to be honest.

Seconded. As a genuinely disabled person ( no bloodied stumps yet and if I have one the week after next I'll be suing the surgeon But I admit to the occasional wailing:) ) AND a taxpayer (as many of us genuinely disabled people are) I do not expect my gov't (well, not mine exactly, because I voted for the other lot) to make benefit claimants ( any of them) lives a misery. But I do expect scam artists and fraudsters to be caught and punished. It's a very gentile description, is "fraud". These people are thieves. Full stop. Unfortunately those thieves have given the gov't an excuse to go after the genuine claimants. So genuine claimants suffer. And that won't change whilst the thieves get away with a slap on the wrist and 10p a week repayment.

These thieves have muddied the waters in serious discussions about how we treat the disabled and the unemployed in society; and yes, they have turned a selfish society into a jeering mob mentality of Sun and Mail readers who "know" that scroungers and migrants are to blame for everything. The problem is that it only takes one thief to tarnish the reputations of all.

NYM

Sad isn't it but we do need to weed out those bad apples or the entire crop will be ruined.

I too hope that you will have no reason to sue your surgeon