Benefit fraud

dekaspace

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Unless the history of social housing was very different in Scotland, you're totally wrong on that.

Council housing was always intended to be used by workerswho paid their own way - in fact that was often the basis on which it was allocated. Rewarding those who don't work by allocating them a property with a low rent and secure tenancy is a comparatively recent development and not an improvement, in my book.

I can see why, when I got my offer of housing recently I was confused to why it said rent was paid 48 weeks of the year, I asked with my father who said it goes back to the days of factories when they had 2 weeks off at Christmas and 2 weeks off at Easter (and this is a area with a lot of closed factories)

And I also know how the system has turned to being played even in my lifetime, was 3 housing estates in my home town, 1 was almost all the worst of the worst (and yes I mean that, junkies, stabbings, drug dealing etc) and it was in a study a few years back said to have the worst drug problem in the whole of Scotland (not by population but percentage of locals on drugs) then again since its of course now popular with immigrants rents have over doubled (yet LHA has fallen)

The one I lived for 7 years was a mix of poor, or working class, and a small 3rd estate was single parents, and drug dealers, and no thats not a joke I remember going with a college friend when he wanted smoke, his dealer was out, he knocked next door and that dealer was in but had none, the 3rd house he got some.

When I was made homeless 15 years ago, I went to local youth information place and was told I couldnt get a property, but off the record (though I knew this anyway as it was common knowledge) if I came back a hour later and told them I was on drugs/drink or got a girl pregnant I would get a property same day though it would be on that estate with a huge drug problem.

A few months later my relative who lived in a diffeent region 40 miles away lived in a squat basically and as such he and girlfriend decided to get pregnant and got a HA property same day.

In recent years I had a "friend" who used me and stuff started to go missing, his girlfriend who was 20 said in front of my face one day "I want 5 kids, a council house with large garden and all paid for by taxpayer" This was 4 years ago and as of now shes never worked still oh and after I fell out with them she got pregnant and got her desired council property.

I was lucky to get one now but considering I ticked around 60 boxes on the form so every town and village in my region even the people at council and the housing advisors said to me "are you sure? No one applies for that many" I just told them I was desperate and they told me the usual people are normally picky.

sangie595

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Unless the history of social housing was very different in Scotland, you're totally wrong on that.

Council housing was always intended to be used by workerswho paid their own way - in fact that was often the basis on which it was allocated. Rewarding those who don't work by allocating them a property with a low rent and secure tenancy is a comparatively recent development and not an improvement, in my book.

You are correct. My grandparents had a new council house after the war. Grandad worked his whole life. The street was so tidy that you could have eaten your dinner off it! Every garden was neat and well looked after. By the time of the mid 70s it was slipping and parts of the street looked like a war zone. These days, if you value your safety, you wouldn't walk down it.

I have always thought that mixed housing ( as in, some people in employment, some not) is a better concept for social housing. Where this occurs, often now a result of right to buy, you find that housing is in much better condition. People tend to police their own communities. Always have, always will. Those who work hard to keep their property nice, whether rented or purchased, put enormous social pressure on others to do the same. Not quite the same situation, bit about fifteen years ago I moved into my current property. All the front "gardens" were paved over and plain. I made mine into a little patio haven with tubs that first summer. By the next summer others started doing it. Now the street is ablaze with flowers every summer and every house has them! People are incredibly motivated to " keep up with the neighbours", especially if things are nice. Plus, mixed communities tend to operate lots of informal networks. Two of my neighbours got jobs after redundancy because I told them about jobs I knew were going (not jobs I had any influence over, just that I knew they'd be good at them). That used to happen on the "old street". People looked after each other and if jobs were going, they told friends and neighbours.

sangie595

robotrobo wrote: »

I dont need to follow anyone , this morning while out at the swimming baths, they park there cars in the b\badge parking spaces & then take their dogs on long walks, ive better things to do than follow anybody, & as far as haveing there details in view at the town hall !, the genuine people wouldnt have to worry who saw it, its not the genuine people thats the cheats of the system, your not supposedly be able to walk more than 30 mtrs or less, especially if you are on the higher rate of the mobility scheme, but believe me they do, a few have been caught and dealt with in our town , there needs to be a lot more investigators following these people , & make them aware that someone will eventually catch up with them.

Erm...I park my car and take my dog for a long walk too. In my mobility scooter!

dekaspace

sangie595 wrote: »

You are correct. My grandparents had a new council house after the war. Grandad worked his whole life. The street was so tidy that you could have eaten your dinner off it! Every garden was neat and well looked after. By the time of the mid 70s it was slipping and parts of the street looked like a war zone. These days, if you value your safety, you wouldn't walk down it.

I have always thought that mixed housing ( as in, some people in employment, some not) is a better concept for social housing. Where this occurs, often now a result of right to buy, you find that housing is in much better condition. People tend to police their own communities. Always have, always will. Those who work hard to keep their property nice, whether rented or purchased, put enormous social pressure on others to do the same. Not quite the same situation, bit about fifteen years ago I moved into my current property. All the front "gardens" were paved over and plain. I made mine into a little patio haven with tubs that first summer. By the next summer others started doing it. Now the street is ablaze with flowers every summer and every house has them! People are incredibly motivated to " keep up with the neighbours", especially if things are nice. Plus, mixed communities tend to operate lots of informal networks. Two of my neighbours got jobs after redundancy because I told them about jobs I knew were going (not jobs I had any influence over, just that I knew they'd be good at them). That used to happen on the "old street". People looked after each other and if jobs were going, they told friends and neighbours.

I mostly agree, but its more the people in the properties even if all of them were on benefits than anything, since benefits is the lowest you can go before the streets you get people who never want to work, these will be the ones trying to get everything they can at the benefit (and cost) of other people.

I grew up until my teen years in a rough council estate, my parents took a village semi in a very run down damp condition over a maisonette in a rough council estate that needed zero work.

The locals at both depends on interpretation in the village it had a lot of people who were born and raised there who were snooty, was funny when across the road was a nice set of neighbours, both widows who moved in together in the 1970s when their partners died which was a big no no back then and the gossip continued until a few years back when the last of the old people in the village died, my parents and another couple on benefits didn't get on with locals who turned their nost at us, but in recent years the younger familes are fine with my parents.

On the council estate we knew most of our neighbours and got on with most of them too, our next door neighbour was retired and went fishing a lot, brought us fish all the time, liked cutting our garden, gave us christmas and easter presents and chocolates and kept an eye on our property when dodgy people were about.

He had the most beautiful garden you could think of.

Carrieanne

Another thread with people scrapping like ferrets in a sack. We live in a grab whatever you can society. Everyone's at it, including benefit claimants. This BBC story, if accurate, indicates that just one in every 30,000 State Pension recipients decline their Winter Fuel Payment. 'Winter fuel payment rejected by about 400 pensioners' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31963099

Until 1908 there were no UK benefits, now approximately 85% of British households claim at least one benefit. Why? Not because they necessarily need those payments (see above article), but because they are entitled to them.

Londonsu

Carrieanne wrote: »

Another thread with people scrapping like ferrets in a sack. We live in a grab whatever you can society. Everyone's at it, including benefit claimants. This BBC story, if accurate, indicates that just one in every 30,000 State Pension recipients decline their Winter Fuel Payment. 'Winter fuel payment rejected by about 400 pensioners' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31963099

Until 1908 there were no UK benefits, now approximately 85% of British households claim at least one benefit. Why? Not because they necessarily need those payments (see above article), but because they are entitled to them.

A lot of pensioners like my husband prefer to accept their WFP and donate to charity, I run a charity shop and get dozens of cheques and cash donations from pensioners who know that if they just refuse their WFP it just goes back to the government and does not mean that an unemployed or a disabled person would benefit, last year my husband donated half to my charity which supports homeless people and half to the local hospice, its just that they don't shout about it.

dktreesea

robotrobo wrote: »

I dont need to follow anyone , this morning while out at the swimming baths, they park there cars in the b\badge parking spaces & then take their dogs on long walks, ive better things to do than follow anybody, & as far as haveing there details in view at the town hall !, the genuine people wouldnt have to worry who saw it, its not the genuine people thats the cheats of the system, your not supposedly be able to walk more than 30 mtrs or less, especially if you are on the higher rate of the mobility scheme, but believe me they do, a few have been caught and dealt with in our town , there needs to be a lot more investigators following these people , & make them aware that someone will eventually catch up with them.

This is the usual misinformation rolled out by the anti disabled crowd. That is NOT the criteria for higher mobility. To get the maximum points, for PiP at least the criteria is cannot walk further than 20 metres at a time. They could be exhausted within that range and have to stop and rest (e.g. people who have cancer) or be breathless and have to catch their breath (e.g. people with heart problems) or be in pain whilever they are walking (e.g. people with arthritis).


And there are different criteria. it isn't just about walking. You can have people whose disability makes them in danger of blacking out/falling, e.g. people suffering from epilepsy or a damaged heart. They have to have someone with them if they go out. Even if the person could walk more than 200 metres, they could still qualify for the higher rate of mobility.


If you are going to hector the disabled at least try to get your facts right.

robotrobo

sangie595 wrote: »

Erm...I park my car and take my dog for a long walk too. In my mobility scooter!

why !, can the dog not walk:).
seriously , im not talking about the genuine disabled people who need help, im talking about the fraudsters out there,

nannytone_2

robotrobo wrote: »

why !, can the dog not walk:).
seriously , im not talking about the genuine disabled people who need help, im talking about the fraudsters out there,

i walk my dog approx 8 miles a week across open farmland and in the country park.
i also receive high rate mobility.

i am blind and don't walk the dog on my own.

according to you i shouldn't be receiving high rate mobility because i am physically capable of walking more than 30m ?

sangie595

robotrobo wrote: »

why !, can the dog not walk:).
seriously , im not talking about the genuine disabled people who need help, im talking about the fraudsters out there,

But you see, you are talking about me! And some of my friends! You are not the disability police and you do not get to judge who is a worthy recipient of benefit or not. You don't even understand the criteria for the higher rate of PIP - as evidenced already on this thread. So if you don't know what the criteria even are, how do you know which individual met them?

Look... we all know that some people, a small number of people, are frauds. Nobody can deny that. But you are doing exactly as the government is doing - judging a whole group of people based on a small minority. This is not Nazi Germany, and we are not required to wear yellow stars on our coats to display our disability for all to see. We are entitled to the same privacy and privileges that you are. So ok - let's instead paper the town hall with the names of everybody not claiming a disability benefit, shall we? How about publishing your tax return in the local paper so we can see what you earn and whether you are paying all your taxes - then we could decide whether you are worth what you earn or not. Whether I have a blue badge or not, and whether I claim disability benefits or not is no more your business than it is my business what you earn and what taxes you pay.

If you know that somebody is a fraudster, report them. End of.