Anonymous tip-off - how anonymous is it??

rockingbilly

Mersey wrote: »

Your final sentence is correct but your second sentence ("most if not all Cllrs don't get paid") is plainly wrong.


Unless you are talking about parish cllrs who have little powers.


All metropolitan, county and district cllrs receive a statutory figure pa. On top of this they can claim expenses for travel, parking and so on.


The £12k pa figure I referred to is in fact only the average for backbench Cllrs in Mets (Liverpool City, Sefton MBC etc. It's far higher in Birmingham for example). On top of these they also receive a free laptop each and gym membership in my area.


The average Cllr actually received £15k pa from the public purse in 2015 (the mean average is higher due to the fact that Leaders, Group Leaders, Whips and so on receive additional sums).



Indeed it is why 20% of Cllrs - of working age - do not work as they can afford to live from their allowance and expenses.

Although I concede real troughing - the infamous ex Sefton Cllr Sir Ron Watson who 'earned' £120k pa in remuneration from the public bodies he was appointed to as a Cllr - is a small minority.


The only difference today - as opposed to the above case which required a journalist to make FOI requests - is that we can now all look up how much they each receive online - even if some councils were reluctant to comply with this recent requirement. eg Liverpool's 90 City Cllrs & City Mayor cost taxpayers £1.3m pa.


It's good to hear your parish council is cost effective, but I am not surprised that you were unaware how much most Cllrs receive. [A survey last year showed only 12% of the UK public realised]

Thank you for bringing clarity to the discussion. Yes I agree that District and County Councillors do get a salary + expenses. The majority spend a lot of time working for the council and for the residents. Many work many more hours than the average working week and for that the amount that they receive is small.

For town councillors for which I am one and some parish councillors also work 40+ hours a week for the residents not only in their ward but for the town as a whole.
I work over 40 hours a week in dealing with problems such as car parking, rubbish collection and speeding etc.. None of those are in any way the responsibility of a town councillor, but we have to liaise with the correct authorities on their behalf. I am even called upon to help with issues that should have been brought up with our MP. In those cases I have regular meetings with him both here, in the town and in Westminster.
I (we) don't get paid for all of that work nor do we receive and expenses (out of choice).

I have said many times that if Parliament was run on the same basis as town councils, a lot more would get done for the benefit of all.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

FBaby wrote: »

There was a programme on this a few years back. It followed a council office day to day life, and one aspect of it was investigating cases of fraud. What I remember is them explaining how difficult it was to bring someone to judgmental, how any tiny aspect of their investigation was scutinized, looking for errors to throw the whole claim out. They explained that to take someone to court, they had to carry out a lengthy and thorough investigation, making sure they didn't break any rules that could be challenged, and unfortunately, these investigations took a lot of resources and therefore money. It was therefore only worth taking forward when the case was strong to start with.

They were showing how they reviewed each potential fraud case and decided on which one to take forward. It wasn't forcibly the most obvious case of fraud, it was the most straight forward to prove. They followed one of the lead investigator through their journey up to court, and it was incredible how nervous they were because they knew that it would take nothing to have all their hard work and dedication thrown in just a few minutes.

This programme really opened my eyes to the whole process, and made it clear that statistic on fraud was only the tip of the iceberg, especially as claimants are becoming wiser to the ways to operate to avoid the evidence that would be required in court.

99% of fraudulent claims don't get prosecuted in my local authority. They are either given an over payment, accept a financial penalty without a criminal record (most accept this) or the claim just gets cancelled. Those we do prosecute have to be a 'dead cert' that they will be found guilty. I created an overpayment for one person at one local authority - and a few years later moved I moved jobs to another local authority where I discovered the same claimant committing the same fraud - a prosecution and a suspended sentence and community service - and then about 5 years later at another local authority discovered the very same claimant committing the very same type of fraud - we copied lots of her Facebook posts that incriminated her - imagine her surprise when I knocked on her door - she was jailed.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

99% of fraudulent claims don't get prosecuted in my local authority. They are either given an over payment, accept a financial penalty without a criminal record (most accept this) or the claim just gets cancelled. Those we do prosecute have to be a 'dead cert' that they will be found guilty. I created an overpayment for one person at one local authority - and a few years later moved I moved jobs to another local authority where I discovered the same claimant committing the same fraud - a prosecution and a suspended sentence and community service - and then about 5 years later at another local authority discovered the very same claimant committing the very same type of fraud - we copied lots of her Facebook posts that incriminated her - imagine her surprise when I knocked on her door - she was jailed.

My best jail term was 20 months - a claimant invented numerous false identities, purchased 3 homes and rented them out to the false identities while his relatives lived in these properties paying him rent. Proceeds of crime - ceased his assets (the properties).

rockingbilly

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

99% of fraudulent claims don't get prosecuted in my local authority. They are either given an over payment, accept a financial penalty without a criminal record (most accept this) or the claim just gets cancelled. Those we do prosecute have to be a 'dead cert' that they will be found guilty. I created an overpayment for one person at one local authority - and a few years later moved I moved jobs to another local authority where I discovered the same claimant committing the same fraud - a prosecution and a suspended sentence and community service - and then about 5 years later at another local authority discovered the very same claimant committing the very same type of fraud - we copied lots of her Facebook posts that incriminated her - imagine her surprise when I knocked on her door - she was jailed.

So what you are saying is that for every one case of fraud that the government know about, there are another 99 that don't appear as fraud? And that is just for LA fraud!!

Let's be honest that particular individual must have had a desire to be finally caught and put behind bars.
All I can say, and it was many years ago, that someone who claimed to be unemployed but also worked in the 'black economy' was caught and prosecuted at Crown Court (by their choice) He pleaded guilty of dishonestly receiving £9000 over a two year period . For that the judge gave him a 6 month prison sentence with 5 months of it suspended for a year and an order that he repay the £9000 following his release from prison. He was of good character with no previous convictions.
I can't understand why sentences like that aren't given today.

rockingbilly

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

My best jail term was 20 months - a claimant invented numerous false identities, purchased 3 homes and rented them out to the false identities while his relatives lived in these properties paying him rent. Proceeds of crime - ceased his assets (the properties).

Talk about going soft on those types of criminals - it makes the case that I quoted look like something out of a Dickensian novel!

theartfullodger

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I can tell you the biggest housing benefit scam of all. The Royal Apartments. Palatial apartments in prime locations that supposedly belong to we the taxpayer, let out to royal hangers on for token rents like a pound a year.
Do you think the DWP would investigate them?

Indeed: Andy Airmiles (he says his real name is Prince Andrew..) has a 75 year lease on Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Lodge
- After he dies his children can continue to live there to the end of the 75 years: You know, that Eugenie & Beatrice.

And how much rent does Andy pay?? (There's usually a couple of police cars in plus police "protection" staff... grrrrr there's higher priorities for the Police in the area....) He pays £0 a year: As will Bea or Eug....