Benefit Fraud

HillStreetBlues

TELLIT01 said:

Pretty intensive investigation is done 'behind the scenes' before any approach is made to the parties under investigation.  Anonymous reports are not simply taken on face value, they will actually be treated with a degree of suspicion for the very reason you give- potential malicious reporting.  Somebody having their benefit suspended three times would be extremely unusual, although not impossible.

The trouble is they act as judge, jury and executioner.
If they believe (however true it maybe) there is false claim, then they stop the benefit.
Then the person as to prove their innocent to get it reinstated.

Spoonie_Turtle

Incidentally you only mention DLA and Carers Allowance, anf then you talk about how much money they spend and cash-in-hand jobs.  Carers Allowance is only claimed by one person, presumably not the one working.  DLA is not means-tested at all.  So their overall income and how much spare they have to spend is irrelevant to those two benefits.

tomtom256

HillStreetBlues said:

The trouble is they act as judge, jury and executioner.
If they believe (however true it maybe) there is false claim, then they stop the benefit.
Then the person as to prove their innocent to get it reinstated.

No they don't, they have to obtain sufficient evidence to prove or disprove an offence, if they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it could go to court.

For a decision maker, they just need 51% probability that the award is incorrect. You still have the right to request a mandatory reconsideration and then an appeal, as per any other benefit decision.

[Deleted User]

Phate06, one other thing to consider, outside of the legitimacy of their claim is that your partner is a friend. If this person tells your partner everything it wouldn't be hard for them to suppose that's who reported them? How will you deal with any fall out from that?

As someone said, not all disabilities are obvious just by looking. 

I assume you can't know whether  a grandparent or inheritance, trust fund or whatever might be allowing them to take holidays? 

Maybe if your partner finds it equally as dubious as you she should  either end the friendship, or perhaps just stop telling you chapter and verse? 

HillStreetBlues

tomtom256 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The trouble is they act as judge, jury and executioner.
If they believe (however true it maybe) there is false claim, then they stop the benefit.
Then the person as to prove their innocent to get it reinstated.

No they don't, they have to obtain sufficient evidence to prove or disprove an offence, if they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it could go to court.

For a decision maker, they just need 51% probability that the award is incorrect. You still have the right to request a mandatory reconsideration and then an appeal, as per any other benefit decision.

And that is what I said, judge, jury and executioner.

Alice_Holt

HillStreetBlues said:

tomtom256 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The trouble is they act as judge, jury and executioner.
If they believe (however true it maybe) there is false claim, then they stop the benefit.
Then the person as to prove their innocent to get it reinstated.

No they don't, they have to obtain sufficient evidence to prove or disprove an offence, if they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it could go to court.

For a decision maker, they just need 51% probability that the award is incorrect. You still have the right to request a mandatory reconsideration and then an appeal, as per any other benefit decision.

And that is what I said, judge, jury and executioner.

   The Tribunal Service is independent of the DWP.

   In over 70% of PIP appeals the panel decides against the DWP

HillStreetBlues

Alice_Holt said:

HillStreetBlues said:

tomtom256 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The trouble is they act as judge, jury and executioner.
If they believe (however true it maybe) there is false claim, then they stop the benefit.
Then the person as to prove their innocent to get it reinstated.

No they don't, they have to obtain sufficient evidence to prove or disprove an offence, if they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it could go to court.

For a decision maker, they just need 51% probability that the award is incorrect. You still have the right to request a mandatory reconsideration and then an appeal, as per any other benefit decision.

And that is what I said, judge, jury and executioner.

   The Tribunal Service is independent of the DWP.

   In over 70% of PIP appeals the panel decides against the DWP

Not sure why you linked to my post as the text I emboldened  is about a DM who doesn't work for Tribunal Service

These replies are linked to the post by Newcad and what the DWP has done regarding a fraud issues and how stopped the benefit due to a false claim ( judge, jury and executioner).

It was only after going to the TS the DWP were made to correct their decision.

Pollycat

Phate06 said:

Tucosalamanca said:

You seem to have an unhealthy interest in their lives. What are you hoping to achieve?

Not unhealthy interest, they are a friend of my partner so I get told a lot of what goes on.  And I find it disgusting that this person is claiming their child has a disability when they know they haven’t in order to claim money.
I’m hoping they get found out 

But how do you know if your partner's friend is telling her the truth?

I would not report anyone for potential benefit fraud based on a 'friend-of-a-partner' chatter.

HillStreetBlues

Pollycat said:

But how do you know if your partner's friend is telling her the truth?

I would not report anyone for potential benefit fraud based on a 'friend-of-a-partner' chatter.

I agree, it's just hearsay or even Chinese whispers.

Newcad

Personally I believe that anyone making such a report of suspected benefit fraud should not be able to do so anonymously but should have to give their details.

The DWP could phrase it  as letting them know the outcome, which would also be a good idea if it tells them when a report is made in error and just why the report was in error.

As things stand then anonymous reports/accusations can be made with impunity, even when deliberately malicious.
If they had to supply their own names/details.people would think more carefully before making accusations, think about what any rules that may be being broken actually are, and what level of proof they actually have of that breach of the rules.

If you are the victim of such a mistaken (or even malicious) report then it can and does in cases have a catasrophic effect on your income while the DWP investigate.