Lottery win on benefits?

setmefree

real1314 wrote: »

Ha, what's really funny about that is that I'm fairly sure that tigtag accused me of being a snoopper at one time, and yet they, nor dmg, nor healy have any clue who I am. (I'm really MI5 of course!)

You are a wind up merchant, or a complete fool. You can't substantiate and you have a history of bad advice and a grudge against the banks - you must have been thinking I'm Darling, or something. Now, we can all rest safely in the knowledge that when problems occur, setmefree will be ranting on here, not getting in real people's way
Harsh? Well maybe but then again, a persons patience only lasts so long.

Goodnight SMF, sleep well.

ps. How many times did you and you exchange thanks as flowers/smf?

IP addresses are very revealing sometimes people forget to swap them over.

Relevant authorites informed;)

real1314

Final words.

If you think you can laugh it off, you can't. Be big enough to apologise.

setmefree

real1314 wrote: »

Final words.

If you think you can laugh it off, you can't. Be big enough to apologise.

Why are you coming for me MI5 man, we will see

dmg24

setmefree wrote: »

Why are you coming for me MI5 man, we will see

Does that make sense?

tigtag02

dmg24 wrote: »

Does that make sense?

No......................

donnalove

children please isn't it past your bedtimes

real1314

nah, it's not even half eleven. I'm allowed up late on Saturday.

btw that post wasn't meant to look like a threat. more of a "non forgiveness" clause.

and that Duke thing re your post was just a device to test the principle. Nothing personal. And deffo not immature!

real1314

How would u know what smf meant it to mean?

It had no "?" but you knew?

ooooh. how does that work.

Anyone got the phone number for GCHQ, left my laptop in a wine bar and it had all my phone numbers and files on it.:D

setmefree

well i used to think ALL benefit fraudsters were bad that was until i read this, how wrong i was

Criminal law practitioners who know little of social security law are routinely acting for people charged with social security fraud offences.
My experience as an expert witness in benefit fraud prosecutions, and previously as a frontline adviser, has increasingly led me to feel that injustices are occurring because of the lack of independent social security law expertise in many criminal cases. This article will show how there are substantial risks that some defendants are even being prosecuted when they are fully entitled to benefits and courts are sentencing using inflated fraud figures. The tightening of legal aid spending and consequent specialisation are partly responsible. For example, the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) welfare benefits contract prohibits payment for attending interviews under caution except by criminal contract holders.
There is a common perception that benefit fraud is widespread and costly. Such attitudes can and do influence judicial attitudes and result in the questionable practice of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) fraud investigators being set prosecution targets as part of their performance-related pay.
Seek expert help early on
The two most common benefit fraud offences are in sections lllAand 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (SSAA). Both involve knowingly or deliberately failing to notify changes of circumstances or misrepresenting circumstances in connection with benefit claims. One must therefore understand the rules of entitlement for benefits in order to know whether the failure or misrepresentation actually affects benefit entitlement. In other words, there are clear links between civil and criminal law - the former drives the latter. \nRv Passmore [2007] EWCA Crim 2053, Passmore was convicted of offences under section 111A (1)A because he had dishonestly failed to inform the benefit authorities that he had formed a limited company. The court held that no offence was committed unless the failure to notify actually affected entitlement and, as he had not drawn any income from the company, there was no effect on benefit entitlement and the convictions were quashed. The court also held that the benefit fraud legislation must be seen in the 'wider statutory context' of social security law.
Practitioners never cease to be amazed by just how weak benefits authorities' assertions of non-entitlement or of amounts overpaid can be when subjected to knowledgeable analysis.
Investigations
Clients may seek help when they have been asked to attend an interview under caution. Here public funding can be a problem, but the normal considerations about seeking sufficient advance disclosure and advising on silence apply. The DWP's internal Fraud Investigator's Manual (FIM) emphasises the need to obtain admissions by the client during interviews under caution and how to obtain these - so legal advice is vital. There is strong anecdotal evidence that inadequate disclosure occurs and for DWP staff to tell clients that they 'don't need a solicitor'. The latter may have implications for admissibility under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the former may be grounds for silence. Expert social security law advice is needed to understand what should be disclosed, to check entitlement and to help assess mens rea.
Practitioners may wish to note the Law Society Criminal Practitioner's Newsletter of January 2006 on advising on silence at police stations, which indicates that in complex cases it may be appropriate to maintain silence and when a prepared statement is appropriate.
An investigation is often accompanied by suspension of benefit - this must not be used to compel co-operation and the matter must be put before a benefit decision-maker to decide entitlement one way or another within a reasonable timescale (excessive delay may be judicially reviewable). Suspension is also discretionary for most benefits.
Benefit appeals
In any prosecution it is important to appeal against the decision to end benefit and any decision on benefit overpayment. Time and again benefit experts find that solicitors fail to do this or fail to in accordance with the regulations. Not only does this severely disadvantage the client, but it may also be negligent.
It is particularly important to ensure that the appeal is submitted in the correct format and within the statutory time limits - a maximum of one month after the date of decision. After one month, it is necessary to explain the delay and why the appeal has merits such as a reasonable prospect of success. There is an absolute limit of 13 months from date of decision. A referral to an expert should also be made to undertake representation at the appeal and to consider the possibility of LSC exceptional public funding.
Not only is the benefit appellate process the proper adjudicator of entitlement in disputes, but a successful appeal will usually result in any prosecution being discontinued. One must therefore wonder why the FIM states that DWP will seek to postpone any appeal hearing when a prosecution is being taken - there is no legal authority for this and it risks the courts acting on questionable evidence of benefit entitlement.
Inflated figures
The amount of overpaid benefit is crucial to sentencing and the DWP's strategy to publicise significant fraud convictions. However, benefit overpayments are frequently incorrect - 67ao of them, according to the latest data published by the DWP. Thus there is a huge risk of courts being misled unless someone checks the overpayment. Even pressing for a detailed breakdown of how an overpayment has been calculated may cause the benefit authorities to spot errors.
A common way for people who work while claiming to be detected is by data-matching between DWP and HM Revenue & Customs computers. Under section 71 of the SSAA, when the material fact of employment is revealed to the DWP, any consequent overpayment is not recoverable and should not be included in the figure presented to the court (see also the FIM). However, it may be weeks, even months before the evidence is put before a benefit decision-maker and the overpayment is therefore inflated by official error.
Another inflationary measure is to fail to offset underlying entitlement to benefit - for example, the client may have been overpaid but still be entitled to some benefit. This is a specific statutory requirement for income support and housing benefit.
Then there is notional entitlement offset - commonly when someone has been working while claiming or has not declared their partner. For example, someone may lose entitlement to income support if they work for 16 or more hours a week, but had they declared their position, they may have been entitled to tax credits. Because of recent welfare reforms, claimants are often better off doing this than working while claiming. The amounts of notional tax credits and other benefits payable while in work are very relevant for sentence because they show the true net loss to the public purse.
Similarly, underclaiming of other benefits (for example, because of disability) may be mitigation as well as reduce an overpayment.
DWP practice seems to be to not mention these points to the court or the defence. This is not helpful and can mislead the sentencer (who may well not be aware of the concept of not';-; in-work benefits and tax credits). Expert input is essential.
Given the moral panic about benefit fraud, criminal and social security law practitioners need to improve joint working in the interests of justice. History teaches us that unless the law rises above moral panic, the seeds of injustice come to flower.

setmefree

And more shame for the DWP

In 2003-04 DWP spent some £109 billion on a wide range of benefits, employment programmes and the associated administration costs. It estimates that around £3 billion of this expenditure may have been lost from benefit payments because of fraud and error, the same estimate as reported in 2002-03 and 2001-02 . However the figures also show that official error results in almost as much benefit being overpaid as claimant fraud.
It is therefore important to distinguish the losses suffered by DWP due to error and those which are caused by fraud. This is because, in my opinion and in light of this distinction, the headlines reporting 3billion loss are skewed and sensationalist.
Dean and Melrose (1995) who produced a paper “Manageable discord” found that the predominant reason for fiddling was economic necessity, inadequacy of benefit payments, lack of belief in the system and lack of opportunities. The principal preliminary findings were that those claimants that fiddled were not especially “streetwise”.

The research conducted in 2004 by Spark Research for DWP discovered that fraud investigators commonly accepted admission of an overpayment as admission of intent and that the claimants are being offered a caution under threat of being prosecuted if they do not accept it. This can lead to convictions for fraud in situations where claimant couldn’t have reasonably been expected to know that they are doing something wrong!

Poverty and financial need are often cited as the main reason for people claim fraudulently. CPAG’s Ten Steps to a Society Free of Child Poverty states that “safety net benefits are worth around £192 per week for a couple with children (…)- £80 less then the poverty line (£272). For a lone parent (…) the safety net is worth £160, some £29 less then the poverty line of £189”

Finally, there are vulnerable claimants, who are often illiterate, confused, unable to cope with complexity of the application forms, change of circumstances requirements and renewal forms. They very often are claiming many correlated benefits, like disability or sickness benefits, together with Income Support and passported benefits. They may have a care or prison background and very limited language skills. As the DWP does not see itself as having responsibility for ensuring that such people know what benefits are available, the question is - who is?

Not being able to understand what is going on with their claim, very often does not prevent claimants from being convicted of fraud. It doesn’t help that this particular group of claimants would find it very difficult to challenge an overpayment/eligibility decision; therefore they are the soft target, the easy statistics.

“Recent organisational change and the plan to shed a quarter of its workforce, possibly lowering morale and increasing turnover among the staff whose skills are most needed to combat fraud and error, will not make the Department’s job any easier.” These are comments made by Mr Edward Leigh MP, Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts and contain, in my opinion, the other then fraud reason behind the large-scale losses suffered by DWP- an error made by the decision maker.

Common sense tells us that dissatisfied, disillusioned staff are bound to make mistakes. It is widely known in a welfare advice sector, that plenty of overpayment appeals are won for clients on grounds of an official error.
It is difficult to establish how much money exactly is lost through an official error, how much of it is recovered and how much is not recoverable. Additionally, we will never know, how much would not have been recovered if the claimant was able to appeal the original decision, instead of agreeing meekly with the overpayment decision. Mr Leigh talks about high level of error by staff making benefit payments costing the department estimated £1.5 billion a year.
An example of the scale of losses due to an error as opposite to fraud was made by Kate Nash, Chief Executive of RADAR who said: “In reality, fraud among people claiming Incapacity Benefit accounts for less than 2% of the Department for Work and Pension’s total expenditure on benefits. Fraud accounts for no more than £20m, with over £90m being wasted through errors that are not the fault of claimants.”

So, a massive 3 billion pounds leaks out of the DWP’s benefits budget. Most of this loss is preventable and at least half of it has nothing to do with “benefit cheats”. It would however be a political suicide for the department to admit it. The “scroungers” are a much more convenient headline.