Benefit Fraud Campaign..

Pia · 05-11-2006, 00:37

Having seen the new campaign on TV for cracking down on Benefit Fraud, does this mean the local councils are under more pressure to get prosecutions?

Just wondered what your thoughts were, to be honest- i know a few people like the woman on the advert, who claim to be living alone when in fact they have a partner with a wage living there...

I agree they should be caught, and cautioned or whatever- but there are obviously other circumstances where punishment might not be appropriate, more a case of educating people...

Take this example, and tell me what you think...

A single parent, works, and claims tax credits, and is also in receipt of housing benefit.
However, they start working a regular overtime, around a shift a week extra, and fail to tell the housing benefits team straight away (didn't realise it was a big deal)- so when they do are landed with a bill due to overpayment, and come to a payment agreement, and all is fine, the money will be paid back etc..

But although this situation seems like it is under control, no lies have been told, the money will be paid back, but the Fraud team decide they want to interview this person and during the interview seem very keen on taking it as far as the 30% added on, or even prosecution.

Would this be an example of the government being desperate to reach their targets- or do you think this person deserves everything they get- the same way the people such as her in the advert do...?

Mal · 05-11-2006, 00:41

If she deliberately didn't tell the appropriate people that there was a change of circumstance, then it would be fraud, regardless of any target.

Pia · 05-11-2006, 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

If she deliberately didn't tell the appropriate people that there was a change of circumstance, then it would be fraud, regardless of any target.

But it's not a case of deliberately not telling them, because this person told them in the end- it was just delayed, not for any reason. Also, after phoning to say they'd been doing overtime, the benefits team said they were due their annual review soon so not to worry, which is exactly what happened.

No pay slips were doctored, no income was hidden, it just turned out that this person wound up owing quite a lot of money- accepts it and is paying it.
So i cannot understand why this is in the same league as somebody who actually deliberately hides something from the benefits people.
It is merely due to not knowing that this would happen, all because of a couple of months.

05-11-2006, 00:59

whats the point of doing the overtime if its all gonna get clawed back.TBH I probably wouldnt tell anyone on purpose

Pia · 05-11-2006, 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

whats the point of doing the overtime if its all gonna get clawed back.TBH I probably wouldnt tell anyone on purpose

I know, but people don't always realise that it will all be taken back until it's too late.

Kinda makes me wonder why people bother working at all....

Mal · 05-11-2006, 01:01

That is the problem though, you are required to tell whoever housing or state benefit, any change of circumstance. They have conscientiously gone out and got a new job, which is a change of circumstance, which may or may not affect their entitlement.

It is then up to the Magistrate to decide whether it was a deliberate act or not.

Mr Angry · 05-11-2006, 01:02

Why would a fraud team want to interview someone who has already come clean and arrived at a repayment plan?

05-11-2006, 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pia

I know, but people don't always realise that it will all be taken back until it's too late.

Kinda makes me wonder why people bother working at all....

not if you ask your gaffer to keep it off the books

Thing is some people try to raise there standard of living and people hear of average wages but dont realise what its like to live on minimum wage. In these circumstances those involved are paying taxes and some rent etc but obviously there on a low income cuz they get some rent. So imo so what if they earn and extra 20 30or 50 quid if it helps them to be at least happier

I know this is wrong but some people do have it pretty tough

Pia · 05-11-2006, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

That is the problem though, you are required to tell whoever, any change of circumstance. They have conscientiously gone out and got a new job, which is a change of circumstance, which may or may not affect their entitlement.

It is then up to the Magistrate to decide whether it was a deliberate act or not.

I see what you're saying, though it's just an extra shift a week at the same place, to pay off some massive debts.

So when they realised that the overtime was becoming quite regular- they rang up and were basically told to wait for the review visit. Which happened to be about 6-10 weeks after the call.

Stuff like this really winds me up. It's hardly as though they are denying working the overtime- the payment plan has been agreed and everything.

Mal · 05-11-2006, 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

not if you ask your gaffer to keep it off the books

Thing is some people try to raise there standard of living and people hear of average wages but dont realise what its like to live on minimum wage. In these circumstances those involved are paying taxes and some rent etc but obviously there on a low income cuz they get some rent. So imo so what if they earn and extra 20 30or 50 quid if it helps them to be at least happier

That's the risk that you take then. Just hope that no-one grasses you in

05-11-2006, 01:06

Well yeah but theres worse goes on and no one does anything so hey ho lol

Pia · 05-11-2006, 01:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Why would a fraud team want to interview someone who has already come clean and arrived at a repayment plan?

Exactly, no idea. That's what i find strange.
And now there's a risk of a 30% fine added onto the total amount, or prosecution.

It's a case of being uneducated IMO, if someone isn't aware that they are commiting fraud by not doing it straight away- though knowing they'd owe some money back, then how could that be fraud?
Also what is annoying here is the unlogged phone call where someone at the town hall said it was fine to wait for the review.

Mal · 05-11-2006, 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pia

I see what you're saying, though it's just an extra shift a week at the same place, to pay off some massive debts.

So when they realised that the overtime was becoming quite regular- they rang up and were basically told to wait for the review visit. Which happened to be about 6-10 weeks after the call.

Stuff like this really winds me up. It's hardly as though they are denying working the overtime- the payment plan has been agreed and everything.

I can't say for housing benefit, but for state, there is a limit on how many hours that you can do per week (I think 16, but I am not too sure), anything over that and you may be in trouble if they find out.

Pia · 05-11-2006, 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

I can't say for housing benefit, but for state, there is a limit on how many hours that you can do per week (I think 16, but I am not too sure), anything over that and you may be in trouble if they find out.

Housing Benefit will pay out on the income, whether it be Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£1 or full rent, no matter how many hours, it depends on the income.

Since this person is getting tax credits- they are working over 16 hours.

Mr Angry · 05-11-2006, 01:28

If I were the person in question I'd write to Miss Primarolo under the Freedom of Information Act and ask her to clarify how many overpayments within the time frame were due to Departmental mistakes vs delays in claimants reporting a change in circumstances.

Miss Primarolo will refuse to answer, as she has done in the face of a Commons question previously, and I'd imagine she'd bury any overpayment query on the premise that it would cost her more money in time & resources to answer than she could possibly claw back for the Revenue.

Any insistence on her part - or on the part of her staff - to enforce prosecution in light of an already admitted change in circumstances and agreed repayment plan would be seen as an "abuse of process".

That's one allegation they don't like facing in court as it is tantamount to wasting tax payers money whilst tying up Departmental Solicitors and the magistrates courts (whilst the claimant, due to the fact that they are in receipt of benefits, is most probably in receipt of Legal Aid).

It's a wonderful system.

* sorry, just remembered, it's Ms Primarolo.