Benefit Cheats

[setmefree]

No, it's not a deterrant... but neither is "name & "shame".

 

So what would be your answer to stop it:confused:

[PriorityOne]

If I knew the answer to that one, I'd be earning a heck of a lot more than I am now.... lol.

 

To be honest though, there are far more serious things going on in the world than "cheating" the Benefits sytem.... so it wouldn't be the area I would tackle first anyway.... BUT if I was to come up with a suitable deterrant, I would make sure that tax evaders suffered the same consequence...

[setmefree]

If I knew the answer to that one, I'd be earning a heck of a lot more than I am now.... lol.

 

To be honest though, there are far more serious things going on in the world than "cheating" the Benefits sytem.... so it wouldn't be the area I would tackle first anyway.... BUT if I was to come up with a suitable deterrant, I would make sure that tax evaders suffered the same consequence...

So are you saying that benefit fraud isn't a serious matter..:o

[PriorityOne]

So are you saying that benefit fraud isn't a serious matter..:o

 

It's just not as serious an issue to me as it is to you.... ... and if it wasn't hyped up in such a big way by the media, it would probably end up being treated just as insignificantly as tax evasion by the well-off appears to be.

[Goldlady]

Example of benefit cheat employed by one of my clients. Has been working for past five years on very low wages using false ID. Benefits Agency have caught up with her. It now turns out that if she had declared her income she would actually have received more money - she was on income support and should have been claiming tax credit and housing benefit. Is that ignorance or the thought of getting something for nothing:confused:

[Guest louis wu]

It's just not as serious an issue to me as it is to you.... ... and if it wasn't hyped up in such a big way by the media, it would probably end up being treated just as insignificantly as tax evasion by the well-off appears to be.

 

 

Director of Finance Online - Directors jailed for accounting fraud

 

Now the penalty here is a deterant. I don't call that insignificant

 

 

 

Crawley Football Boss Accused Of Tax Fraud (from The Argus)

 

 

 

 

all named and shamed as well

[PriorityOne]

What I'm saying is that Benefit fraud is far more likely get reported as a moral outrage than tax evasion is.... you only have to scan the papers or watch daytime tv, at approx. 9.25 (yawn) to realise this...

 

Seeing as they're both public funds, so to speak..... then any deterrants should swing both ways, with an equal focus on the laws that have been broken and why. This doesn't happen.

 

Having said that, I wouldn't support any "name and shame" brigade. IMO, "shaming" won't work in the sense that you think it will anyway.... Very poor communities tend to stick together like glue and will rarely "dob each other in". If they do get caught, they'll just be more careful next time. I would also not dob anyone in either, in case you're wondering....

 

.... and before you leap on my case about only focussing upon poorer folk, it's because poorer folk are the ones more likely to commit Benefit fraud.... because they don't have the money in the first place; hence the reason why DWP offices are full of very depressed people without any money. The majority of these people are also claiming Housing Benefit and where once upon a time, HB covered the entire amount of rent, it hasn't done so now for many years. This means that any excess has to be paid from a person's Income Support.... I have known several people to be hundreds short each month ans don't/won't sit in judgement of anyone whose back is up against such a wall.

 

In terms of Disability Benefits, I do know that these aren't means tested and a great deal of abuse goes on here as well.... I don't have a solution for this by the way, but you have to ask yourself why so many people have sprung up on the Incapacity Benefit "register" over the years, particularly when Supplementary Benefit and Unemployment Benefit were cleverly re-named Income Support and Job-Seeker's Allowance, respectively. You take people off one list and they'll spring up on another... simple as that. Unemployment hasn't really gone down; it's just moved, whilst temporary contracts and the insecurity that goes with them has leaped up bigtime in recent years.

 

IMO, access to Benefits has become much harder, but the Government was wrong to assume that only genuine claimants would receive their entitlement. In reality, legislation has affected the genuine claimants a great deal more than the ones caught cheating the system... The Gov needs to get this right before allowing the media to run riot with stories about the scale of Benefit cheating by ordinary folk.... and I'm passing the buck back to the Gov. where it belongs.

 

As for naming and shaming affluent fraudsters, these are more likely to just move away and start up somewhere else... so what would be achieved ?

 

[setmefree]

P1 you seem to be more concentrated on tax evasion (fair point),benefit cheats who work cash in hand are also commiting tax evasion,it ain't as if they go into the tax office with their money is it.

[spencer1959]

there are exceptions i suppose. someone could easily make a mistake with there benifits i'm thinking here of the elderly getting confused etc. and claiming more than they were entitled to. That could happen and they would be thought of a crimials also.

[JOSH_IOU]

But why should tax payers pay to get an institution such as Northern Rock out of trouble? If it had been allowed to go down the loosers would have been the shareholders - that's what happens when a public company goes bust! But because this was a bank and the investors were mainly insurance companies, pension funds, hedge funds (ie big City names who made big noises) HMG decided to intervene. And now HMG is caught between a rock and a hard place as the shareholders will refuse to let it be sold for a price that reduces the value of their shareholding and if it's allowed to go bust now HMG will have lost in excess of £24billion of tax payers' money.

 

Ditto the missing CDs fiasco. You're a victim of identity fraud and you sue HMRC under the Data Protection Act. The tax payer will have to pay. Your bank account is emptied. Why should the banks (for once I am on their side) have to pay for this when the reason the fraudsters got the information was the loss of the CDs. So who will reimburse you? The tax payer.

 

The whole thing is set up so the tax payer ends up having to pay to sort out messes caused by other's incompetence.

 

 

I would have taken you seriously if you had said we instead of tax payers

[moggieb]

OK, regarding benefit cheats. My husband is 55yrs old. He has worked since he was 15. Three years ago he underwent a triple heart bypass and could have given up work and claimed benefits (like some we know who were far less ill), but he didnt-he was back at work within 10 weeks. My point is that ex school friends of his who still live across the road from his mother have never worked a day in their lives and neither have their children!! How on earth do they get away with this. We are talking about at least two generations here-possibly three as the grandparents have not worked for ages either although in all fairness they are by now entitled to their OAP (even if they haven't contributed fully). These are the true benefit cheats.

[PI Guy]

The local newspapers report on other criminal cases; I don't see why a benefits cheat deserves more privacy than, say, a drug dealer or a shoplifter.

I would go further and say that there should be a web site which publishes all court cases for anyone to refer to should they wish.

[JonCris]

Perhaps some of those who consider themselves paragons should take the time to read the following with article written by an expert in the field care. Those with an open mind should find it enlightening

 

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.

[PriorityOne]

Interesting point about moral panic at the end JC.... I mentioned this in one my earlier posts. IMO, it's also in the Gov's interests to make sure this moral panic flourishes on.... so that people don't question the inequalities in our society too much, the lack of job security, the low wages, poor housing, homelessness and so on.

 

Far easier to just imply that claimants are feckless, irresponsible, lazy, greedy and/or workshy and one of the most effective ways of doing this over the past 15/20 years has been through promoting the image of "stealing" from the pockets of "taxpayers". If I remember rightly, this line was introduced around the same time as the re-naming of two of the key Benefits :

 

Supplementary Benefit became Income Support

Unemployment Benefit became Job Seekers Allowance

 

... and with those changes, a fresh load of psychological implications were born, including the suggestion that there was an income to support in the first place and, that job seeker's had an allowance, similar to providing pocket-money to children in return for good behaviour... or in this case, being willing to accept any old job to avoid having your money chopped down or stopped altogether, regardless of whether it paid a living wage or not.

 

Very clever.

[sillygirl1]

Two years ago I signed on for the first time in 15 years, they were not very helpful at all, I was white, clearly speaking and writing English and had to do an English and Maths test, passed both with flying colours, especially as I did the maths without a calculator!

 

They said I had to do a course to 'satisfy regulations' and that was when I picked up on Japanese, come the 2012 Olympics I will be nearly retired and can be an intepreter....

 

I just got the basic JSA, no help with mortgage for 6 months then it would only be a portional payment, and had I had kids everything would have been done. Each time I went to sign on I had to take a logbook which showed what jobs I had applied for, and the response (mostly nothing). Luckily I managed to get a better job than my old one.

 

I am sure had I had a child I could have claimed a lot more benefit than the basic JSA and council tax benefit but everytime I tried to apply I was told don't even bother to fill in the forms...."

 

When I found a job they cut my benefit two weeks early as well! I was on benefits for less than 3 months.

 

Who was being cheated here?

[dave]

Trust me, as a man, it makes little difference if you have children or not.

 

In fact I'm currently being chased for benefit overpayments. I have never claimed any benefit, yet somehow they seem to have overpaid me!!????

 

....and this, from the same people that want a central register of all our details. Dream on.

[JonCris]

Trust me, as a man, it makes little difference if you have children or not.

 

In fact I'm currently being chased for benefit overpayments. I have never claimed any benefit, yet somehow they seem to have overpaid me!!????

 

....and this, from the same people that want a central register of all our details. Dream on.

 

Precisley8-) - sounds like ID theft to me:o

[MilkTrayMan]

But why should tax payers pay to get an institution such as Northern Rock out of trouble?...

 

I would have taken you seriously if you had said we instead of tax payers

As a law abiding taxpayer, I object to the use of the word WE.

WE = The even shorter version of a 'foreign' word for lickle.

As Northern Rock was primarily set up for the natives of the North East, there is also some doubt as to the use of ENGLISH taxpayers hard earned money subsidising those whose language isn't even ENGLISH!!!...:o :o :o

(...evidence as per BBC episodes of 'When the boat comes in' in the 1970's)

All this foreign influx/subsidisation is enough to make one seriously consider selling up + moving to somewhere like France.

...The place must be empty by now, surely??...lol

Besides, isn't the area around Bourdeaux, that the French have 'borrowed', traditionally English anyways??

...lol...

[JonCris]

Example of benefit cheat employed by one of my clients. Has been working for past five years on very low wages using false ID. Benefits Agency have caught up with her. It now turns out that if she had declared her income she would actually have received more money - she was on income support and should have been claiming tax credit and housing benefit. Is that ignorance or the thought of getting something for nothing:confused:

 

I think you should read this

 

Criminal law practitioners who know little of social security law are routinely acting for people charged with social security fraud offences. Injustices are occurring because of the lack of independent social security law expertise in many criminal cases. The following 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

Claimants 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 which exceeds the benefit claimed. 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.

[Goldlady]

Thanks for that JonCris - very useful article for a variety of reasons.

[JonCris]

Good Goldlady I hope it put matters for You & others into a more circumspect perspective. - You will see that much of the hype surrounding 'benefit cheats' is often just that - hype & claimants are being prosecuted simply for claiming the wrong benefit & have not cost the Exchequer, which includes you & I, a single penny more than they would have in the normal course of events

[Justforfun]

Interesting article,but Joncris what about those who are working full time and claiming benefits,such as the articles that have been shown in earlier posts..do you support these people:confused:

[patrickq1]

I cannot not get a penny in IB benefits ,and i am just out of hospital....all thanks to the DWP doctors who say i was faking illness

patrickq1

[Justforfun]

I cannot not get a penny in IB benefits ,and i am just out of hospital....all thanks to the DWP doctors who say i was faking illness

patrickq1

 

So doesn't that make you even more mad about those who are working full time,and screwing the system such as the earlier articles posted.

the genuine such as yourself get penalised,and the pro's who know all the cons in the system get the bloody lot.

[patrickq1]

yes it does sicken me that two or three peeps around this area seem to get everything ie sky broadband big tellys and yet i have been always cautious with spending till my illness,my SPECIALIST SURGEON is awaiting my DWP DOCTORS REPORTS under the FOI act,as he put it are these people i seen doctors,he has already written a report concerning my health to the DWP ,they in turn are not sending the DOCTORS REPORTS and beleive it or not even refused information to be given to my MP...so i can say yes i am angry but this week i began the complaint against them to ICE and also to the ICO ,as they are now 72 in breach of the act ,so i expect a result from them soon

patrickq1