What are YOUR opinions on 'shopping' someone?

[Nystagmite]

Aren't those situations different though? A lot of benefit fraud is hearsay, which is different to seeing someone in the act of stealing something or mugging someone.

[jadeybags]

It's all a bit of a no win situation though someone letting them know they are earning an extra £10 a week, they take 70p out of every pound out of it, so if someone did an hours cleaning & got paid £10 they would actually only get £3 of it?

Sorry but I can totally see why folk do it.

They'd have to work 3 hours to actually earn £10? Or am I seeing it wrong?

[Nystagmite]

There is the income disregard too. Not sure where the 70p comes from? But I seem to remember that different benefits have different rules.

[Shoelover]

Interesting thread.

 

So is there a threshold at which pekoe stopped thinking "live and let live" and started considering reporting someone?

 

For what It's worth, I feel that at times the rules do seen unfair, but unfortunately they are just that - rules. It's a simple fact that because of people that do abuse the system the genuinely needy are having to jump though ever increasing hoops.

 

Most benefit clmt's are honest and abide by the rules, it's the ones that don't that have ruined it for everyone else

[antone]

I noticed that too same posters moaning about daily signing on the above link and this thread.

 

It would have been nice for the site team member or member's to send a simple PM to the CAG user/users, explaining why there post had been deleted or edited in the 1st place !

 

Instead it's just complete silence, which just Inflames the situations ....

 

 

I sometimes send PMs to explain why posts have been deleted, but not always. Sometimes I don't because the post I deleted was collateral damage - it quoted or was in response to something offensive, even though the actual poster involved did nothing wrong. Other times I don't bother to send a PM because the poster, IMO, should already know why the post was unacceptable. And I really can't stress this enough, we orange people all have lives to live, jobs to do, families to spend time with, episodes of Game of Thrones to watch etc.

 

But, as I noted above, you are welcome to PM me to ask why a post was deleted. Deleted posts are still visible to ST members - if there's an obvious mistake been made, it can be fixed.

[antone]

Interesting thread.

 

So is there a threshold at which pekoe stopped thinking "live and let live" and started considering reporting someone?

 

For what It's worth, I feel that at times the rules do seen unfair, but unfortunately they are just that - rules. It's a simple fact that because of people that do abuse the system the genuinely needy are having to jump though ever increasing hoops.

 

Most benefit clmt's are honest and abide by the rules, it's the ones that don't that have ruined it for everyone else

 

Well, to be fair, it's not really the dishonest claimants (and I agree that there are some of those) who have "ruined it". They're just the excuse - the present government wants to ruin the benefit system as a matter of ideology.

 

But in the end, a decision on whether to make a fraud report would be a personal one for me. It is not my duty to police others or enforce the law, in any area, although I suppose I can conceive of situations where I might consider a report. I just haven't encountered such a situation in real life yet.

 

Here on CAG I am particularly sensitive to the idea that people who are worried that what they are doing is fraud might not ask questions if they think we, as an organisation, or our posters in general, might shop them. I'd much rather people felt free to ask here and to be advised than for them to be scared of us.

[Shoelover]

As people on here are anon (and rightly so) then the risk of being shopped is very very low.

 

I do disagree with you to some extent. Yes the government do vilify benefit clm'ts but the dishonest ones make it easier for them to do so.

[antone]

As people on here are anon (and rightly so) then the risk of being shopped is very very low.

 

I do disagree with you to some extent. Yes the government do vilify benefit clm'ts but the dishonest ones make it easier for them to do so.

 

On the first point - it doesn't matter. Yes, the risk of being shopped is low, but these people are scared.

 

On the second point, well, the number of people who are just out-and-out fraudsters is tiny. I wish it were zero, but then I'd also like world peace and a pony. The question, really, is the extent to which the problem is overstated for political ends. Is the problem really so huge that we must further impoverish millions of people in genuine need in order to catch a few thousand criminals? I submit that it is not. Or should we lock up all carpenters on the grounds that their tools could, possibly, allow them to break into houses?

[Shoelover]

Can I start by saying how nice it is to be able to debate something in such a civilised manner.

 

There is a case for investigating benefit fraud in cases where there are good grounds to suspect that case is fraudulent. I accept the very nature of an investigation intrusive (depending on the matter at hand- sometimes it is a simple enquiry that can confirm or deny the allegation) but if the investigation is conducted in a professional and polite manner and there are good grounds to make those enquiries then I can't see the issue.

 

Sadly there are also vindictive people that abuse the reporting system as a way of settling scores and getting revenge which means sometimes investigations are not needed.

 

I also think there is a clear distinction between the desperate out to make ends meet and the downright greedy ripping the system off! The former I have sympathy for the latter deserve everything they get.

 

I think we both wish people just behaved and acted with integrity and the world would be a better place. If only eh

[BankFodder]

@45002

 

I'm sorry but you are steadlily trying to take this thread off-topic. I will be deleting some of your posts. Please don't make me put you on moderation.

Edited May 8, 2014 by ims21

[45002]

I'm sorry but you are steadliny trying to take this thread off-topic. I will be deleting some of your posts. Please don't make me put you on moderation.

 

I will just carry on collecting information then and Will not post any more in this part of CAG !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason for Editing: "this" added "the" removed.

Edited May 8, 2014 by 45002
"this" added "the" removed

[BankFodder]

I will just carry on collecting information then and Will not post anymore in the part of CAG !

 

As you wish.

We have been warned.

[estellyn]

I have never actually "shopped" anyone, as I always looked at it this way; It doesn't involve me, nor does it affect me & it's simply not my business!!

 

As none of us truly knows what exactly goes on behind a neighbours/friends etc closed doors!

 

Over the years I've heard "gossip" about "this & that" so & so claiming benefits fraudently, as I'm sure we all have to some degree!

 

I've also (through a friend who got caught few years ago) seen the effect it had on her & her family, as my friend went through the fraud investigation & subsequent Court action.

 

And which reaffirmed my "not shopping anyone"...

 

Then a few months ago, this came to light;

 

Mrs X whose on ESA & who also claims HB, CT for their 2 bed Council flat as a single person.

 

Nothing wrong with this so far!

 

BUT this Mrs X is not single (as she got back with her Ex husband & he moved in with her 5 years ago) & they have been living together in the Council flat since then. So the Council are NOT aware he is there or that he works full time & has done so for years.

 

A few months ago, they both moved from the 2 bed flat into Mrs X, MIL (mother in law) 3 bed Council house. As she is ill.

 

And she has NOT given up the 2 bed council flat as her top up rent isn't much, so the 2 bed flat lies empty (well its got bare essentials in case the Council call round) & HB & CT benefits continue to pay for it!

 

Mrs X has no intentions of telling the Council anything, so she continues to get all her benefits paid, as though she's a single person living in a 2 bed council flat.....

 

*So what would you do? Where is the line between fraud cases you wouldn't report to those you would report be drawn?

 

 

It would depend....how did I know this information, is it just from general gossip? Do I know the people involved and am making assumptions, or are the people involved bragging about their fraud?

 

 

If they were bragging, then I would first tell them what they were doing is fraudulent and that I found it offensive that they were committing such a fraud and also that they were bragging. I would then give them the opportunity to end the fraud themselves, cancel their fraudulent claims and give up the council house, rather than reporting them and have them prosecuted. If they were then still bragging to people and had done nothing, then I think maybe I would, in these circumstances, inform.

 

 

But then again it still is dependant on the circumstances. I knew a woman (client) who was a battered woman. Her husband was very controlling and had in the past not let her have any money and she had no means of escape until she eventually was helped to leave him and go to a hostel. She then had been provided with council housing. Then, like many battered women, she had let her husband back into her life (they had children) and had fallen for the 'it will be better this time, I won't do it again' line. She moved back in with him but had secretly kept her benefits and council house so that she had somewhere to go if it all went bad again. Now I can't condone what she did - she committed fraud, but faced with those circumstances, I certainly wouldn't feel able to inform authorities regarding the fraud. All I would be able to do is warn her about what she is risking.

[essexmat]

Well my next door neighbour, an elderly gentleman, needed some garden work doing as his gardner is away on hols and when I saw him at the shops earlier he asked if I would come in and pull some weeds up and do a bit for him - I like the bloke and he has been unwell and never even thought of getting paid. I done about an hours worth of work for him and he offered me £10 which I declined but he insisted I done him a big favour and would be upset if I did not take it - so, should I tell the DWP I 'earnt' £10 for doing someone a favour cash in hand? Not likely

[f16]

essexmat

 

You "Declined" the offer of "payment".

The "elderly gentleman" therefore gave you a "Gift".

Obviously if it continued on a "regular" basis you could not use that "defense".

 

May I also add:

Interesting "topic" for debate. Which IMO is very thought prevoking and emotive subject.

I'm glad that the "Site Team" did not "delete" the thread.

[fletch70]

I think I missed a few alerts so afraid I will be covering some old ground

 

Why is benefit fraud just hearsay? I , and I think most people are talking about where we know that on balance there is fraud going on. Now maybe I am naive but if I "shop" someone surely there is a process and they do not just stop the benefit without looking to see if here is a case?

 

I also think that genuine fraud is very low and is used as an excuse to make the system more difficult to navigate. IMO the bigger problem is benefit abuse which is that of people who treat benefits as a lifestyle choice.

To give a couple of examples, in the group I attend there is one guy who claims he has been offered a job but needs a copy of his birth certificate . His reasons for not being able to get it are that he can't afford it. He was offered the money upfront to apply for it online, he was offered the money upfront to get the bus and go and queue to get it , he didn't take it, he then said he had done it online but failed to bring the receipt in or proof, now he is saying it will take 6 weeks to arrive. Nothing has been done because he can play the system

Another old boy (61) gets sanctioned because he hasn't applied for enough jobs yet he has literacy issues and is offered no help, he doesn't have a PC and the types of jobs he even has a remote chance of getting are almost non existent due to his age and fitness/health. He had worked all his life in hard graft manuel jobs

 

 

On the point of online admissions...there is a guy on a freeman site who open brags about not having filled in a tax return for 4 years and his fines are at £4000 and climbing , as well as the non payment of tax. Now I would cheerfully shop him but I have no idea who he is or even if what he says is true.

[Raven1]

I haven't read through this entire thread but I would like to say most 'dobbing in' is generally done by friends who have had an argument and the person who does it usually regrets it when they have calmed down. By then the wheels are in motion and cannot be stopped. I worked in the housing benefits office some years ago and remember many people calling back later to try and withdraw their report and you had to tell them once a report is made there is a legal requirement to investigate, it cannot be stopped.

 

Personally I would never report anyone for this. While I did that job I was fully aware some of my neighbours appeared to be not declaring income but you cannot hope to know what someone's circumstances are or how 'one more thing' might tip them over the edge.

 

The worst thing was when when a neighbour was reported and I knew they were under investigation, yet I could do nothing to warn them about it because they might have blurted out that I told them.

 

If you are going to fiddle benefits don't tell anyone, especially not your nearest and dearest, this is not advice just an observation.

[Raven1]

BTW *irregular* gifts of money to benefit claimants are perfectly legitimate and do not in any way constitute fraud as long as they do not take their capital over the limits for their claim.

[Nystagmite]

BTW *irregular* gifts of money to benefit claimants are perfectly legitimate and do not in any way constitute fraud as long as they do not take their capital over the limits for their claim.

 

Does the income disregard thing come into play here? or is that a completely different thing?

[Raven1]

A gift of money is a completely different thing.

 

It is a GIFT and it is most importantly IRREGULAR.

 

It is not income, income is earned and regular.

[*RainbowTears*]

It would depend....how did I know this information, is it just from general gossip? Do I know the people involved and am making assumptions, or are the people involved bragging about their fraud?

 

 

If they were bragging, then I would first tell them what they were doing is fraudulent and that I found it offensive that they were committing such a fraud and also that they were bragging. I would then give them the opportunity to end the fraud themselves, cancel their fraudulent claims and give up the council house, rather than reporting them and have them prosecuted. If they were then still bragging to people and had done nothing, then I think maybe I would, in these circumstances, inform.

 

 

But then again it still is dependant on the circumstances. I knew a woman (client) who was a battered woman. Her husband was very controlling and had in the past not let her have any money and she had no means of escape until she eventually was helped to leave him and go to a hostel. She then had been provided with council housing. Then, like many battered women, she had let her husband back into her life (they had children) and had fallen for the 'it will be better this time, I won't do it again' line. She moved back in with him but had secretly kept her benefits and council house so that she had somewhere to go if it all went bad again. Now I can't condone what she did - she committed fraud, but faced with those circumstances, I certainly wouldn't feel able to inform authorities regarding the fraud. All I would be able to do is warn her about what she is risking.

 

 

Sadly the facts about Mrs X & what she's doing are all very true! I've seen & read benefit paperwork re Mrs X benefits. And I visited on a regular basis 2 both the 2 bed flat (when she lived here) & the 3 bed house she now is living at with her OH & MIL....

 

I've also spoken on a few occasions (since I found out) to Mrs X about what's going on & that she could end up in serious trouble. But I may as well save my breath as the way Mrs X looks at it; is that she's got away with it for the last 5 years & it's "her money"!!!

 

There's a twist to Mrs X case as well (which I won't disclose) but it's one that favours Mrs X in the long run & will **** many people off!

 

Especially added to the fact Mrs X OH works full time & with no bills (as such) to pay, they do have plenty of cash for nice things & the exotic holidays they go on.

 

There is absolutely no DV or abuse of any kind in Mrs X relationship with her ex husband. No kids are involved as they never had any.

 

It simply is fraud on quite a scale! I had no idea any off this was going on, up until a few months ago, when Mrs X approached me & admitted to it as there was a concern regarding the part I won't disclose.

 

Whilst I won't "shop" her, I do wish I'd never been told. As a consequence it affected our friendship!

 

I do believe in karma & I'm sure it will pay a visit one day.....

[Shoelover]

Now maybe I am naive but if I "shop" someone surely there is a process and they do not just stop the benefit without looking to see if here is a case?.

 

Benefit is never just stopped on the back of an anon call. The information is graded and risk assessed first. If an investigation is carried out then the claim is not stopped unless there is evidence that the claim is incorrect. Sometimes if an allegation is disproved then the investigation can be closed without the clm't ever even knowing there was one. Sometimes they are invited to come along to the office to make a statement confirming their circumstances (this would be done by compliance officers at DWP but local councils vary as to where this job sits). If the person fails to attend these appointments the claim is suspended.

 

To conduct surveillance or access peoples bank accounts then there needs to be some evidence that offences are being committed - fishing trips are not permitted.

 

So to answer your question, the anon call is just the start of a chain of events that may lead to benefits being stopped.

[morgandlin]

As an ex DWP worker, and now an ESA claimant, I can see it from both sides, I suppose.

 

First of all, be warned, they CAN and do link to bank accounts, via the Inland Revenue etc.,., - they no longer need suspicion or good reason etc., and, they can (if they choose to) access ANY accounts. Do not try to hide savings, as the Revenue link brings them up. The rules changed some time back. This is why so many people get caught through their savings accounts they haven't declared.

 

As for reporting, well, no, I wouldn't (personally) because it's nothing to do with me, and unless it was any crime involving kids, I wouldn't get involved.

 

However, benefit fraud is illegal, and it cannot be justified by the old 'oh, yeah,, but x is also doing y, so it's ok if I fiddle the benefit system'.

 

Bank robbers do not make shoplifting right, and politicians sc*mming do not make benefit fraud right.

 

However, anonymous reports tend to be treated with more wariness than 'reporters' giving their details, simply because not every allegation can be investigated, and there are so many hoax anon reports.

 

It's a matter of personal conscience.

 

Lin

Edited May 20, 2014 by morgandlin

[snowy101]

Interesting topic , made me think & reflect.

 

I grew up with the golden rule of " no matter what, keep schtum " , never be a grass & mind your business. I must add , i did`t grow up in the Kray family or have reason to " keep schtum " . It was a regular council estate but we all knew the code , this was back in the late 60`s & early 70`s when i was a kid , there were a few duckers & divers & a certain criminal element but the vast majority of people were decent , honest & hard working . When the factory`s closed & the work dried up , people did what they had to do to survive.

 

I still adhere to that philosophy today , i would never grass. I don`t understand how going to the very people that sanction , trick & deceive you, force you to live on a pittance , will send you on any number of soul destroying , belittling & degrading " back to work " schemes , tax you on an extra bedroom, is the right thing to do.

They have their fraud departments & inspectors, let them do their own work.

There is a world of difference between someone getting a few quid on the side to help the family through the week & someone making a career out of benefit fraud. The later is wrong, the first [ IMO ] is necessity + opportunity & that combination is guaranteed to make the most righteous, law abiding person think twice. It is up to them to catch the offenders, not me.

There is so much corruption from the politicians down & they will always get the golden handshake & be allowed out the back door , does that justify benefit fraud? , of course not. It certainly shows that fraud & criminality are dealt with differently according to one`s bank balance & supposed status . You can make " an error of judgement " if you`re a politician , you get fined & /or jailed if you`re signing on & struggling to feed yourself / family. That is not a profound statement or any kind of revelation to anyone, it is the way it is & probably always will be, but i could`t bring myself to inform on anyone.

[worried33]

My view might not be liked by some on here but basically its this.

 

I would most likely not shop anyone but something that will make it more likely.

 

If they brag about it like they think its cool.

If they claim they raking it in, having a very good lifestyle.

If I was absolutely 100% sure they doing something wrong.

 

So if there was 'any' doubt at all I would defenitly not shop someone, and especially if its clear they financially struggling so they just trying to survive. I think there is far bigger crimes and I don't even see this as a real crime, its just someone trying to survive, the alternative could be e.g. to turn to real crime such as burglary or mugging.

 

Plus the government is always going on about a work ethic, if someone is doing cash in hand at least they have some kind of work going on.

 

I also think shopping someone should not be anonymous, there needs to be a deterrent against people who decide to be evil and do a false accusation to cause trouble for that person.