Private companies checking benefit claimants

[Hammy02]

David Cameron is going to work with Experion to check that benefit claimants are not spending money that they should not have. I think it's a great idea. Why should taxpayers pay for someone who doesn't work to have Sky TV, a car or a huge TV? If they can afford these, either the benefits they are receiving are too high or they have another source of income. Surely benefits are to keep people out of poverty and that is all?

You should get one, MovingBeds- they're all the rage

ou know there was another of thsese threads recently.

And I can understand why when times are tight, and I have done the 2 parents working hardly seeing kids thing and know how hard it is, and demoralising to think maybe if you ahd less mroals you might be happier. Trust me I know- when we were doing it I was working for a charoity with quite a few cliinets in teh groups this thread is REALLY about. I woudln't have wanted thir hopeless lives mind.

At the time of the thread ASD DS1 was abshing his way from the (secure) garden into the house with a swingball spike and I had the boys all sat behind me in the room petrifiedm, and DH out with ds1 taking a beating.

Is that really what people envy? it's not one without the other after all. And it's not as if I get extra either for having two disabled kids to care for (not saying I should mind, one CA per carer is OK) and worry about.

One day though the working all hours people will retiire, or their kids will get tehmselves up and have lives and jobs.

Ours won't change though. When I am eightty I will still be working / caring, and still getting that ebating (if dss1 isnt in prison)

There was woman in the news wasnt there who handed her profoundly disabled daughter over to social services to pay for the care and wrote her memoirs about it. My daughters personal care would cost anything in excess of £600 per week for home care plus schooling on top or there is the option of a residential school for around the £100,000 mark. I wonder whether people really do resent the fact that families do actually look after their disabled children now, or not. I could always do what that woman did (though I don't want to) It would cost hell of alot more for the state but would cost me, financially, nothing. I would be able to get a flatcreen tv then.

Daughter or flatscreen tv:o

I'm not convinced the CC compnaies are going to be of much help - I know of huge swathes of people in "benefit land" who are unable to get any credit whatsoever because the data the CC compnaies hold is inaccurate (the address doesn't match etc) and so the computer says no.

Sancti, my friend has two disabled children and only gets paid once. I do udnerstand that. Life is bloody hard for some people. I cannot believe peopleget motobility car envy and flatscreen tv envy. Wtf is all about?

The £100,000 residential schooling is for ONE YEAR btw, in case anyone wondered.

There are carers of all ages in this country so that example would work for all kinds of scenarios. then you have people with disabilities themselves who manage to keep independance in their own homes and indeed DO save the state money whilst 'maybe' claiming benefits. I think perspective is needed on this really :(

This man appears to be on a one-way track to pillory and punish the poorest in society. He'd probably charge for daylight if he could!

We're not on benefits, but I'd imagine many who buy this sort of stuff have a lot of debt.

As for a car not being essential, please!

We live in a semi-rural area. Without a car, DH wouldn't be able to do his shift job because the bus doesn't run past 10PM and it's too far to walk. I'm sure you think we should just up and move, but we haven't got the £2000 or so that would cost.

Personally, I'm more concerned about my taxes going to subsidise: the Queen, who's a billionnaire, a new kitchen for SamCam when the one in there is perfectly workable and well, no. 10 isn't her fucking house anyhow, bailouts for banks now posting record profits for some execs and shareholders whilst screwing small business, wars, etc.

"Personally, I'm more concerned about my taxes going to subsidise: the Queen, who's a billionnaire, a new kitchen for SamCam when the one in there is perfectly workable and well, no. 10 isn't her fucking house anyhow, bailouts for banks now posting record profits for some execs and shareholders whilst screwing small business, wars, etc."

Quite

I'm with Sacti on this one and want to back her up.
Threads like this really upset me. I worked until 2 years ago, when dd's SN became too much to cope with in line with a job.
We get DLA and carer's. DH works but has had to reduce his hours to fit in with getting dd to her school some distance away. I take dd2 to school. And we have a car (!)

There is nothing I would like more than to resume my career and have a life outside of these four walls. We are not benefit scroungers and I think we are as entitled as anyone to have a decent standard of living.
I hate the sweeping generalisations that everyone on benefits is a work-shy scrounger - who would ever choose to have a child with a disability, with all of the stress and heartache it can bring?

We have nothing to hide, but I resent this attitude that anyone on benefit has skewed
priorities and is unable to be trusted to budget properly.

Ok, rant over. Oh, and we have an ancient, second hand TV.

I agree with most of the posters here but equally think that benefit fraud SHOULD be tackled - that way there is more in the pot for those who genuinely need it. There will always be those who manage to defraud the system though.

Well said expat.

It's as if the bankers ran off with our dinner and are eating it in front of us while the government dole out stale bread. To stop us complaining, they are pointing out that someone else has got a bigger bit of bread than you, and encouraging us to beat them up.

Hear hear sibling - as Mum of a child with SN too I am concerned about the benefit cuts which might happen. I am fortunate enough to be able to work part-time (school hours). I have a flat screen TV, a car (lease), Virgin Cable, wireless broadband and a phone. I live my life, I worked full time friom the age of 16 to 43 so I refuse to feel any guilt!

I have nothing against the government cracking down on fraud where it exists - lets face it, even if the money involved is little more than a token gesture it's got to be better than nothing, right?

But the attitude that people have to benefits claimants is often utterly disgusting. Why shouldn't I have a flatscreen television? In case you haven't looked in the shops recently, flatscreen televisions are the only ones on sale now. When our television broke, DP sold his guitar and we got ourselves a cheapy one from amazon.

Sancti is right, too. Up until now, my DLA has meant that we didn't bother claiming tax credits. We could manage. But we're going to need that cushion now, because ESA is hardly the safest benefit to be on, especially when you have an invisible disabilty like epilepsy.

I dare say it's my own fault for being unemployed, but honestly, the DDA doesn't really help when you're looking for work. There are a thousand ways for an employer to dodge the health issues I have. Most of them involve telling me I "don't have enough experience", rather than "we don't want you having fits on company time". Why should I scrape by on the poverty line because I happen to have an electrical malfunction in my brain? Why should I be unable to budget for a car for DP to drive because there are few enough jobs out there for employers to be picky about who they hire? I paid my tax and NI contributions while I was working, and I will gladly pay them again if someone will give me a job, but the fact is, a large portion of people on benefits live off of them because society doesn't give a damn about them. Why should we also be denied even the smallest pleasures in life because it costs the lucky ones a few extra pence per month?

Yes, I know the gravy train has crashed. But that doesn't change the fact that there are thousands of people who were never on it in the first place, and have nowhere else to go now but into even worse poverty.

If they're planning on using Experian, then I would imagine those they're trying to identify are the organised professional fraudsters, not ordinary folk on benefits.

I don't have a problem with routing these people out, the ones with numerous identities, various housing benefit claims etc, they're defrauding us all. Like this case or this one. Probably rare, but worth going after purely because of the sums involved.

As the whether or not it'll actually achieve anything, well I'm just not that sure. Still it gives us another opportunity to bring up the great FST debate yet again.

As I've said before, if you're a net benefit recipient, your opinion on this matter is of little consequence as far as I'm concerned.

If you're a net taxpayer, you have every right to contribute and be heard.

Is that in the current tax year, or over a our lives Barmy?

(The 'FST' plus the 'but I'm a genuine claimant' it's everyone else that's bent' debate ).

The benefits system has been allowed to run out of control for many years - adminstrative errors, over-complexity, fraud, unfairness, exploitation, all kinds of problems. Labour didn't tackle it at all and, if anything, just made it more complex and more open to abuse in their quest to eradicate 'child poverty' through the horrendous tax credit scheme. This government has a once in a 20 year opportunity to get to grips with the welfare state, think the unthinkable & do the previously un-do-able. I still don't quite understand how Experian can help matters but, if they can, fantastic.

I would have thought that benefits scuzzers would buy their 87" plasmas as a hooky item, off the back of the van. How does Iggle Piggle Cameron hope to police that?

[/heavy sarcasm]

How considerate, Barmy. I'm sure all the disabled people out there who are physically incapable of being 'net taxpayers' are really touched by your concern.

Honestly, I know plenty of net recipients out there who would love to be worthy of your esteem, but unfotunately, it's cheaper in the short term to toss them on the scrapheap than it is to remedy the problems which led them to where they are. I knew a woman who had been abused by her husband, who also abused her children, and who became addicted to drugs and alcohol. She got off them, but her health meant that she couldn't keep a job down, despite being hugely creative and applying pretty much everywhere. What she needed was support getting over her addictions, and probably counselling to help her psychological issues, but that costs money up front, so it was cheaper for the government to let her live on JSA and dump her in a one bedroom flat as her children had left home. The last I heard of her, her son was supporting her, but her health meant that his work performance was suffering and he was probably going to lose his job, and therefore the house he lived in with her. So one sick woman and governmental neglect leads to two people on benefits.

It all adds up you know. Sometimes it even actually pays to have a shred of compassion.

Oh, that's a shame, BarmyArmy- is it too late to pretend I am in receipt of benefits so you won't talk to me?

Please let me know who has the right to contribute and be heard on all the other threads- it must be exhausting running MN.

"One firm, Experian, said it was in talks with ministers over a deal which could see it paid according to the number of cheats it uncovers."

Ah yes, so no incentive to accuse people wrongly then?

*the husband also abused her children. She didn't. Sorry, that wasn't very clear.

So BarmyArmy and Chil1234, are you first in the queue to come and do some caring for my profoundly disabled daughter? (pending a crb check of course) I could do with a rest

I just don't see the big deal over sky.

Sky = telephone and cheap internet access

Telephone and internet access = essential job hunting tools

I think this thread has diverged, as it often seems to do on MN lately, from a reasonable statement about the Cameron government plans to use Experian to check financial facts about people to a benefits argument. I don't think most of us consider those who have worked and paid tax all their lives and who happen to become ill or unemployed or a carer because of disabled children should have their spending decisions strapped. Its not about that at all, its about making sure that those who are claiming benefits of different kind are entitled to them. Lots of people do not tell HMRC about changes in their circumstance or they tell them incorrect changes. Yesterday as a case in point a lady started a thread in Moneymatters about having claimed tax credits as a single parent all the while being supported by her husband who was living abroad. Well, in her case the HMRC could have checked her statement through Experian and found that the husbans home address and mortgage details were still the same and hence her claim could have been denied. Its THAT sort of thing Experian should be used for and what I understand it will be used for. There is a lot of people who also work cash-in-hand while claiming unemployment benefits or whatever so these issues may also be highlighted.

I have all sympathy with genuine claimants and I hope your lot in life improves.

ExpatinScotland: SamCam are actually paying for the improvement out of their own pocket. Now obviously aristocratic Sam can afford to but since its her money why do we care. As for the Queen. Well, if we stopped requiring her to entertain statesmen in splendour her bills would decrease too. But I think many people would like her to carry on doing that for the benefit of UK Plc and Diplomacy - cheaper than keeping presidents I'd say. Even if monarcy is abolished we'd still have to pay for the castles and the royal families retirement. Can't have national heritage falling down can we? If that's what people want then fine but somehow I don't think so. Scrutinise the outgoings is still a good idea, I give you that!

What if people on benefits buy expensive organic vegetables?

Does that make them more or less likely to be committing fraud? I get confused...