To consider shopping a benefits fraud?

[jekyllnothyde]

Spent day with a friend who has v good reason for being on incapacity benefit because of her condition. also single mum with two preschool DCs and is in process of being reassessed under new disability rules. She is worried sick but also thinking while her condition is life-limiting and not made any easier by stresses of DCs whether she can realistically think of attempting to work. I really feel for her.
Meanwhile friend's has got himself switched of JSA on to disability benefits but everyone knows he is basically capable of working. He does physical work doing up where he lives and also does sport and keeps himself busy generally. Today made me really angry as on one hand someone who needs support is really trying to think how to deal with her illness and wonders if with help she could mange something while this guy is basically taking the piss and doesn't support his DD at all except basic minimum from CSA. None of my business, or is it?

YABU.

You don't have enough solid information to do so other than seeing him about, looking fit and the fact you think he's an arsehole.

If you did have proper info on whatever he was actually claiming then that might be different.

Pink/Tilly, noone is saying mind your own business when it comes to fraudulent claims.

What people are saying is "mind your own business until you know that a claim is fraudulent".

Or would you report a woman walking out of a shop with a pair of tights in her hand "because she might have shop-lifted them"? Or your wealthy neighbour "because they might be committing tax fraud"?

Noone would think of reporting another crime unless they had good reason to know it had been committed. But shopping disabled people without evidence is fine.

FloggingMolly, haven't you read the thread? Do you have any idea how disruptive this is to those who are genuine?

I support a young adult who has a learning disability. She doesn't look disabled and is on DLA and IB. She can do jobs in the house eg cleaning , ironing . cooking and even watering the Garden. She dies do some voluntary work in a cafe but is supported by staff there. She is unable to have a proper job because of her disability but to people in the street she looks fine. She is on DLA and IB. So unless you are really sure of your facts I would just leave him alone and nor report.

YANBU

You'll never have 'proper info'. Just give the facts/suspicions you have and the professionals will take it from there. In most cases nothing will happen, but the serious offenders will be punished - as they should be.

Doing nothing will just encourage others to do the same, and we end up with a society full of wasters. It would have been unthinkable to shop a neighbour 20 years ago, but equally no-one would have shamelessly played a benefit designed for the disabled (or at least - not so many people).

As a taxpayer, you have every right to ask where your money is going. It is 100% 'your business' if someone is taking the piss.

lassylass, have you not read the thread? Even if they are totally innocent, they could have their benefits stopped while being investigated. If someone is relying on benefits as their sole income, how are they supposed to buy basics such as food?

I've read the thread.

Pretty horrible for those who are genuine, but at the same time its a temporary upset and at the end of the day is for the greater good. I can see why those on benefits wouldnt want this kind of thing to happen, but as the taxpayer foots the bill its right that their needs take priority.

It's a temporary upset to be left for maybe 5 months without being able to pay your bills? What world are you living in, lassylass?

As a taxpayer who has never been on benefits, I don't actually think my rights not to have a fraction of my tax potentially misused take precedent over a disabled person's right to have a roof over their head.

I want genuine frauds shopped, of course I do. But I do not want to live in a society where neighbours are forever making the assumption that somebody must be fraudulent because we don't know they're not.

Any more than I would want my neighbours ringing the police accusing me of some other crime that they have no evidence I have ever committed
("Hi, is that the police station, I think you should investigate whether cory has been been shoplifting because she is wearing new socks. After all, your investigation won't hurt her if she hasn't").

Since benefit fraud is a crime, let's treat it as seriously as other crimes and not go bandying accusations around right left and centre.

I'm a taxpayer and not on benefits, I need to live in a society where compassion for the vulnerable and taking care of them takes priority over busy-bodying. I need this kind of thing not to happen and as lassylass says, my needs should take priority.

lassylass, you admit that it's 'Pretty horrible for those who are genuine' but you encourage people to do it to those they don't like much?

The government are about to start a crackdown on tax evasion. I hope you will feel the same when your neighbours report you for that - just because they don't like you.

I can well imagine that you'd be reported multiple times.

A temporary upset? If someone has no money coming in at all for a few months, how can you describe that as an upset?

No doubt you all think stop and search powers should be curtailed too.

Tax evasion - no different to benefit fraud. We should go as far as is necessary to stamp it out.

If it is the norm for people who are reported to go without benefits for 5 months (and I suspect it isnt) then the system of investigation needs to change, not the principle that we shop in those we suspect of abusing benefits.

Maybe some punishment for those found to be shopping people in maliciously is in order, but no doubt the investigators use their discretion anyway. Seeing as how these investigations cost tens of thousands of pounds, I imagine they are pretty well targetted where there is serious suspicion.

Allowing people to abuse the system so that genuine cases avoid upset isnt compassionate, its just daft.

It's not daft. Causing distress and upset to potentially 99.05% of sick and vulnerable people to try and catch the 0.05% who cheat it is callous.

Thanks for that, midnightservant. I've now picked through the byzantine regulations yet again and think you're right.

According to this, means-tested ESA is made up of the Prescribed Amount for a single person of £65.45 a week (ie Income Support rate) plus £31.40 Support Allowance for people deemed unlikely to be able to ever work or £25.95 Work-Related Activity Allowance for people deemed possibly able work in some years' time. All reduced for existing savings, etc.

So I'd missed the "plus" bit and you're right that means-tested ESA is indeed generally more than Income Support.

If the Govt is able to pass the Welfare Reform Bill, contribution-based ESA will be paid out for the first year of sickness only. So people with progressive conditions like the OP's friend will be moved onto means-tested ESA, having used up her "one year".

lassylass, I agree, they should change it so that benefits aren't stopped during the investigation.

It would be difficult to prove that someone reported maliciously.

Why not save your energies for campaigning against Billionares who cheat the whole country by avoiding tax?
Much better use of your time.

Oh, and let's not compare apples to oranges. Stop and search powers are a whole different kettle of fish - those are POLICE powers, utilised in completely different circumstances than benefit fraud investigators. (and as it happens, I worked for the police for years, and I don't think stop and search powers should be curtailed, not that it has ANYTHING to do with this discussion)

5 months without benefits is not an "upset" - it is a catastrophe, and for someone that is mentally ill, it could literally push them over the edge.

The OP would be ridiculously irresponsible to report this person. And I find it vastly amusing that she has not even bothered to answer my earlier question..

what if someone reported HER friend for fraud? She's claiming benefits due to illness/disability, she's out and about with her children, she's not working... How would she feel if her friend were reported and went for 5 months without her benefits while they were investigating her? After all, if she's genuine, it's just a minor "upset", right?

Why do you think the benefits will stop during the investigation? I know of someone who is being investigated and so far their benefits have not stopped.

advicenow.org.uk

They don't always stop it, but they often do.

Often the benefit section ?suspend? your benefit when they ask the fraud section to get involved. Suspending your benefit is different from stopping it: although you still don?t get any money, it means that the claim is still there so you won?t have to re-claim it when the problem is sorted out, if you are still entitled.

also directgov

"If you are suspected of committing benefit fraud you will be contacted by the Department for Work and Pensions or your local authority. You may be visited by Fraud Investigation Officers or be asked to attend an interview to discuss your claim. Your benefit may be suspended while the matter is looked into. If this happens, you should receive a letter explaining what will happen next."

The possible suspension of benefits will not begin until after an initial examination of the tip off to see whether there is likely to be a case to answer. Suspension is also very, very unlikely to happen until there is a large amount of persuasive evidence. It is never a step taken lightly.

That's okay then as the OP has NO persuasive evidence.

scaevola, do you have a link to support that as I didn't see that on the directgov site. It certainly sounded like suspend first and then pass it to the fraud dept to be investigated.

www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/BenefitFraud/DG_10035820
Lassylass, whilst it states that your benefit may be suspended, it many cases it is. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but as stated before, the governments own figures state that DLA fraud is less than half a percent. Yes that is still a significant amount, but any member of a compassionate society would not want that to happen to someone in genuine need. Ergo, reporting someone without full knowledge of the circumstances is not a compassionate step. In my experience, the (unwarranted) investigations mean a suspension of benefits. As I stated, my dh ended up in a mental health unit for a considerable period of time, leaving me to look after three disabled dds with no money and no help. Is that what you want in order to ensure your taxes are going to the 'right' people?

No links, just experience.

It's an area where judgement is applied.