Benefits fraud- what is the general feeling about it?

[Hadtoask]

I have changed my name and I’m posting with trepidation! I really am aware that I might sound heartless and mean. I will not be reporting this person but Im just interested to hear how other people feel about this. People may be very horrible to me and in this case I won’t be back! Sorry but not brave enough for an onslaught.

I won’t do the dreaded drip feed but I will have to be vague about a few details because I wouldn’t want the family identified.

So- a family I know had all their children removed from their care by the courts some years ago. They were a very large family. It is a permanent situation and the children will not be returning to their birth parents.

Despite many years passing the parents are still receiving benefits and tax credits for all of the children.

On the one hand I feel it’s really sloppy administration and makes a mockery of the benefits system. The tax payers are paying a lot of money in support for this family who are all in foster care. As well as supporting the parents who are on benefits. And now it’s come to light that there are tax credits paid to the parents for all of the children too.

I also feel that in some ways it’s probably this money that is holding their mother back from working. I feel she would really benefit from the structure and satisfaction of working. She has always claimed benefits and has never really stood on her own feet. She’s 40 ish.

On the other hand I feel that having lost her children she is very needy and this money will be very important to her. I can’t begrudge her anything because I feel extremely sorry for her.

I would not report this family but I definitely feel conflicted. I wonder how often this sort of thing goes on whilst there are people struggling to claim what they need.

Apologies if I sound really awful and mean. I’m just surprised at this situation and the money is not going to good use. I know this but cannot give details for risk of identifying them.

@blubelle7 - Exactly - which makes me think its a crock of sh*t

They're scroungers, report them.

@BrickTop999

Oh yes working hours, God forbid SAHM and SAHD use social media or MN during the least they are labelled work shy benefit scroungers.

It may also interest you to know only 6% of British workers work traditional hours as most do shift work or flexible hours, so plenty of working people can be on MN at this or any time.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-45253060

As pp said,they'll have to pay it back so the sooner this is stopped, the better they'll be in the long run.

Also you said they'd be happier & have a purpose if they worked - so better for them in that regard too.

For all those posters asking how someone would know other people's financial situation there are certain jobs where you would absolutely know for sure. A support worker is just one example, just use a bit of imagination.

And some people are not exactly shy about bragging about what they are getting either

Most of the people I know who have been claiming benefits long term, wouldn't even get a job working for their own families or friends because they are mostly unemployable.
Just think about the worst people who appear on those benefit bashing shows - would you employ them? Of course you wouldn't, so what do we do with people like that?
Please don't say workhouses and I know a lot of you are inching to reintroduce them .

I knew when my neighbour was being threatened with court action her opened post blew onto my garden

benefits fraud is definitely bad and definitely a crime and should always be reported.

however:
no big bureaucratic system will ever be perfect so there will always be cases thay fall the wrong side of the line defined by the rules for who should get what. therefore the lines should be drawn such that we can be certain that they don't cause any unwarranted tragedy, and put up with the inevitable consequence that there will be some piss-takers exploiting the rules to get money they don't deserve. there should be case by case management so those people can be found and identified and prevented from claiming, but the rules shouldn't be changed to eliminate the possibility of such cases because to do so would also make it inevitable that some deserving family or individual is failed by the state when at their most vulnerable and that is worse than the existence of benefit fraud.

people shouldn't lose all their benefits automatically if a child is taken into care. sometimes these measures are only temporary and there is a chance that if the parents sort themselves out the children will be allowed back. if that is definitely not going to happen then benefits should be gradually withdrawn, with sufficient notice and support. no one loses their kids if they are fully capable of adult functionality - either a social worker or probation officer or someone should be monitoring the parents for whatever behaviour or inadequacy led them to lose their kids. in an ideal world that person should have the responsibility to manage the gradual weaning off child- related benefits but all such services are chronically and desperately underfunded to the extent that it is probably cheaper to turn a blind eye to these rare cases rather than correctly fund the appropriate person to manage it better.

to put this in context though:

amount lost to tax payers from benefit fraud - DWP estimate £1.2bn per year

amount lost to tax payers from inadvertent overpayments and mistakes - DWP estimate £1.4bn per year

amount of benefits which are legitimately due to people but unclaimed (due to ignorance of what they are entitled to, pride, or inability to engage with the bureaucracy) - HMRC estimates £16bn per year

amount lost to tax payers due to evasion or avoidance of legitimate taxes, usually by the wealthy - HMRC estimate £30bn per year or maybe up to £120bn per year according to non governmental estimates.

the press love to whip up hate against benefit cheats. what are they trying to distract our attention from, I wonder?

@ellues you make some really interesting points. Thank you.

@ElluesPichulobu A very reasoned response and you are right - there is far more money left unclaimed each year.

@slipperywhensparticus That's hilarious!

I trust you closed your eyes and put it back in the envelope

I claimed the child tax element of WTC some years ago. The amount of hassle I had to go through each year for a nominal sum was such a pain. I then forgot to update HMRC when DC got free hours and had to provide paperwork in relation to that. More hours spent.

The warnings given by HMRC were enough to terrify me!

I then had to pay back a modest amount as they had overpaid me.

I really don't think it's worth the hassle!

OP Have you seen bank statements?

FWIW, I believe you when you say you know for sure they are receiving the additional benefits. I have an idea you are a lot closer to the family than some are suggesting actually

I think in relation to them both being able to work but choosing not to, really is not any of our business. That is down to the system to manage

However, if they are fraudulently claiming that their DC are still at home, and they are not, then you should report. Else they will be even further up shit creek when it is noticed and they have to pay it all back

I don't think you need to say how you know, Jesus this isn't a court case where evidence has to be provided. If someone doesn't believe the op, then move onto another thread, troll hunting isn't ok.

@WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles surely if you don’t believe me just don’t involve yourself in the conversation?

@Bluntness thank you.

I’m not going to give details or proof of how I know. Anyone thinks I’m making up a story to post online for no reason other than idiocy then scroll by. Ridiculous that you would need me to prove anything. How would that even work?

It always strikes me that people bragging about benefit fraud are stupid to the point they probably qualify for support anyway. A determined fraudster who is choosing not to work would be more guarded and stealthy.

I'm very much of the opinion that it's always best to keep my nose out of other people's finances.
I know it's not fair and it's not nice if that's truly the case, however hmrc will catch up with them and they'll have to pay it all back especially if the foster parents go on to make a claim for benefits.

And if they are in dire straights and struggling to repay they'll be given an option to agree to a payment plan that suits them.

Personally I just prefer to mind my own business.

@ElluesPichulobu

Very interesting reading. I'd like to see the amount lost to tax payers on investigations that are the result of unsubstantiated reports by 'concerned' members of the public that actually are based on bugger all, spite and misinformation. Like the poster upthread saying about people on here in working hours. I was reported because apparently I lie in bed all day, well 4/5 days a week I do because I work nights! I don't claim anything from the DWP but that little spite report would have cost the tax payer some of their hard earned cash because it went round to Tax credits for investigation (who found that I'd been reported for exactly what I'd declared to them) - how much did that cost then I wonder? And why is it ok to waste tax payers money like that? For spite against someone? People doing this kind of thing should be accountable for their report, and give their reasons why, and if it's proven that it's spite and all bollocks, made to pay the cost of the investigation.

And as for the 2 child support rule, well I think it'd have been a better idea to make child support mandatory for absent parents. Because I'd bet there's far more men who have procreated and fucked off than women who are using pregnancy and benefits as a career. Taking child support straight from wages or benefits, giving it to the resident parent and then because it's reliable, taking it into consideration when calculating benefits, would cut the welfare bill straight away. Might make men think a bit more about taking responsibility for their fertility too rather than moving on with no worries about having to deal with the concequences.

When you've had a false report made about you based on fuckall, and 85% of reports to the helpline were false or without evidence then it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of people who know 'for definite'.

Yeah the CSA are fucking shocking and should be called The How To Dodge Paying for Your Child as a Father support association.

Years ago when I had my daughter then I reported her father to the CSA and they sent him a form to declare his earnings and if he filled in the form within a specific time frame then he didn’t have to pay backdated money!! Ffs rewarding a man because he has decided to step up and be a father to the baby he said he wanted, isn’t exactly sending a good message.

To all that have said it’s better to report to the DWP to stop them getting into more trouble afterwards is crap, you don’t want to report them for their own sakes, you want to do it out of spite and jealousy, them having to work or declare whatever isn’t going to make your tax go down anything!

This is an aside but surely if someone is reported for benefit fraud there wouldn’t need to be an expensive investigation? Wouldn’t it simply be a matter of checking entitlement? And sorry again to anyone I’ve upset and who has been wrongfully reported for anything. Also for anyone who has had a child removed. I’m truly not against benefits and I am aware that some people absolutely need help. It’s just that this loophole really surprised me and I’ve been shocked that this money has not been used to support the parents in a useful way. It’s made it clear that money is not the answer for this particular family.

I'm very surprised that this situation has been allowed to go on for years. As far as I'm aware if one parent is in receipt of benefits for a child and a rival claim is made, the parent receiving benefits it's notified and asked to confirm.
If they don't make contact with the benefit agency their claim is suspended and benefits stopped.
I'm assuming here that the same rules apply to foster families?

Ah- I think that’s probably how this has happened then. There wouldn’t have been a rival claim. I think with fostering and adopting it’s different and money comes from a different pot rather than the benefits fund.