You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
End This Bl oody Disgrace.
DWP ordered carer to repay £11,000 of benefits after earning 50p over working threshold
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dwp-ordered-carer-to-repay-11-000-of-benefits-after-earning-50p-over-working-threshold/ar-BB1lHwH1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=4bb7b2bed89b4f86a33100dc17f12039&ei=34
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dwp-ordered-carer-to-repay-11-000-of-benefits-after-earning-50p-over-working-threshold/ar-BB1lHwH1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=4bb7b2bed89b4f86a33100dc17f12039&ei=34
Comments
We can't just look at this case in isolation, it's so much wider;
"Karina's story is just one of dozens which have come to light over the last few weeks. Recent figures revealed that in 2022-23, 26,700 carers were asked to repay sums relating to earnings. More than 800 were repaying sums between £5,000 and £20,000, and 36 were repaying more than £20,000."
It's unfortunate, but thems the rules. The lady has secured a very reasonable payback deal, £60 a month I think, so the DWP appear to have been reasonable, all things considered.
Aside from that, every sympathy with the Mother who has a child with, amongst a whole range of other things, Bardet-Biedl syndrome.
I had to look that up, as I'd never heard of it, & it's a) incurable & b) pretty dreadful.
So it's all very difficult, but benefit fraud, accidental or not, is theft & it's anti-social, in exactly the same way as not paying one's TV licence is.
1. "Cliff edge benefits" have no place in a civilised society. They are called that because they are all or nothing benefits. No-one would seriously argue that, where someone receives (as in 1 case) an extra £3 per week, that their benefits should be cut by that £3. But it is not-it is £thousands
2. This is not a means tested benefit. It is not dependant on need, or capital, or resources. The only criterion is you don't have a job paying more than £151 per week
3. In some of these cases, it can be shown that DWP were aware of the slight overearnings for years. Didn't mention it to these people for years. Then demand repayment going back for all these years
4. There are various different definitions in relation to "fraud" and/or "benefit fraud". Some (mainly the criminal bits) require a deliberate act, or one closing ones eyes to the blindingly obvious. Most of the Civil stuff requires gross negligence in order to demand repayment that is massively more than the gain. And "theft" requires a dishonest appropriation, which isn't even claimed here
5. There are benefits where people gain a great deal. Not this one-where the "pay" is about £2 per hour. Because Minimum Wage doesn't apply to Carers when it is for a relative
What is anti-social, IMHO, is treating people in this way
Or rectifying mistakes.
You would have hoped that the DWP could have rectified the problem quicker, and avoided people owing such large sums.
Claimants will be providing proof of their income on a regular basis.
So how can you justify that these mistakes have run on for years.
There are many other examples of this.
The Bulgarian gang that scammed us out of £50million in benefits.
Taking years to deal with asylum claims.
NHS waiting times in A&E.
NHS waiting lists.
The criminal justice system.
The police dealing with rapes, burglaries, and shoplifting etc, etc.
Knife crime.
The contaminated blood tragedy.
The WASPI women.
The Post Office fiasco.
Social Care.
The Rwanda scheme.
The small boats.
Austerity.
Brexit.
NI power sharing.
The train service.
The armed forces.
Care homes during Covid.
The Covid app.
Covid contracts given to cronies.
Council house building.
Council house waiting lists.
Starter homes.
Children living in poverty.
Homelessness.
School funding cuts.
Front line police, teacher, firefighter, border control officer, and prison officer numbers.
Zero hour contracts.
These were just off the top of my head.
I am certain that I could come up with a few more, if I thought about it for a bit.
It also puts the employee in a difficult position, and makes them of less value to employers.
The employee can have a contract which maximises their earnings within the benefit rules.
Yet if the employers operational needs require them to work say an extra hour, to maybe cover for a missing member of staff, they are forced to make a choice between working the hour, and losing all their benefit for that week, or letting down the employer.
And when minimum wage goes up, cutting hours. It makes no sense for employers. Employees. Or the Taxpayer- because these particular carers "earn" a tiny fraction of what it costs for treatment in Hospitals, Care Homes etc
"Yet if the employers operational needs require them to work say an extra hour, to maybe cover for a missing member of staff, they are forced to make a choice between working the hour, and losing all their benefit for that week, or letting down the employer."
How often that extra hour? Once a week? Once a month, once a year? Supposing it's daily? What's your ruling then?
Last night on Sky Poker, the winner of the Main was 7th in the Mini. Should Sky Poker give him a FTJ for finishing 1st & 6th as he almost did? (Tongue slightly in cheek there, I confess...)
If someone deliberately commits a fraud, then no limit on how much can be reclaimed.
If accidental, then lose the amount gained. And no more.
And, where the DWP realise there is a potential overpayment, duty to inform. Not wait for years, not only causing untold misery, but having paid out lots of money that never going to get back.
The DWP will therefore know their position on a monthly basis.
I am suggesting that if you exceed your earnings limit by £3, as per one of the examples.
They should just deduct £3 from the benefit, not the whole of it.
Or better still, set a limit, and maybe allow them to exceed it by say 10% with no repercussions.
Benefits should increase with inflation, so they keep pace with wage increases.
Perhaps they were waiting to see if it was a "one off", or a deliberate action? You can't judge that one one week or one month.
@Essexphil
Ouch. Now that hurt.
@Haysie wrote;
"Or better still, set a limit, and maybe allow them to exceed it by say 10% with no repercussions."
In effect, that would mean almost everyone would
fiddleclaim the extra 10%.In commerce & industry, when a Business states that Staff are permitted, say, 5 sick days per year without loss of pay, it soon becomes that ALL the Staff ALL take the full 5 days. They'll even say stuff like "I've got 3 days sick due".
So no, I don't think you can say "OK, you can fiddle 10% without repercussions".
If you look after a disabled person for at least 35 hours a week, you may be entitled to £76.75 a week. Just over £2 an hour.
But, on current rates, if you earn minimum wage for over about 13 hours a week, you not only have to carry out that 35 hours a week for free, you also have to pay back past benefit as well.
These cases show the DWP have sat on stuff for years. They are entitled to all sorts of evidence from HMRC
Feel free to carry on defending the indefensible.
"Making Sky Poker Great Again"
Wow, in the space of a few minutes, I've been compared to Braverman, Trump & Dolly Dewdrop.
Think I'll retire hurt at this juncture.
I dont think that it is fair, when someone exceeds the limit by £3, which is probably not their fault, that it should result in huge deductions.
Or maybe just allow them one, and once they exceed the limit once send a massive written warning that any further excess earning will be deducted.
Then deduct in straight away.
I am certain that the lack of any immediate action will contribute to the problem.
If you were a claimant that had exceeded the limit accidentally a couple of times, and there were no repercussions, it could only encourage you to continue to do so on purpose.
"I dont think that it is fair, when someone exceeds the limit by £3, which is probably not their fault",
It is definitely their fault/responsibility. We all have to take responsibility for our actions in life.
Best regards,
Suella.