Just £1m of Bulgarian benefits gang’s £50m haul has been recovered

HAYSIE

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

Tikay10

The problem here is where to draw the line. It's one of those things where the line can't be flexible. Benefit fraud - be it accidental or not - costs this country £billions per year, and that's money that honest taxpayers have to pay.

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.

Tikay10

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.

Essexphil

Tikay10 said:

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.

5 things to mention about this.

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

HAYSIE

We just dont seem very good at running stuff.
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.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

Tikay10 said:

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.

5 things to mention about this.

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

Essexphil said:

Tikay10 said:

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.

5 things to mention about this.

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

I wouldnt disagree.
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.

Essexphil

Agree. Except it is not "losing all their benefit for that week"-it can be losing all the benefit for that year

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

Tikay10

Fair points by both the Honourable Gentleman, but I remain wedded to "where do you draw the line?"



"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...)

Essexphil

It is a simple line to draw.

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.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

Fair points by both the Honourable Gentleman, but I remain wedded to "where do you draw the line?"



"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...)

I assume the benefits are paid four weekly, or monthly, and the recipient will be providing proof, ie a payslip.
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.

Tikay10

Essexphil said:

It is a simple line to draw.

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.


How do we know if it's accidental?

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.

So it's the DWP's fault for not advising the Claimant sooner? I'd say the Claimant has to accept that responsibility. If I get caught doing 40 in a 30 it's no defence to say "Ahh, I never realised it was a 30".

Essexphil

Tikay10 said:

Essexphil said:

It is a simple line to draw.

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.


How do we know if it's accidental?

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.

So it's the DWP's fault for not advising the Claimant sooner? I'd say the Claimant has to accept that responsibility. If I get caught doing 40 in a 30 it's no defence to say "Ahh, I never realised it was a 30".

Didn't have you down as to the political Right of Braverman and Trump.

Tikay10

"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."



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 said:

Tikay10 said:

Essexphil said:

It is a simple line to draw.

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.


How do we know if it's accidental?

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.

So it's the DWP's fault for not advising the Claimant sooner? I'd say the Claimant has to accept that responsibility. If I get caught doing 40 in a 30 it's no defence to say "Ahh, I never realised it was a 30".

Didn't have you down as to the political Right of Braverman and Trump.

@Essexphil



Ouch. Now that hurt.

Tikay10

@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 fiddle claim 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".

Essexphil

Carers Allowance.

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"

Tikay10

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.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

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.

Tikay10 said:

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.

No need for that, you were clean bowled ages ago.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

@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 fiddle claim 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".

Ok, so maybe you should say that the 10% limit would apply 3 times per year.
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.

goldon

Agree with the shepherd. not the sheep

Tikay10

I pretty much agree with all of that EXCEPT.....


"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.

goldon

Mr T has become a loose woman.....gender training day.