IB

[Hagar]

[quote user="tegwini"]

http://www.blinkx.com/video/benefit-fraud-on-the-rise/hMtvFMRjPJyTlMSrMCx06A

on the increase of benefit fraud.

Tegwini

[/quote]

That report is a bout Housing Benefit fraud - nothing to do with IB

rgds

 

hagar

[AnOther]

Just a couple of points:

[quote user="Hagar"]Interesting as it is , it is still just a survey and limited to N.Ireland which has historically had its own special problems with employment and can hardly be considered representative of the Uk as a whole.[/quote]Somewhere in the survey I'm sure it was stated that the results tally reasonably with those obtained from similar surveys carried out in the mainland.

[quote user="Hagar"]As far as fraudulent claims are concerned again the Government’s own figures show that IB is barely in the top five[/quote]With respect this is potentially highly misleading as we are not discussing outright fraudulent claims but the number of people in receipt of IB as a result of their doctor signing them off as unfit for work. This goes directly back to the positive encouragement they received to do so to massage the unemployment figures. If there is any fraud then it's been by those doctors but entered into with the tacit approval of a governmental 'dont ask don't tell' policy.

Additionally if IB fraud is such a relatively minor issue then it begs the question, why are they so aggressively targetting it ?

 

[woolybananasbrother]

http://www.stopbenefitfraudni.gov.uk/cost.htm

to give some idea of the kind of numbers  that Government might have in mind as being undeserving

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/welfare-and-pensions/two-million-wrongly-claim-incapacity-benefit--$485228.htm

 

[AnOther]

18m for 2006 sounds a lot but in truth it's probably less than the cost of keeping those parasites in Westminster in sofas, flat panel TV's, and other 'allowable' expenses for a year.

If the government are true to form the cost of stopping the abuse will be several times over what they could potentially be saving anyway but they'll look good because they'll be giving the impression of doing something about it !

[Ron Avery]

Do you have accommodation at your place of work, Ernie? Why is that?  Is it because it is difficult to get home after work?  So why do you begrudge the elected representatives of the British people who are at work until 22-00 a lot of the time and live 100 + miles away from their homes a place to stay furnished with a kitchen, sofas, a bed and even a TV?  Are you just jealous that their accommodation is better than yours? Who pays for your accommodation?

What do you want MPs to do when parliament finishes after the last train has gone?  Go home every night in a fleet of government cars even to the NE and Scotland?

When I lived in the UK, I wanted MPs to be the best men or women for the job, because they might just end up making decisions that affected my life so if they are entitled to a flat and funishings up to a figure based on John Lewis's catalogue so what?  If it means paying a good wage and additional benefits to get those high calibre people into Parliament well so be it as far as I am concerned.

Why are these people parasites? It is only in the eyes of certain journalists desperate to sell papers by playing on the green eyed monster so prevalent in British society since Thatcher's day.  MPs are no more parasites than anyone else who works away from home and has overnight accommodation provided by their company.  If you don't think they should have accommodation in London provided what do you suggest? 

[Russethouse]

Weren't some of the MPs those who had London constituencies ?[;-)]

What gets my goat is the way that they didn't have to record expenses under a certain amount, when the tax man INSISTS that every self employed business man accounts for every penny.......

[Hagar]

[quote user="ErnieY"]

18m for 2006 sounds a lot but in truth it's probably less than the cost of keeping those parasites in Westminster in sofas, flat panel TV's, and other 'allowable' expenses for a year.

If the government are true to form the cost of stopping the abuse will be several times over what they could potentially be saving anyway but they'll look good because they'll be giving the impression of doing something about it !

[/quote]

Again we are only talking Northern Ireland here -- the actual figure for the UK is estimated at £800m per annum (down from £2 billion in 2001). These figures come from a Public Accounts Committe report published earlier this month. A very extensive review of benefit fraud and how it is tackled in the UK. One of their conclusions was -

"The United Kingdom has levels of benefit fraud and error which are similar to those in comparable countries, but the Department appears to have a better understanding than other national social security agencies of the problems and the means of tackling them. "

Interesting how all the official figures seem to contradict the public perception (particularly is some of the views expressed in this thread are representative of the public).

rgds

hagar

[woolybananasbrother]

There are roughly two sorts of people on this thread: the first group believes that a benefit based on health is open to abuse and that people should work if they possibly can rather than taking taxpayers money, and the other group who think that all benefit claimants are worthy citizens who have the right to take a benefit and that they should not really be challengeable on it.

 

[Hagar]

This from the same PAC report referenced above

"15. The Department accepts that it needs to strengthen its response to the estimated £74

million of fraud committed by people living outside the UK (Figure 2). These frauds

typically occur when someone either continues to collect benefits after a customer has died,

or violates benefit conditions by living abroad. At present, the Department is considering

how to implement better proof of residence tests for people who are supposed to live in the

UK, and proof of life checks for people living abroad................... and is

working with the Royal Mail to help identify people who are no longer living at a UK

address."

It appears that one of the most common types of fraud is people living abroad still claiming pensions payments for dead relatives.

Wonder how many of them are in french cemeteries.

rgds

Hagar (with apologies for the formatting)

[Russethouse]

Hagar, The Government raised this issue by announcing a crackdown - can you think what £800 million could achieve in other area's ?

I believe that in the near future existing claimant interviews will be done by consultants with targets set to get x % off of benefit (that may not be ideal, but it will make them stringent) and back to work, if they not convinced that the claimant is unable do any work, then they will lose their IB.

Any one who is genuine will have nothing to worry about, those who are not, will. What is so wrong with that ? And what is wrong in saying I support any move to target genuine claimants, not fund some skivers life in the sun ?

[Hagar]

[quote user="woolybananasbrother"]

There are roughly two sorts of people on this thread: the first group believes that a benefit based on health is open to abuse and that people should work if they possibly can rather than taking taxpayers money, and the other group who think that all benefit claimants are worthy citizens who have the right to take a benefit and that they should not really be challengeable on it.

 

[/quote]

Glad you said "roughly" - don't beleive I fall into either category.

rgds

Hagar

[Hagar]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Hagar, The Government raised this issue by announcing a crackdown - can you think what £800 million could achieve in other area's ?

I believe that in the near future existing claimant interviews will be done by consultants with targets set to get x % off of benefit (that may not be ideal, but it will make them stringent) and back to work, if they not convinced that the claimant is unable do any work, then they will lose their IB.

Any one who is genuine will have nothing to worry about, those who are not, will. What is so wrong with that ? And what is wrong in saying I support any move to target genuine claimants, not fund some skivers life in the sun ?

[/quote]

RH - I am not arguing with you at all about any of that. I am just trying to point out that public perception of the issue is often very far from the truth. PAC and the National Audit Office have made it clear that the DWP have made significant progress on fraud in recent years although there is always room for improvement.

As to the independent medicals that system has been in place for some years . If the DWP suspect someone of malingering they already have the right to (and often do) require a claimant (sorry customer) to undergo an independent medical examination.

rgds

Hagar

 

[woolybananasbrother]

just out of interest,, if you have about a week with nothing to do, google ' Incapacity Benefit fraud' and read a little of the tip of the iceberg.

[Hagar]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Hagar, The Government raised this issue by announcing a crackdown - can you think what £800 million could achieve in other area's ?

[/quote]

That's another mis-perception. What they actually did was introduce a green paper outlining major reform of the welfare state and benefit system - aimed at eliminating child poverty and helping people back to work - particularly disabled people. Part of that reform does away with IB altogether.

It was the media that called it a "crackdown".

rgds

hagar

[AnOther]

[quote user="Hagar"]What they actually did was introduce a green paper outlining major reform of the welfare state and benefit system - aimed at eliminating child poverty and helping people back to work - particularly disabled people...[/quote]This is just more  'spin' and, amongst a great many other things, they've been promising the same or similar since they took office. They've had a decade of boom time to make a difference and achieved precisely nowt and now they're desperate for money and trying to undo the damage the culture they promoted has caused.

One thing you can absolutely rely on is that the only winners out of this will be government coffers [:'(]

Nobody can argue that the whole benefits system is a chaotic mess riddled with fraud from top to bottom so, emotive title that it might be, I don't think the media tag of 'crackdown' is so very far of the mark.

 

[Hagar]

[quote user="ErnieY"]

One thing you can absolutely rely on is that the only winners out of this will be government coffers [:'(]

[/quote]

Is that a bad thing?

Or is it just that you believe the billions of tax payers money saved by the DWP fraud inspectorate over the last 6 years has gone directly into the pockets of the MPs.?

rgds

hagar

[Weedon]

An in-depth survey found that a common cause of stress was brought on by worrying about what other people were doing.  Think of the amount of money that costs the NHS in treating the stress. I'd quote the actual survey where I read that but just trust me, it's true.

[ali-cat]

There are roughly two types of persons on this thread :  those who through personal experience are aware that any government 'crackdown' on health related benefits is just as likely to adversely affect those genuine claimants as it is the fraudsters and is therefore not necessarily a cause for celebration; and those who have been lucky enough not to be forced out of work due to ill health but who, because of personal prejudice or because they think they know all about someone else's personal circumstances, believe that anyone less fortunate than them is a 'skiver' or 'leech'. 

I haven't heard anyone on this thread defending benefit fraud or suggesting that IB claimants should be beyond scrutiny - just a healthy degree of skepticism and a weariness that everytime the subject is raised IB claimants become everyone's favourite flogging horse.

Perhaps Gordon's heart is in the right place.  From an economic perspective all governments aim to reduce the 'dependency rate' and from a personal perspective few would argue that, when possible, work provides financial and personal benefits and that people should not be excluded from work because of illness of disability.  I would also add that there is nothing more soul destroying than trying to carry on working when it is no longer impossible.  As for tackling fraud I see nothing in these proposals that go beyond the current system.  If some claimants are allowed to claim IB with conditions that do not prevent them from undertaking some sort of work then this is a failure or government policy and administration - not fraud. If claimants are to be reviewed more regularly it just gives the fraudsters more opportunities to lie.  As for the genuine claimants it just means more opportunities to lose what may be their only source of income.

Unfortunately for Gordon his not customary sense of mis-timing means he will now be trying to offload a raft of people with, at least on paper, a range of ailments and a poor health record at a time when jobs growth is curtailed and many thousands of perfectly fit ex-builders, bankers, estate agents etc are desperately seeking work.  As an employer who would you employ?  The healthy recently redundant or the ex-IB claimant who may or may not be able to carry on working after training; may need to work special hours; may need alterations to the workplace etc in order to do the job?

As for any savings they won't go back to the genuine claimants. After all when the numbers of unemployed fell from 3 to 1 milllion the government didn't raise the level of JSA!  No, the real beneficiaries will be the extra civil servants in the 'managing change' teams and the private sector organisations who will be paid performance bonuses to place ex-claimants into jobs which are likely to be unsustainable for them and the employer.

As always, this subject has generated a lot of opinion and little or no intelligent discussion or empathy.

MR Cat

 

 

 

 

[AnOther]

Some of your post has broadly encapsulated the reasoning behind my earlier comment :

"One thing you can absolutely rely on is that the only winners out of this will be government coffers"

And relieved me of the task of responding to Hagars questioning of it [;-)]

PS: Did you not mean to say "his (Gordons) customary sense of mis-timing [8-)]

 

[ali-cat]

Of course!

[Russethouse]

As always, this subject has generated a lot of opinion and little or no intelligent discussion or empathy.

Back in 'sacred Cow' territory then !

I save my empathy for those who deserve it thanks, not feckless fiddlers living in France.

[Rose]

ouch [:-))]  say it like it is Russethouse... I always admire the open and honest approach!!! [;-)] [:D]

[Rose]

I never understand why discussions on IB or other benefits always seem to cause so much upset.  If the system is flawed it should be fixed... surely anything that sorts the wheat from the chaff is a good thing?   Maybe once the review/tightening of the system is sorted then attidtudes and public opinion towards IB may change and life can become easier for those that are in need of this fiscal support...  or am I being too simplistic about this? [:$]

 

[Russethouse]

Its like an action replay:

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/3/1154082/ShowPost.aspx#1154082

Even the same expressions in some instances........

 

 

[Benjamin]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

I save my empathy for those who deserve it thanks, not feckless fiddlers living in France.

[/quote]

How many do you know and how many have you shopped?