- Presumably we won't get the money back.
- That's more money we won't get back.
She "has made arrangements to repay the full amount", with monthly repayments of £120 a month for housing benefit and £50 for council tax. So far she has repaid £367.12.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Light sentences for big benefit frauds
Paul Thomas and Lynne Jones from Telford, who swindled taxpayers out of £47,044 in benefits they were not entitled to over five years, have been given eight-month prison sentences suspended for 18 months, and told to pay costs of £125 each. Thomas has to do 250 hours’ unpaid work and Jones 100 hours’ unpaid work plus a 12-month supervision order.
She "has made arrangements to repay the full amount", with monthly repayments of £120 a month for housing benefit and £50 for council tax. So far she has repaid £367.12.
She "has made arrangements to repay the full amount", with monthly repayments of £120 a month for housing benefit and £50 for council tax. So far she has repaid £367.12.
Teacher admits second benefit fraud
Carolyn Powell, from Ware, admitted failing to notify East Herts Council of a change in her circumstances which she knew would affect her entitlement to benefits. She failed to declare that her award of incapacity benefit had ceased and that she was receiving a bursary from the NHS.
She was already under a conditional discharge given in January 2008 for other benefit fraud offences when she had made false statements by not revealing she was in receipt of child maintenance payments. On that occasion she was overpaid £981 in housing and council tax benefit between August 2006 and May 2007 and received a 12-month conditional discharge and was ordered to contribute £350 towards prosecution costs.
In the latest case, Ms Powell, a teacher at the Valley School in Stevenage, had been overpaid £1,301 housing benefit, and council tax benefit amounting to £360, between September 2007 and September 2008.
She was re-sentenced to 40 hours of unpaid work for the original offence and a further 60 hours of unpaid work in respect of the latest offences, to be completed in 12 months. She was ordered to pay £100 towards prosecution costs and she will also have to pay back the money.
She was already under a conditional discharge given in January 2008 for other benefit fraud offences when she had made false statements by not revealing she was in receipt of child maintenance payments. On that occasion she was overpaid £981 in housing and council tax benefit between August 2006 and May 2007 and received a 12-month conditional discharge and was ordered to contribute £350 towards prosecution costs.
In the latest case, Ms Powell, a teacher at the Valley School in Stevenage, had been overpaid £1,301 housing benefit, and council tax benefit amounting to £360, between September 2007 and September 2008.
She was re-sentenced to 40 hours of unpaid work for the original offence and a further 60 hours of unpaid work in respect of the latest offences, to be completed in 12 months. She was ordered to pay £100 towards prosecution costs and she will also have to pay back the money.
- This recidivist is still teaching children?
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Edinburgh scratches the surface of benefit fraud
New tactics to detect the sincerity of benefit claimants have resulted in a huge rise in the number of cheats prosecuted, says The Edinburgh News.
Let's put that in context. Edinburgh don't know how many people they paid claims to in total. But as an example (outside the 2007/08 year) they say that "on 02/02/09 we were paying benefits on 44,749 claims" - a figure which is the combined total of claims for Housing Benefit, and claims for Council Tax Benefit.
Let's assume everyone was claiming for both, so that the number of claimants was half that number. Prosecutions were still only 0.2% of claimants, which is very small.
Does it matter? Look at the size of the operation. In 2007/08:
Rent Rebate (Public Sector Housing Benefit) was £66,927,624
Rent Allowance (Private Sector Housing Benefit) was £78,094,549
Total Housing benefit therefore was £145,022,173
Council Tax Benefit was £34,411,795
Total Benefits paid were therefore a massive £179,433,968.
So Edinburgh does need to do much better!
The number of people reported last year for making a range of fraudulent claims rose to 49 – a jump of more than 100 per cent from 2007/08.Council officials "hailed the improvement", we're told.
Let's put that in context. Edinburgh don't know how many people they paid claims to in total. But as an example (outside the 2007/08 year) they say that "on 02/02/09 we were paying benefits on 44,749 claims" - a figure which is the combined total of claims for Housing Benefit, and claims for Council Tax Benefit.
Let's assume everyone was claiming for both, so that the number of claimants was half that number. Prosecutions were still only 0.2% of claimants, which is very small.
Does it matter? Look at the size of the operation. In 2007/08:
Rent Rebate (Public Sector Housing Benefit) was £66,927,624
Rent Allowance (Private Sector Housing Benefit) was £78,094,549
Total Housing benefit therefore was £145,022,173
Council Tax Benefit was £34,411,795
Total Benefits paid were therefore a massive £179,433,968.
So Edinburgh does need to do much better!
Wootton Bassett benefit cheat jailed
Deborah Church, from Wootton Bassett, who has a long history of deception, has been jailed for 21 months after a judge heard how she falsely claimed as much as £60,000 in benefits.
She claimed she was a single mother for about a decade. But in reality she was living with the father of her children who was running a business as a builder. When the relationship collapsed into acrimony he tipped off the DWP after discovering she had been claiming.
She claimed she was a single mother for about a decade. But in reality she was living with the father of her children who was running a business as a builder. When the relationship collapsed into acrimony he tipped off the DWP after discovering she had been claiming.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Incapacity benefit and long term welfare dependency
The Sun has picked up the figures for long term welfare dependency which the DWP produced for Fraser Nelson. The paper reports that
More papers are now picking up the report in the Financial Times that many new applicants for sickness benefits are being rejected. Thus the Evening Standard:
Not all the applicants being rejected will be fraudsters. But some of them will be.
One million jobless Britons have been living off the state for more than 12 years.This is Fraser's diagram of the numbers.
Official figures showed a further 1.9million have been on benefits for seven years or more.
More papers are now picking up the report in the Financial Times that many new applicants for sickness benefits are being rejected. Thus the Evening Standard: A new testing regime for sickness benefits is rejecting more than two thirds of applicants.The government's ridiculous benefit fraud figures put incapacity benefit fraud at £10m! - or 0.1% of the total paid out.
Data from the first wave of the system has suggested 2.6million claimants are actually fit to work.
The figures, seen by welfare experts but still to be released to the public, also say that in some regions up to 90 per cent of those on long-term ill-health payments should go on unemployment rolls.
Although yet to be confirmed, the results offer the Government a chance to drastically reduce the £12.5billion incapacity benefit bill.
Not all the applicants being rejected will be fraudsters. But some of them will be.
Two dishonest mothers
A Norwich mother who admitted dishonestly claiming £5,640 in benefits has been given a 16-week suspended sentence and ordered to do 200 hours of community work by Norwich Magistrates Court. She failed to tell the DWP she was living with a partner.
A Midlothian mother who received £22,373 between December 2006 and November 2007 by pretending her entire family was severely disabled has been sent back to jail.
Anne Marie Cockburn's cheating began just two months after being released early from a 10 month-sentence for a similar fraud involving £18,000. So no warning signs there then.
She must spend the 110 days of the unexpired portion of the previous sentence in jail, and has had 20 months added
A Midlothian mother who received £22,373 between December 2006 and November 2007 by pretending her entire family was severely disabled has been sent back to jail.
Anne Marie Cockburn's cheating began just two months after being released early from a 10 month-sentence for a similar fraud involving £18,000. So no warning signs there then.
She must spend the 110 days of the unexpired portion of the previous sentence in jail, and has had 20 months added
Friday, 10 July 2009
Pendle celebrates failure
Benefit fraud teams teams in Pendle are celebrating, we are told, after identifying more than £63,000 in ill-gotten gains in 2008-9. Pendle Council cautioned 24 people, imposed seven adminstrative penalties and undertook 13 successful prosecutions, up to the end of March.
This figure equates to a mere 0.3% of the total pad out on 6,542 claims for Housing Benefit over the financial year 2008/09. And action was taken against 44 people - that's just 0.7% of the total.
Should do better.
This figure equates to a mere 0.3% of the total pad out on 6,542 claims for Housing Benefit over the financial year 2008/09. And action was taken against 44 people - that's just 0.7% of the total.
Should do better.
Likely tax credit fraud accidentally revealed
A suspected fraud investigation is under way after the wrong tax credit details were sent to a Tyneside home, reports The Chronicle.
Michael Leech was shocked to find someone else’s personal details when he opened a letter addressed to his home in Gateshead.
The letter, from HM Revenue and Customs, was seeking information about tax credit payments and appeared to be meant for someone else and contained what Mr Leech believed to be his age, address, national insurance and income.
After receiving similar letters during the next six weeks, he contacted the Chronicle, who brought it to the attention of HMRC. Suspicions were aroused when it emerged nobody under that name had ever lived at Mr Leech’s address and a subsequent criminal investigation was launched.
A spokesman for HMRC said: “Since the Chronicle brought this matter to our attention, we have been treating it as a criminal offence.
“We have stopped the tax credit payments to that name and address with immediate effect. We are grateful to the Chronicle for flagging the matter up to us.”
Mr Leech contacted the tax credit office as soon as he realised the letter was meant for someone else but, due to data protection issues, they were unable to discuss the matter. Mr Leech, who lives with his wife and two sons, said: “I’m completely shocked it appears someone has been using my address to claim tax credit payments.
“I genuinely believed it was down to human error that I was being sent someone else’s details and I’m astounded there could be a crime behind it.
“You do here about mix-ups all the time, where people are sent someone else’s personal information, and I thought it was just one of those kind of cases.
“I’m very grateful to the Chronicle for finding this out for me, otherwise I may never have known.”
A spokeswoman for HM Revenue and Customs added: “If a letter from us is sent to the wrong address, the best thing to do is not open it and put ‘return to sender’ on the front, before posting it.”
You bet they'd prefer that. There's probably a massive pile waiting to be looked at - and if they do think there's a fraud they can keep it quiet.
Much better to get it some priority and publicity.
The tax credit system is a centralised organisation requiring huge inputs of personal data. What an invitation to fraud.
htp Dave
Michael Leech was shocked to find someone else’s personal details when he opened a letter addressed to his home in Gateshead.
The letter, from HM Revenue and Customs, was seeking information about tax credit payments and appeared to be meant for someone else and contained what Mr Leech believed to be his age, address, national insurance and income.
After receiving similar letters during the next six weeks, he contacted the Chronicle, who brought it to the attention of HMRC. Suspicions were aroused when it emerged nobody under that name had ever lived at Mr Leech’s address and a subsequent criminal investigation was launched.
A spokesman for HMRC said: “Since the Chronicle brought this matter to our attention, we have been treating it as a criminal offence.
“We have stopped the tax credit payments to that name and address with immediate effect. We are grateful to the Chronicle for flagging the matter up to us.”
Mr Leech contacted the tax credit office as soon as he realised the letter was meant for someone else but, due to data protection issues, they were unable to discuss the matter. Mr Leech, who lives with his wife and two sons, said: “I’m completely shocked it appears someone has been using my address to claim tax credit payments.
“I genuinely believed it was down to human error that I was being sent someone else’s details and I’m astounded there could be a crime behind it.
“You do here about mix-ups all the time, where people are sent someone else’s personal information, and I thought it was just one of those kind of cases.
“I’m very grateful to the Chronicle for finding this out for me, otherwise I may never have known.”
A spokeswoman for HM Revenue and Customs added: “If a letter from us is sent to the wrong address, the best thing to do is not open it and put ‘return to sender’ on the front, before posting it.”
You bet they'd prefer that. There's probably a massive pile waiting to be looked at - and if they do think there's a fraud they can keep it quiet.
Much better to get it some priority and publicity.
The tax credit system is a centralised organisation requiring huge inputs of personal data. What an invitation to fraud.
htp Dave
"Default case" less serious, implies Judge
Amanda Branter, from Halifax, admitted two offences of failing to notify a change of circumstance when her partner moved in.
Branter initially claimed in September 2001 but failed to report the change when visited by a Calderdale Council representative on March 16, 2006. She failed to report it a second time on April 30, 2007 when she repeated the claim.
The total overpayment was £13,158. Branter has made efforts to repay the sum at £130 per month. She has since repaid £2,000.
Recorder Ben Nolan QC at Bradford Crown Court, said: "I am satisfied that this was a default case in that you did not deliberately set out to defraud the department but you failed in your duty to notify a change of circumstance."
She was given a community order for 12 months with 60 hours of unpaid work.
Recorder Ben Nolan has got two points wrong here. First, she did defraud us. She deliberately and knowingly gave false information in 2006 and 2007. Sure, she had already failed in her duty to notify a change. But Recorder Ben Nolan ignores the later occasions.
Second, the system relies on people honestly and promptly reporting information which will be to their own financial disadvantage. To suggest that failing to do this is somehow less serious would call into question the structure of the benefits system.
Branter initially claimed in September 2001 but failed to report the change when visited by a Calderdale Council representative on March 16, 2006. She failed to report it a second time on April 30, 2007 when she repeated the claim.
The total overpayment was £13,158. Branter has made efforts to repay the sum at £130 per month. She has since repaid £2,000.
Recorder Ben Nolan QC at Bradford Crown Court, said: "I am satisfied that this was a default case in that you did not deliberately set out to defraud the department but you failed in your duty to notify a change of circumstance."
She was given a community order for 12 months with 60 hours of unpaid work.
Recorder Ben Nolan has got two points wrong here. First, she did defraud us. She deliberately and knowingly gave false information in 2006 and 2007. Sure, she had already failed in her duty to notify a change. But Recorder Ben Nolan ignores the later occasions.
Second, the system relies on people honestly and promptly reporting information which will be to their own financial disadvantage. To suggest that failing to do this is somehow less serious would call into question the structure of the benefits system.
Bouncer jailed for benefit fraud
Bouncer Anthony Edwards has been jailed after claiming £34,793 in benefits, when he was working outside nightclubs.
He claimed income support, incapacity benefit, and housing and council tax benefit after quitting JCB with a bad back. But he was still claiming while he worked as a bouncer between 2003 and last year.
He was jailed for 12 months despite a plea that his wife would have to give up work to look after their two children if he went to prison.
He was one of 12 people arrested on suspicion of benefit fraud in March 2008.
If cases move at this speed, there is no chance of making inroads into this mass market crime.
He claimed income support, incapacity benefit, and housing and council tax benefit after quitting JCB with a bad back. But he was still claiming while he worked as a bouncer between 2003 and last year.
He was jailed for 12 months despite a plea that his wife would have to give up work to look after their two children if he went to prison.
He was one of 12 people arrested on suspicion of benefit fraud in March 2008.
If cases move at this speed, there is no chance of making inroads into this mass market crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
