Database shall not speak unto database

In the 21st century it is incredible that the government cannot get databases sharing simple information updates.

Thus Maureen O’Neill admitted failing to inform Allerdale council of a change in circumstances, which resulted in an overpayment of housing and council tax benefit of £5,380. In June 2003 she stated that her only source of income was job seekers allowance of £53 per week. But in January 2009, the council received information from the housing benefit matching service indicating that O’Neill’s claim for job seekers allowance had ended in June 2007 when she started work. She was interviewed under caution in March 2009 and admitted she had been fraudulently claiming benefits she was not entitled to for 18 months. She was given a two-year community order to complete 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay costs of £75. Allerdale Council has also made arrangements for O’Neill to repay the money she falsely claimed.

Separately, Ghulam Ali was found guilty of failing to notify Rugby Borough Council of changes in his financial circumstances. He over-claimed £2,100. He had been in receipt of tax credits since November 2007 which he should have declared to the town hall. Ali claimed he told officials about the change, but admitted he had not filed a copy of his tax credit letter or any details regarding the amount of tax credits he was receiving.

There are two unacceptable aspects to this primitive administration of benefits. First, it makes it easier to rip off taxpayers. It probably costs taxpayers a lot of money every year.

Second, it puts temptation in people's way, especially as the sums of money reported are often several thousands of pounds - far from trivial supplements to what they can earn.

So by not getting databases communicating, the state is failing in its moral duty in two ways.

Back to Mr Ali. He turned down the chance to pay a fixed penalty as an alternative to prosecution, instead opting for his chance in court. Magistrates gave him an 18-month conditional discharge and ordered him to pay back the £2,100 and pay costs of £395. So he got off more lightly than he would have with an administrative penalty, which would have involved paying a penalty of 30%, or £630.