Another comment from a visitor

Neil Bateman writes:

I find your site interesting.

The problem is that the media reports you rely on are usually misleading. In particular the amounts allegedly defrauded in individual cases is usually inflated as a result of poor knowledge and skill among benefits officials. The worst offenders are housing benefit staff who frequently fail to re-assess peoples' claims properly in the light of the true circumstances and instead assume there was nil entitlement.

I am a welfare rights specialist and I have carried out over 100 in-depth investigations for the Courts into benefit fraud cases. In over 95% of cases, the amounts defrauded have been incorrect - anywhere between 10% and 100%.

In addition, in most cases, if people had declared their position they would have received other benefits or tax credits which further reduces the true loss to public funds and which is relevant for sentencing.

Unfortunately very few criminal lawyers understand social security law, so these issues are rarely properly examined in prosecutions - I've had prosecution lawyers say as much.

I sent a summary of my findings to the Commons Select Committee last year and have met senior DWP officials to share my concerns. I can send this to you if you give me your email address.

People should be punished for what they have actually defrauded, not for amounts which are incorrect. If you steal £100 from a cash machine, you should get punished for stealing £100, not £500.

The inflated figures result in some people going to jail who should not and they distort the amount allegedly clawed back from benefit fraud - l know because I have had amounts revised dramatically downwards after my reports have been served on the prosecution, including many cases where people would have gone to jail unless I had shown the amounts were wrong.

Finally, your website often conflates the issues of benefit fraud with benefit dependency. The former is a criminal offence. The latter a complex socio-economic problem.