Light benefit fraud sentence highlighted

We noted on Wednesday that a couple accused of claiming over £60,000 fraudulently were sentenced to nine months in prison, suspended for two years. The husband was also given a 150 hour unpaid work order and the wife a supervision order with a condition to attend a women's group.

A commenter explodes:

Good God.....how much do you have to steal to go to prison? and 150 hours unpaid work is pathetic!

This sounds better than working for a living! At minimum wage it would take 4 years 10 months to cover this and at national average wage it would still take 2 years 7 months.

They should at least have to earn it back at minimum wagr so a sentence of 10,118 hours between them on community service would be appropriate. I bet we are still paying them benefit.

An interesting approach to a community work tariff.

Incapacity benefit reviewed

Of the people who have gone through the new Work Capability Assessments so far, some three-quarters are able to look for a job, reports the DWP's latest review.  Scaling that up for everyone on incapacity benefits,  as Peter Hoskin points out, would suggest that around 1.8 million claimants could return to the labour market.

However, of the 39% judged fit for work and placed on jobseeker's allowance (JSA), a third appeal, and 40% of those who appeal without legal advice win: for those who appeal with legal advice, the success rate rises to 70%.

The Times reportedly notes that "…thousands of vulnerable people with terminal cancer, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and clinical depression have had their applications rejected and told to look for work … about 8,000 people a month are now challenging the decision at an employment tribunal and almost half are winning cases".

And Paul Goodman comments that

Some ... [argue] that the tests indicate that under one in five of those assessed should have been on IB in the first place.  They'll look with special interest at the 43% who simply drop off the benefit.  Others will read that last figure in a different way, and protest that people in need are being unjustly pushed off public benefits by private contractors.  They'll read the tribunal success rate as an indictment of Atos.  Others will counter-maintain that the tribunals are soft, and suggest that if lawyers can up the appeal success rate by 30 per cent, then the law needs re-examining.

And he stresses that this testing system was put in place by Labour, not the coalition.

This reads as a balanced analysis. The tests and the appeals system clearly need looking at, but it's equally clear that there are serious amounts of money to be saved.

Piffling sentences for Romanian benefit fraud gang

A key player in an organised gang who cheated the benefits system of millions of pounds has been jailed.

Haringey Council tenant Cristian Dumitru, 29, of Junction Road, Tottenham, was jailed after helping more than 350 Romanian nationals to get NI cards illegally.

Dumitru also schooled them on how to apply for a string of benefits including child tax credits and housing allowances.

More than half of the Roma nationals Dumitru helped successfully claimed benefits amounting to £2.9million.

If the gang had not been caught, they would have cheated the benefits system of more than £12million.

Dumitru worked closely with a respected Roma community activist, Lavinia Olmazu, 31, and her partner Alin Enachi, 29, both of Woodford Green.

Olmazu, who acted as an advisor to several London councils, and Enachi created fake companies and issued bogus work references to deceive Department of Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs staff.

Her charity Roma Concern was a front organisation for the scam which was picked up by a special Met investigation, Opearation Golf, who were working closely with Romanian police to investigate a human trafficking ring.

Enachi was caught on surveillance camera meeting groups of Romanians outside Tooting Job Centre, in South London, and handing out false documents.

He would then accompany claimants into interviews acting as their interpreter.

Enachi controlled the false claims throughout, and together with Dumitru and Olmazu shared the profits with other members of their gang.

Dumitru, who had never held a legitimate job in the UK, was found transferring £80,000 through his bank account and wiring money to other gang members in Romania.

Detective Superintendent Bernie Gravett, of Operation Golf, said: "Cristian Dumitru is a member of an organised criminal network which, in this case, exploited these families to commit crime in the UK, pocketing some, if not all, of the profits.

"He would have defrauded the UK authorities of almost £12 million had the plan succeeded."

Dectective Gravett praised the team who had to take 400 statements, undertake a "significant amount" of surveillance and apply for several search warrants to see justice served.

The illegal claims amounting to £2.9million have now been closed down.

Dumitru and Enachi, alongside, five other gang members, were sentenced on July 16 at Southwark Crown Court but Olmazu will be sentenced on September 17 after admitting one count of fraud earlier today. Olmazu was also charged with one count of conspiracy to commit fraud, which will remain on file.

Detective Constable Melanie Groves, who worked on the case, said: "Olmazu is an educated Roma lady who abused her position of trust and purported to be trying to help Roma people integrate into this country, yet actually assisted them to obtain benefits through false pretences.

"This undermines the work of those who are genuinely concerned with the difficult issues Roma people face throughout Europe."

Enachi and Dumitru were jailed for two years and eight months, and two-and-a-half years, respectively after admitting one count of conspiracy to supply fake documents in order to commit fraud.

Dumitru admitted two further counts of fraud, and received two 14-month prison sentences, to run concurrent alongside his longer sentence.

Both Dumitru and Enachi were also charged with one count of conspiracy to commit fraud, which will remain on file.

Five other Haringey residents including Stelian Dimutru, 26, and his girlfriend Nicoleta Vasile, 25, both of Northumberland Park, Tottenham, were jailed for one year each after admitting two counts of fraud.

Cristian Dumitru's girlfriend, Paula Mihai, of Junction Road, Tottenham, also received a 12-month sentence.

Daniel Dumitru, 20, of Northumberland Park, and Ioan Dumitru, 22, of Walpole Road, received an eight and four months jail term after admitting two counts of fraud each.

Officers now plan to apply for deportation orders once the Romanian nationals have served their time.

• Immigrants should not be able to claim UK welfare payments without having built up an entitlement by paying contributions.
   
• The sentences are too short for this scale of fraud.
   
• Deportation orders should be available NOW.

No jail for £60k fraudsters

A couple from Farnborough, who claimed more than £25,000 Housing and Council Tax benefit from Rushmoor Borough Council have each been given nine month suspended prison sentences.

Mr Andrew Beck, age 42, and Mrs Sarah Beck, age 41, were accused of claiming more than £60,000 in both local authority and DWP benefits. The couple admitted 11 counts of benefit fraud, and were sentenced at Winchester Crown Court on Thursday 8th July.

The couple were sentenced to nine months in prison, suspended for two years. Mr Beck was also given a 150 hour unpaid work order and Mrs Beck a supervision order with a condition to attend a women's group.

In sentencing the couple, HH Judge Andrew Barnett, said that "total foolish criminality" of this sort would not be tolerated, and warned them that if they were "stupid enough to re-offend" or failed to comply with the unpaid work order or supervision order, they could face prison.

Data matching nails single person fraud

A woman has been ordered to carry out 170 hours unpaid work after being convicted of a £33,000 benefit fraud.

Ann Barrett, 31, pleaded guilty to claiming £33,426.36 in housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support she wasn't entitled to between March 2005 and October 2008.

She failed to declare she was living with her partner.

Barrett, of Herne Street, Openshaw, was given a nine month jail sentence suspended for 12 months at Manchester Magistrates’ Court as well as being ordered to complete 170 hours of unpaid work over a 12-month period.

The council’s counter fraud officers working together with colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions uncovered the offences following a data matching exercises designed to detect fraudulent and incorrect payments of benefit.

Couple were repeat benefit thieves

A pair of convicted benefit cheats have been handed suspended prison terms after offending again.

Mark Taylor, 29, now of Cowper Road, Huntingdon, and Lillian Freeman, 33, of Sapley Park, Huntingdon, appeared before the town’s magistrates’ court on charges of fraudulently claiming benefit.

The couple were overpaid £1,645 in housing benefit and council tax benefit between 2008 and 2009.

Both pleaded guilty to one charge each of failing to report that Taylor had changed employer and increased his earnings.

After being reported by a member of the public, investigations confirmed that Taylor had changed employers and had received a significant increase in earnings which had not been reported to the council.

When interviewed, the couple both claimed that they thought the other had reported the change to the council.

Michelle Cheatle, acting for Freeman, told the court that her client was a mother of five who was now a single parent following the break-up of the couple’s relationship.

She said her client was concerned that she could be sent to prison and if this happened all her children would be taken into care.

In sentencing, the bench, also took into consideration the breaches of previous sentences.

The couple had previously been prosecuted following a trial in June 2008 for benefit fraud which had resulted in overpayments of £8,000.

They also took into account the couple’s guilty pleas and the arrangements that they had made to pay back the overpayments to the council.

Both received two-month prison sentences, suspended for 12 months. They were ordered to pay costs to the council of £240 each.

Taylor will have to complete 80 hours of unpaid work and Freeman will undergo 12 months’ supervision with the Probation Service.

In another case, the court was told that Wolfgang Bartzsch, 61, of South Walk, Ramsey, was overpaid £2,302 in benefit.

An investigation, following a tip-off from a member of the public, revealed that Bartzsch had been working for an employer on an irregular basis and had failed to report this when he claimed benefit from December 2007 onwards.

David Potter, for Bartzsch, said his client was of previous good character and had made efforts to repay the money to the council.

Bartzsch was fined £250 and ordered to pay the council’s costs of £240.

Mother stole £17,000

Mrs Lisa Brown, previously from West Malling, and now in Maidstone, pleaded guilty on Tuesday 15 June 2010 and was sentenced on 6 July 2010 at Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court on three counts of obtaining benefits to which she was not entitled.

It was heard that Mrs Brown, a mother of five children, was receiving more than £700 a month from the three fathers of her children and that these payments should have been declared to the two authorities. Mrs Brown was overpaid £17,217 in Income Support, Housing and Council Tax Benefits between January 2006 and January 2008.

The Chair of the Bench, Mr David Smith, in sentencing Mrs Brown stated: "In considering this sentence we note there were multiple offences, fraud from the outset and the overpayment is a substantial loss to tax payers. We have read the probation reports carefully and in line with their recommendations and your early guilty plea we sentence you to a two-year community punishment order with 200 hours unpaid work with £150 costs."

Mrs Brown will also have to repay all the money fraudulently claimed.

Golfer was swinging the lead

A golf-playing benefits cheat who said he was too disabled to work has been sent to prison for conning the state out of £36,000.

Philip Bond, aged 62, from Torquay, made fraudulent claims for housing, disability, council tax and income support over a 12-year period — but Exeter Crown Court was told yesterday the only handicap he had was a 'respectable' 14-stroke one he built up on the fairways of Dainton Park Golf Club in Ipplepen.

Investigators from the DWP filmed Bond swinging clubs with apparent ease despite claiming he was so disabled he could barely put on his socks in the morning.

He was told by Judge Stephen Wildblood QC that his deception was 'fraudulent, repeated and knowing' from the outset, and was sent to prison for seven months.

Bond admitted 10 counts of dishonestly claiming benefit amounting to £36,400 between May 1996 and July 2008.

The court was told the main part of the claim, amounting to £34,360, was for disability living allowance, which Bond began claiming in 1996.

Prosecutor James Cranfield said Bond knew his claim was fraudulent from the outset but that did not stop him making other claims during the period for income support, severe disablement allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

After Bond made the first fraudulent claim he would have been sent letters from the benefits office on a yearly basis asking him whether there were any changes to his situation.

He did not inform them of any changes.

Tax investigators were finally tipped off that Bond was not only playing twice a week at Dainton Park but also working as a painter and decorator in 2007 and 2008 at the Highweek Inn in Newton Abbot.

He had been a paid-up member of the golf club since 1993, had a 'mid-level' handicap and took part in competitions.

Mitigating, Martin Salloway said Bond did have a medical condition known as ankylosing spondylitis which affected the spine.

He said Bond's doctors had recommended he took exercise, and he found playing golf the most effective way to do this.

Bond admitted he had lied to the benefits office by exaggerating his symptoms of stiffness and breathlessness. He 'felt a sense of grievance' that he was being told he couldn't claim the benefits he wanted, he said.

Judge Wildblood said: "Each time you received benefit you must have known what you were doing was wrong and that knowledge must have been at the front of your mind over the 12 years you were committing this offence."

Bond admitted three counts of dishonestly falsifying documents, three of dishonestly failing to notify the DWP about changes to his circumstances, and further charges of obtaining money, benefits and property by deception.

Afterwards John Martin, the main investigating officer for the DWP, said: "The judge has very clearly stated that extensive benefit fraud will not be tolerated.

"It's our desire as a department that we do pay the right amount to people and clearly Bond was making false statements to claim benefit he wasn't entitled to."

Another complaint about benefit fraud sentence

A councillor has again criticised judges after another benefit fraudster was allowed to walk free from court.

Last week, Phil Turner, Basildon councillor for resources, hit out after 60-year-old June Cunningham received a suspended jail sentence for illegally claiming more than £43,000 in benefits. He also criticised the sentence on Rashmin Nishanthi Ediriweera.

Mr Turner has spoken again of his disappointment at the legal system after benefit cheat Christine Ojera was allowed to walk free from court.

Ojera, 43 of Deacon Drive, Laindon, fraudulently claimed more than £10,000 in housing benefit from Basildon Council over three years.

She failed to tell the authority about a bank account full of savings, that she had a job and also an NHS student bursary.

Ojera was caught out and at Basildon Crown Court pleaded guilty to one count of dishonestly failing to notify the council of a change in her circumstances and two of dishonestly making a false statement.

She was sentenced to a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs of £500. Ojera will also have to pay back the £10,000.

But Mr Turner remained unimpressed by the sentence.

He said: “Only recently did I express amazement at the lightness of sentencing for a benefit cheat and here is another case in point.

“From speaking to residents, I know they will be bitterly disappointed by the lack of a custodial sentence.

“It seems more likely I will be locked up for voicing my contempt than someone who has stolen from each and every one of us.

“We won’t give up in the fight against fraud but sometimes I wonder if the courts are as committed to protecting honest taxpayers.

Mr Turner added: “I am still pleased the work of our Investigations Team continues to deliver results – this sends a clear message to would-be fraudsters – we will not tolerate people who brazenly and illegally dip into the public purse.

“However, I speak for residents when I ask the courts to flex their muscles and help us deal with benefit fraud once and for all.”

• These people do it for the money. So hit them in the pocket. It was money that motivated them, and a financial penalty will help to deter them.
  
  Everyone convicted of benefit fraud who doesn't go to prison should have to do unpaid work.
  
  Benefit thieves should also have to repay twice what they've stolen, and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have. A confiscation order should be automatic and immediate.
  
  If you don't punish people who are convicted of an easy crime, the offence will continue to look attractive.

Fraud Initiative catches Bedford benefit thieves

A Bedford woman was ordered to wear an electronic tag and serve a three month curfew order for illegally claiming Housing Benefit and Income Support totaling £6,907.

Miss Eleanor Reeve appeared at Bedford Magistrates Court on Thursday July 15 and pleaded guilty to four counts of benefit fraud. Between September 2007 and November 2009 Reeve fraudulently claimed at total of £6,907 in benefits by failing to declare she had received student grants and student loans. She was overpaid £3,378 in housing benefit and £3,529 in Income Support.

The fraud was discovered by the Council through the National Fraud Initiative, an annual exercise where information from the Council’s benefit records is matched with data from other organisations. Reeve pleaded guilty when confronted with evidence of the offences following a joint investigation by Bedford Borough Council and Jobcentre Plus.

Magistrates sentenced her to wear an electronic tag and ordered her to remain at home between 7.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. She was also sentenced to a 6 month Community Order and ordered to pay £85.00 in costs.

Separately, a Bedford man who falsely claimed £8,918 in benefits has been ordered to carry out 140 hours unpaid work in the community.

Mr Vincent Anderson of Kirkman Close, Bedford, appeared at Bedford Magistrates Court pleaded guilty to five counts of benefit fraud.

Anderson’s illegal claim came to light as a result of work carried out by Bedford Borough Council and Jobcentre Plus investigators using data obtained through the National Fraud Initiative.

Following a joint investigation it was established that Mr Anderson had repeatedly failed to declare that his partner had two jobs.

On top of having to repay the benefits overpayment he was sentenced to a 12 month community service order, ordered to carry out 140 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay £250 in costs.

Benefits cheat sentenced

A caretaker working for Ealing Homes hid details of his employment to falsely claim more than £19,000 in benefits from Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Lugman Oluwo of Stoneleigh Street, Notting Hill, admitted benefit fraud at Isleworth Crown Court on Thursday (15), and was sentenced the nine months in jail, suspended for two years, and 200 hours community service.

The judge accepted that Oluwo had admitted the offence at the earliest possible opportunity, had drug issues at the time, and that his employer had agreed to keep him on.

He also noted that Oluwo has been paying back £50 a week already, and is looking to increase this amount.

The court was told that, while employed to look after the Golf Links Estate, Greenford, Oluwo hid details of his salary from the council, falsely claiming more than £19,000 in housing and council tax benefit.

He admitted failing to inform the council that he was working, and intentionally withholding bank account details, to hide the salary that was being paid in.

Councillor Warwick Lightfoot, cabinet member for finance, said: "This was a prolonged fraud by Mr Olumo, designed to take money from the public purse.

"I am very glad that our investigations have resulted in this punishment from the court.

"The work of our council officers shows that there are many ways in which fraudsters can be caught.

"There are many ways that information is stored now, and we are working more effectively in order to identify those who try to cheat the system."

Will benefit thief pensioner be jailed?

A Monmouth pensioner was told she is facing prison after admitting six benefit fraud charges totalling more than £40,000.

At Newport crown court, Patricia Matthews, 66, of Clawdd Du, admitted five charges of dishonestly making false representations and one of obtaining an exemption of liability by deception.

The offences were committed between 1998 and 2007 and relate to Matthews claiming pension credit, income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit she wasn’t entitled to.

The charges were brought by the Department for Work and Pensions, with Matthews claiming £42,457.90.

Each charge relates to Matthews failing to declare that she was married and living with her husband when making the claim.

The first five charges relate to claims she made for state benefits while the sixth charge relates to an application made to Monmouthshire County Council.

In claiming council tax and housing tax benefit between March and November 2007, she failed to declare she was married and living with her husband.

Matthews was bailed while a pre-sentence report is compiled before she is sentenced at Cardiff Crown Court on July 30.

Judge Mark Furness told the defendant: "All options are open, you are in grave danger of losing your liberty." We'll see.

Tory target to cut incapacity benefit

Iain Duncan Smith says the Government is aiming to get 1.5 million people off incapacity benefit, more than half the 2.6 million total claimants.

It is the first time, says the Daily Mail excitedly, that ministers have set a target for the number they want to get into employment or back-to-work schemes.

Tough measures including testing 10,000 claimants a week have already been introduced to weed out cheats.

More than half of those assessed have been taken off higher-rate benefits because they are considered capable of doing some work.

"We will do everything to help people back into work - retraining, help with interview", says IDS, "but in the end we expect people who can work to take the jobs that are offered them. If they don't, their benefits will be incrementally cut".

Basildon Councillor criticises benefit thief's sentence

A benefit cheat who made a false statement in her application has been found guilty at Basildon Magistrates Court.

Rashmin Nishanthi Ediriweera, aged 43, of Hove Avenue, London, previously of Fleetway, Vange, who claimed over £8,000 was sentenced to a £250 fine, ordered to pay costs of £1,124 and a victim surcharge of £15.

Ms Ediriweera went on trial for two charges and was found guilty of one count of making a false statement or representation concerning whether or not she was waiting for decision from the Home Office regarding her immigration status.

Councillor Phil Turner, cabinet member for resources, said:

“Our specialist fraud investigation team continue to refine their detection methods.

“Some fraudsters may think they’re a step ahead of the game but rest assured Basildon Council is keenly following the tracks they leave behind.

“Anyone who thinks they can illegitimately dip into the public purse unnoticed is wrong.

“While I’m pleased the work of the fraud investigations team has resulted in a successful prosecution, I feel the sentence does not sufficiently reflect the value of benefits stolen.”

Ms Ediriweera will also have to pay back the full amount of benefit overpayment. Yeah right.

A reader writes ...

Dear Mr Osborne,

Re.: The Missing Billions of Benefit Fraud

I am writing because I have no doubts that the policy behind detecting and dealing with Benefit Fraud is costing this country billions of pounds needlessly.

Firstly, let me say that I believe we need to protect the system for those for which the benefits are intended. Equally important is the need to maintain public confidence. There is also the ever growing significance with the issue of best value for money as budgets are cut.

This last point is in my view the most significant of all because it makes it difficult to justify a proper assessment as to the true extent of Benefit Fraud. Ministers and civil servants alike will say that thorough and proper assessments have been carried out. Historically this has never been the case. It would involve a very thorough and detailed examination of a significantly large sample of cases to determine an "actual" as opposed to "estimated" figure. As such we do not know the extent of the problem we need to deal with, the samples taken are not reflective of those committing the fraud.

Instead we have seen a steady rise in the estimates from the 1970's until the turn of the century when the estimates have fallen dramatically. None of these estimates are helpful; they generally distort the picture and compound the problem.

One point to make is that I worked for the Benefits Agency where I spent over 12 years investigating Benefit Fraud and during that time I submitted several papers to HQ that were well received. I retired in 1995 but have taken a keen interest in the changes since then. My whole ethos was based on the need to be cost effective and that my actions should act as a deterrent.

I am prompted to write after seeing the BBC News report on 8th July 2010 where a 61-year-old man who falsely claimed £30,516 in disability and housing benefits was exposed as a cheat after being filmed teaching a dance class. That case was as a result of an anonymous tip-off and I cannot believe it took more than 30 man-hours to get the evidence to get the decision and then move onto a prosecution. That case too must have been cost effective.

This is a difficult area and there are a lot of points to make. I will be as succinct as I can. Please see the attached report that I now submit for your scrutiny.

Finally, I have written a book "Benefit Thieves" by "Six Hundred" and I respectfully ask that you, or somebody within your team, reads this book as it is based on my career investigating Benefit Fraud. It tells how to get real results and without a public outcry. The book is available at www.benefitthieves.org.uk

My View on "The Missing Billions of Benefit Fraud"

1.    Towards the end of the 1970's Benefit Fraud was estimated as being £4m based, I believe that it was compared to shoplifting in major department stores where losses were said to be 1 to 2%. In 1979 the estimate was increased to £200m.

2.    I refer to table 2.1 on page 9 of "Fraud and Error in the Benefit System: October 2008 to September 2009" the most recent estimate for Benefit Fraud in 2009/10. That chart gives a total spend of £148bn on Social Security Benefits. The Office for Budget Responsibility in their June 2010 Forecast in Table C13 on page 102 gave the estimated figure for expenditure on £163.7bn for the same year. DWP's estimate of £15.7bn less than your own department's is noteworthy. Using the average of 1.3% of expenditure as being fraud for the different benefits this would add another £0.204bn.

3.    There is also the £22.9bn for Tax Credits and again these will be subject to fraud. I can not identify figures attributable to fraud alone but HMRC in their report "Child and Working Tax Credits Error and fraud statistics 2007/8" (page 6, para 6) gave an overall figure of 8.6% for fraud and error. If it is reasonable to assume that this is split about 3 ways between "Fraud", "Customer Error" and "Official Error" (as the DWP figures show) then we have a figure of 2.8% ( rounded down as the apparent trend is down). For 2009/10 this would give an estimate for Tax Credit Fraud of £0.641bn.

4.    From points 2 & 3 above we see that the total estimated for Social Security Benefit and Tax Credit Fraud is £1.85bn. A far cry from the £1bn DWP say albeit that Tax Credit fraud is omitted. In the context of this report it needs to be included.

5.    The whole area of statistics varies. A small amount of £2bn in an estimate of nearly £200bn is acceptable but 10% plus is not. It suggests false figures.

6.    I recently enquired about current targets for DWP investigators. The reply I got was basically that they were aimed at getting sanctions. They told me that last year 33,150 people were sanctioned for committing benefit fraud. These include Prosecutions, Administrative Penalties and Cautions. In the new legislation as per the Lords Debates - 30 March 2010 that Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Amendment Regulations 2010, the House was told there were 56,000 such sanctions!

7.    Who is fooling who?

8.    All of the above figures are not helpful even if you ignore the discrepancies, which I find intolerable.

9.    The current system of estimating Benefit Fraud is based on matching data. This does take into account the vast majority of customers that are not defrauding the system. It does not encompass all fraud by a long way; as the DWP admit in their report on Fraud and Error. There is no consideration of referrals from the Benefits Fraud Hotline and no in-depth investigation of a sample where there is apparently no suspicion of fraud.

10.    Based on my experience of investigating Benefit Fraud my results proved 70% of cases passed to me as a result of a suspicion (equivalent to the Hotline) were fraudulent, 20% were not cost effective for me to pursue and the remaining 10% were cases where I was satisfied that there was no fraud. Colleagues undertaking the same role as me averaged a 50% proven rate. I worked a lot of unsocial hours and had a very different approach to my work; I was thorough and totally dedicated. These were the results obtained from reactive referrals. When I took a pro-active role the success rate rose to 95%; I had a pretty good idea of who to target. Using this method it was apparent that there was at least 5% of the caseload where there was fraud - an essential pointer in establishing an honest estimate. Granted there is a wide variation between the different benefits. It would also produce evidence to show a lot of customer error case were in fact fraud.

11.    There can be no doubt that surveillance can be extremely cost effective and I refer back to the Manchester case with the £30k overpayment.

12.    Moving onto another area, the question of recovery and write offs. It is no deterrent whatsoever if an overpayment is ever written off. That debt should be lodged against the individual until death. Where there is real poverty there is a real problem but don't write the overpayment off. Recovery at a modest a rate is better than none. All too often the fraudsters and many other customers have sky TV that is costing them £10 a week and an expensive plasma TV; they pay those bills. How? Neglecting to pay others? These examples, nice as they are, are not what the benefits are paid for.

13.    Please don't shout underprivileged. There are many not on benefits that are less well off. We need to clear this national debt.

14.    Using the method adopted throughout the 1980's and 1990's for estimating Benefit Fraud we would have a current year estimate for fraud of £13.5bn. A far cry from the £1bn used today.

15.    Neither system is right. If you go back to the methodology that 2% of claims were fraudulent but there was another 3% were highly suspicions, this would be nearer the truth i.e. don't top that figure up with another 2% for low suspicion cases. However the State Retirement pension has very little fraud and so this needs to be removed from the equation giving the figures for 2009/10 as £186.6bn (less £66.9bn for retirement pension) = £119.7bn x 5% giving the figure of £6bn.

16.    If we went about investigating Benefit Fraud properly and then recovering it, this would make a substantial contribution to reducing the debt OR keeping others in the jobs they have. THE ANSWER MUST BE TO CUT THE BENEFIT FRAUD!

References:
The Green Paper 98/195 "Beating Fraud is Everyone’s Business"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/10560307.stm
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct08_sep09.pdf
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_annexc.pdf
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/cwtcredits-error0708.pdf
http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/social-security-loss-of-benefit-amendment-regulations-2010/HAN1500333
http://www.radstats.org.uk/no070/article2.htm

Paying back benefits overpayments

A correspondent writes:

I used to work for the Central Recovery Group, whose job was to get back any overpaid benefits (only a minority are prosecuted for Fraud), I'm not sure if CRG exists any more but they dealt with the whole country. Originally, I would input the overpayment details on to the computer systems, the target was to input 100 cases a day, and there were about 10 of us doing this every day! This generated letters to "our customers" informing them how to pay back their overpayment, these would usually come back as "not known at this address".

So another section of about 10 people would work full-time tracing people. I then moved to this section and people could be traced using their national insurance numbers to where they worked, in the vast majority of cases it turned out that they were still at the original address. But imagine the time and money it cost to establish this.

I then ended up on the section where we would negotiate with customers to repay their overpayments. A minority would offer a reasonable amount and, hopefully, would set up a direct debit so that the overpayment would start to be repaid. The majority would haggle for the lowest amount possible, some even at one pound a week. Even then there was no guarantee that they would actually keep to this repayment, they would pay for a couple of weeks then leave it, then make another payment here and there. Again, think of the time and money spent sending reminders to these people. Only a minority would end up with an attachment of earnings.

Whenever they stopped working and returned to benefits, their overpayment would return to the D.W.P., who would make deductions from their benefits. Bizarrely, this is a quicker way of getting the money back! If they came off benefits, the overpayment would return to CRG, who would write again (and post would be returned again, so the whole saga starts over). Nobody was ever visited in person by C.R.G but we would have a team in the evening who tried ringing customers. Bailiffs were never used, can you imagine a credit card company behaving like this?

I agree with you that someone convicted of benefit fraud should stop receiving benefits till they have repaid their ill-gotten gains, although I've seen repayment agreements which would take 50 years before being paid off. But this will never happen! So whenever, you see a case where the defendant is going to pay back the overpayment, just think on about how little they will pay and how long it will take. Essentially they have got interest free unsecured loans and they can pay back as and when they feel like it. Even with deductions from benefits they can ask (and get) reduced deductions as they usually have a load of other debts which they have no intention of paying.

My view remains that these people do it for the money. So hit them in the pocket. It was money that motivated them, and a financial penalty will help to deter them.

Benefit thieves should have to repay twice what they've stolen, and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have. A confiscation order should be automatic and immediate.

If you don't punish people who are convicted of an easy crime, the offence will continue to look attractive.

Another comment from a former benefits officer

I have posted on this site a couple of times and note that a number of other persons who work in the system are also posting, it shows that there is a lot of unhappiness @ the way benefits are being both paid & investigated.

There are others who are unhappy but will not express an opinion, maybe it's time for these people to get things off their chest, possibly with the effect of some one in Government reading them & taking up the issues.

In my opinion until the benefit system is overhauled & accuracy is substituted for number crunching then billions more will be poured down the drain.

A benefits client writes

I live on benefits. I care for my partner, who is disabled. Recently I read the staggering outpouring of hatred and vitriol on the your-freedom and spending-challenge websites set up by the government. I knew that people hated us but, as we are so isolated - I don't have a television or buy newspapers very often or go out anywhere as I am mainly in the house looking after my partner, I wasn't clear on why. So I've been looking up benefit fraud and I found this site.

I wonder what can be done to prevent benefit fraud that doesn't encourage this general antipathy. It's very frightening, especially given the recent cases of Fiona Pilkington etc.

One thing I experienced recently was, it's very hard to declare changes in one's circumstances. Last year I unexpectedly came into some money. I immediately phoned the DWP and asked how to declare it. They said they'd send me a form. Weeks went by and no form arrived. I rang again and they sent me a form which made no sense to me at all - there was nothing about capital on it. I phoned them up and they said, oh, it's the wrong form...but offered nothing further.

I then cycled to the Social office in the hope of speaking to a person. After some time queuing, I was directed to a booth with a phone in it. When I picked up the phone, it was the same hotline I'd phoned from home! I then wrote to them. I had no response. After six months of intermittent emailing, I finally got a call from a person who knew what I needed to do. They asked me to send in photocopies of my bank statements, which I did, and they made the necessary deduction. I would have done that six months previously if I had known how.

During that period I was technically committing benefit fraud! It was a source of enormous anxiety for me, as we depend on the allowances utterly, and, well, I just don't like to be dishonest.

On reading your site I see that many of the frauds are also sins of omission. I wonder if you had any ideas of how to lobby the DWP to have the forms and procedures for reporting each change in circumstances available on Directgov. If I could have filled in the forms online, and attached my online bank statements, I would have been able to comply instantly. If the procedures were transparent, I know that I would have been less frightened and overwhelmed.

(I see now that they have included a direct email address on the directgov page, but it still cannot be used to send any confidential information.)

A few bad 'uns

A wealthy couple who owned property and bank accounts worth nearly half a million pounds have been sentenced after carrying out the biggest ever case of benefit fraud in the Epping area. Robert Martin was jailed for 30 months for the £130,000 fraud, but wife Samantha escaped with a 12-month suspended sentence after Chelmsford Crown Court heard she had played a lesser role in the affair. More

A married mother of three fiddled more than £60,000 in benefits by claiming she was a single parent. she was given a 20 week jail term suspended for 12 months, as well as being placed under supervision for a year, with an order to carry out 80 hours unpaid work in the community. More

A company director who swindled £118,000 in benefits by claiming he had just £20 in the bank was secretly splashing out on villas and yachts abroad. John Watkinson was jailed for two years. More

Yvette Nana has pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud and false accounting between January 2001 and October 2007. Nana, from Barnet, tricked authorities into believing she was a French national and was given £85,000 in housing benefits and a further £6,000 in council tax benefits over more than six years. She has three children and also claimed child tax credits for them. The serial benefit cheat made some of the false claims while on bail for a similar offence for which she was convicted at Harrow Crown Court in 2007. She will be sentenced on 28 July. The judge said a custodial sentence was a “certainty”. More

More from the front line

As someone who refers cases to our Fraud team, Six Hundred's comments do not surprise me and it explains why they only take on the easier cases (to meet their targets). Ultimately if you don't mount surveillance then you are not going to get the proof  needed. Our Fraud team seems to rely on credit checks on addresses and interviews with claimants (who don't have to answer any questions).

Two examples from last year

A man on Income Support buys a house with a £250K mortgage, his explanation is that he has borrowed £40k from friends and then says he is self-employed to get a mortgage. So he admits to lying to get his mortgage so why do Fraud assume he is telling the truth with his other claim forms? Maybe he really is self-employed? How does he pay back £40k to his friends?

An Africa single parent who keeps having children to the same father told Fraud that she gets pregnant when she travels back to Africa to visit her husband, so they took her word for this but didn't ask to see her passport!

Such is their indifference I'm amazed that anyone gets prosecuted. But then other agencies are just as bad. I'm currently querying how someone who works 50 hours a week in their own shop has nil income - the Inland Revenue have already paid her Working Tax Credits based on her self-declared nil income. I was at a team meeting recently when my manager told us "we're here to pay benefits", not "we're here to assess a claim and if they are entitled, pay benefits", very big difference.

Finally, last week, I dealt with a claim of a couple with 4 children (one of who is disabled) their total weekly benefits is £900 per week! Its the disabled child which bumps up the benefits and while I'm sure its not easy bringing a disabled child up, isn't £900 per week a bit much? They live in the North West, nothing to stop them moving to London and getting even more with higher Housing Benefit.

P.S I'll never forget the day when I realized the alcoholic claimant was getting more in benefits than I was earnings in wages!

And more from the front line

"Six Hundred" writes again:

DWP admit that their estimate for fraud does not include all cases:

These estimates are subject to statistical sampling uncertainties.

Further,

The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because fraud is, by its nature, a covert activity, complex official error can be difficult to identify and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases cannot be proven. For example, unreported earnings in the informal economy will be much harder to detect than those in the formal economy.

How perceptive - or is it?

Having selected their sample by identifying any discrepancies between information from different sources, they interview the customer in their home. This follows a structured and detailed set of questions on the basis of their claim. Am I to think that they go through the claim form just like any visiting officer? If a suspicion of fraud is identified, an investigation is undertaken by a trained Fraud Investigator with the aim of resolving the suspicion.

Using this technique they come up with figures of 2.8% for Income Support, 2.5% for Job Seeker's Allowance, 1.0% for Pension Credit, 1.3% for Housing Benefit and 3.9% for Carer's Allowance as being fraudulent.

Running through the different benefits they arrive at a total estimated overpayment for 2009/10 of £1bn for fraud. There is no mention of another £15.7bn of benefits the Treasury estimated would be paid out for the same year. Add this and the fraud we might expect with Tax Credits the total fraud becomes £1.65bn; a bit more than the £1bn they say!

Why are they underestimating Benefit Fraud in this way?

Having gained 12 years experience of investigating Benefit Fraud I know that with reactive referrals I proved fraud in 70% of the cases given to me. These cases were, in the main, raised because of anonymous information.

When I conducted a pro-active role the rate rose to 95%. Well I had a pretty fair idea of who to target. I made thorough investigations and that was how I achieved the results that I did. The system currently used to estimate fraud in the benefit system is nothing more than a joke!!!

If we adopted the system for estimating Benefit Fraud as per the Green Paper 98/195 Beating Fraud is Everyone’s Business, we would have an estimate of £13.1bn for fraud in 2009/10. There is no doubt in my mind that Benefit Fraud will be in excess of £3bn and probably more like £5bn but who am I to say?

Websites that are informative and that I have used are:
http://www.benefitthieves.org.uk/
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct08_sep09.pdf
http://www.ginfo.pl/more/244971,BENEFIT+FRAUD+GREEN+PAPER.html

The Benefit Fraud website has what it says is a conservative estimate of annual benefit fraud, of £3.5bn. After reading the contributions of visitors to this blog, I'd say that estimate is hugely understated.

DWP statisticians must have known that their work was based on false premises - dispiriting for them. Labour ministers didn't want to tackle the benefit fraud problem. Why would they? It would only have cost them votes, and there was no pressure from the Opposition - who didn't want to raise issues which could see them characterised as The Nasty Party again.

Will IDS and Chris Grayling want to persist with this fiction?

More from the front line

Pulling out two more comments from people who have worked in the front line.

I worked for DWP from '72 to '89 the final 5 as a Special Investigator, prior to that I think I did every other job available. In all my years I tried to treat the claimants I came into contact fairly and honestly, but when your senior officers start to question your attitude then I thought it time to leave.

Senior Officers in the DWP have no idea how to treat people, they are solely concerned with meeting targets and following procedure to the letter, they don't think for themselves, and  certainly never discuss things with the 'front line ' staff who actually have to do the work, but then if they don't meet their end of year bonus.

The DWP should talk to their staff and get their ideas about combating fraud rather than listen to the Whitehall Mandarins who have a member of staff to do up their shoes, because they have put on weight sitting behind their desks looking at stats and expounding the virtues of data matching! Yes agreed its good but there is nothing like getting Investigators on the streets, instead of sitting behind a computer.

Local Authorities are heavily involved in investigating benefit fraud and I believe on the whole do a better job and quicker than their DWP counterparts. Why? Because in general the investigators are better trained and are allowed to use their own initiative rather than the strict regime of the DWP.

The last time I saw the figures DWP had 2500 Investigators. Local Councils have twice that and their prosecutions probably make up the majority of those recorded by DWP, especially now that Local Authorities can prosecute DWP offences.

And this:

It beggars belief how this great country is brought down by people who are flying here to get a piece from the cake..and also by those ..who are supposed to be serving it. I am a turkish national who worked in the uk, as a nursing auxillary, and a registered nurse for a good 10 years, and previously as a waitress. Never relied on handouts and paid my tution fees as a student in my studies in English as well as further studies. I funded my own self all along, and didn't go for the option of falling pregnant to get some hand outs. I am now a mortgage owner of a tiny 1 bedroom flat in the outskirts of London. After finishing my interpreting course I have done some interpreting and had to stop because I couldn`t stomach the deviousness of some cases...How people lying through their teeth (cos I can detect it) but do nothing to stop it as i am there to translate. Saying that, in life there are a lot of greys...I appreciate that and on the other hand...

I only know that those benefit cheaters are so callous and devious and self rightous it beggars belief.

Social housing fraud in London

A housing association official in London speaks to The Mail:

Not long ago, I had to do a field visit to one of our sites to show some properties to a family. The houses are new-builds in a really good, central location - I'd love to live in one myself. Three storeys, with three or four bedrooms, really nice - they were so new that the paint was still wet.

The family had just arrived in London from Somalia. It didn't take long for them to decide they'd seen enough. They didn't speak much English but they made it clear they weren't happy with the bedrooms on the top floor - apparently they didn't like the sloping eaves.

But the deal-breaker came with their next questions. First, they wanted to know if the property came with an automatic right-to-buy with a discount, which it didn't.

They are thinking of council-owned properties, but we are a housing association - a not-for-profit organisation that is funded by government grants, bank loans and rental income - so we hold on to our stock and simply let it out.

I thought that question was a bit odd, considering the family supposedly didn't have a penny to their name, which was why they were throwing themselves on the mercy of the good old British taxpayer. Where would they get the funds to buy a townhouse in central London?

This 'penniless' family also wanted to know whether they got a residents' parking space with the property. I had to tell them 'No' to that as well. They shrugged and spread their arms, as if to say: 'How on earth do you expect us to live here? Why are you wasting our time dragging us here?' And off they went.

They could afford to be so sniffy because we have Choice-Based Letting (CBL). Once, there was pressure on applicants to accept properties when they came up or risk dropping back down the list. Now that's gone, so they can just keep saying No till we deliver exactly what they want - they're actually more demanding than tenants in the private sector.

Our problem as a housing association is that we are subcontracted to local authorities and have no say over the lists of people for whom we have to find a house - we are simply given the list and if someone is on it, they have the right to take one of our properties (with their rent heavily subsidised by taxpayers).

Even if it would be overwhelmingly obvious to a five-year-old that the applicants were chancers, we have to smile and say, 'Yes, sir' or 'No, madam'. In fact, we can't even describe them as 'tenants' any more - we've been told we must call them 'customers'.

Even if it's obvious they're chancers, we can't say No

he legal position is that local authorities have a statutory duty to house those in need and will determine whether they need emergency housing (such as immediate B&B accommodation) until a long-term property is found.

That's where I come in. I've been doing this sort of work for 15 years and we see a massively disproportionate number of people arriving from overseas.

The law was changed in 2000 to say that asylum seekers would not be eligible for social housing but it doesn't seem to have hugely affected the types of people that we are seeing. I suppose that's partly because once asylum is granted, they do become eligible - and those who go on to get British citizenship can invite members of their family to come over and join them.

Overall, the system is a joke. It rewards those family members who have just stepped off a plane by giving them a wonderful property in a central location, while Britons who have been here for years or even generations have got no chance of getting to the top of the list.

This is because British applicants tend to be already living with family - parents, etc - so technically qualify as being housed. Recent arrivals with kids in tow do not and are given priority. That said, single mothers as a group are hugely over-represented among social housing tenants; the perception of girls becoming pregnant to get a council flat isn't completely without foundation.

My particular bugbear, odd as it may sound, is satellite dishes. These pose a huge problem for us, especially with our Turkish 'customers' (for some reason a lot of the families we are asked to house are Turkish).

The first thing they want to know - well, after the free parking and the right to buy, of course - is whether they are allowed to put a satellite dish the size of a small helipad on the front of the property. Some of them need to put up two dishes so they can guarantee getting all the channels they want.

As a result, some of our properties end up looking like GCHQ. I'm told the problem is something to do with the signal for Turkish TV not being strong enough.

We always say No. If they think we really mean it - because the house is a new-build or period property - they will turn the place down, no matter how nice it is.


How are they paying for it? Tenants who are supposedly on the breadline often have luxury goods like plasma TVs

Properties with open-plan kitchens can be a problem too, as Somalian or other Muslim 'customers' often don't want a kitchen that opens straight on to a reception room, and these type of houses are always turned down. I was given the reason by one man: If he wanted to invite other men around to play cards or whatever, he didn't want them to see his wife making food in the kitchen.

I really have no idea how some of the people who come to us become eligible for such heavily subsidised properties, although I have my theories.

One of our 'customers' is a musician of west African descent who is doing really well and often appears on TV. Certainly, tributes on his website as well as comments from his agent are effusive about just how successful he is. Yet he and his family recently rang us to arrange some property viewings - they were on the council list and wanted rehousing in a more central location.

He was very fussy: it had to be a period, character property and it had to be in London Underground's Zone 1 - i.e. central London.

We showed him a beautiful, four-storey Georgian property in a central London square with a park in the middle. He seemed delighted, as well he should be - this is a house worth well over £1 million and a normal rental would be £1,000 a week. He's getting it subsidised for £130 a week.

My personal view is that this house should be sold and the money invested in new-builds - we could have a dozen flats for the same money, and so help lots of families, not just one.

But no one else in the department seems to agree. I can't understand it: surely we are supposed to provide a safety net for as many people as possible, not the keys to the palace for just one family?

Anyway, this family didn't seem to appreciate their good fortune. As soon as they moved in, they bombarded us with a litany of complaints. Nothing was ever right.

For example, we had just installed a new fitted kitchen, leaving space for white goods - we don't supply those, that's down to the tenants. Sorry, customers!

Anyway, this family had brought with them a 'slim fit' dishwasher. But the space we'd left was for a standard-sized unit. Believe it or not, they wanted us to come back, take the kitchen out and refit it with units that matched their dishwasher.

In any case, I don't know how that family qualified for social housing. If I were being charitable, I would guess that they had got on the list before they had a better income and managed to stay on it.

The truth is that once you're on the list, you seem to be there for life: the system isn't continuously means-tested. What should happen is that tenants - customers - should be retested periodically to ensure that they still qualify for this enormous subsidy from the taxpayer. As I say, it should be a safety net, not a state-sponsored bonanza for a lucky few.

It really rankles that someone who is clearly earning a lot more money than me gets to live in Millionaire's Row at taxpayers' expense, while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet. I commute into work from a small flat outside of London as I can't afford to buy anything more central.

A less charitable explanation for why this musician and his family got the star treatment (and one that a lot of my colleagues believe to be the case) is that there are cliques in local authority departments - be they West African, Indian, Pakistani, whatever - who 'look after their own'.

These cliques bump friends and relatives to the top of the list, even if they don't fulfil any of the criteria for social housing. This is done either as a favour or in return for a backhander.

I know it happens. One area I deal with is in South London. There is a large Portuguese community there and I would often get a call from one local lady, a Portuguese grandmother who seemed to act as an agent for new arrivals. She'd ring me regularly and say: 'Chrees, you have nice flat? I have lovely family who just come from Portugal, need nice three-bed flat.'

The first few times I'd say: 'Luisa, you know I can't do anything unless they're on the list.' She'd reply: 'Don't worry, Chrees, they will be on list tomorrow, please just show them some nice flats.'

And sure enough, the family would be on the next version of the list we'd get.

She clearly knew someone in the housing department who would put her families on the list in exchange for cash - which she could afford to pay as she was charging these families a lot of money in return for her securing a council flat for them. Of course, the family was happy to pay a big one-off fee because once they were in the system they were in for good, and they would get a centrally located flat for a peppercorn rent for life.

I'm speaking out now because I find the whole system corrupt and unfair - and, above all, a monstrous waste of taxpayers' money. Our houses often go to those who have been in the country for less than a month and have no intention of ever contributing anything to Britain through taxes. Meanwhile, those who have been here for years paying tax have got little or no chance of getting a flat.

I went to see a woman recently in her lovely three-bed flat to arrange a follow-up visit. When I got my diary out, she said: 'Can't do July or August - I'm abroad twice this summer.' Then she winked at me and said: 'Not bad for someone on the social, eh, Chris?' and laughed. But I don't find it funny.

Just a few decades ago, if you lived in social housing, people would come and look at your property, and the rules dictated that if you had possessions that were worth anything, the authorities would force you to sell them to contribute towards your rent.

Of course, no one is saying we should return to such harsh attitudes, but the system does seem to have swung far too far the other way.

My colleagues and I go on field visits to see families who are supposedly on the breadline and cannot subsist except by the largesse of the British taxpayer. Yet they have nice cars, top-end plasma TV screens, the latest games consoles for the kids, Sky TV and all the rest of it. How on earth are they paying for it?

I'd love all those luxuries, but I can't afford them - because I work for a living.

And, says Raedwald, these are only the cases that don't go to court.

Clearly the rules for allocating social housing need deep reform.

Homes recovered in sub-let crackdown

A clampdown on illegally sub-let homes in Tower Hamlets has seen seven properties reclaimed since May.

And more addresses are currently under investigation as the council continues its efforts to free up homes and stamp out any related criminal or antisocial activity.

Lead councillor for housing, heritage and planning Marc Francis said: “These recovered homes are now being allocated to people who truly need them, which is good news for those on the borough’s housing waiting list.

“We have also found that illegally sub-let properties often attract unwanted behaviour such as drugs, prostitution and abuse.

“The crackdown is helping to tackle this kind of behaviour and make our neighbourhoods safer places to live.”

The council is examining local and national data to identify tenancy cheats who are taking advantage of the housing system by securing socially rented homes to which they are not entitled.

Residents are also helping with the crackdown, reporting properties they suspect are illegally sub-let. Their whistle-blowing has, so far, led to three recoveries.

David Edgar, lead councillor for resources, added: “The council will pursue all possible avenues to identify and stop fraudulent activity.

“We are working with the National Fraud Initiative, registered social landlords and neighbouring boroughs to share data and discover people who appear to have more than one council home.

“Our investigators are highly experienced in the housing benefit system, so they know what to look for and they’re already achieving results after just a few weeks on the job.

“Local whistle-blowers have also been a valuable source of information, and I encourage people to get in touch with us if they suspect a neighbouring property is illegally sub-let.”

Posters encouraging people to report suspected illegal sub-letting are on display in doctors’ surgeries, medical walk-in centres and Tower Hamlets Homes’ properties across the borough.

A former benefits officer writes ...

I was a housing benefit officer working in customer relations. The whole system is a joke.

We were supposed to report any suspicions. Imagine the work for the team when a new officer was being trained and before they knew the score - some never do. I would face day after day the professional claimers who know the system better than we did. I knew the ones working, or living with boyfriend, and these people are extremely intelligent when it comes to the 'system' - less so with getting a job or contraception obviously.

They know that unless there is a 'paper trail' as such, forget it. Who has the money to investigate by actually leaving the computer? On the flip side, we would positively victimise the poor bloke or woman who got behind with their council tax. Working? - easy target.

I hated that job in the end, and the discretion we had in the past, to actually help the people who needed it, was taken away. In a laughable change in the way we were 'measured' we had to note avoidable or unavoidable contact. Completely useless information, completely unmeasurable in reality.

It was actually a numbers game. You had to see a person in less than eight minutes or whatever it was. and a phone call should last less than three. Result? they don't care if you have to come in fifteen times before your problem is resolved, as long as each visit was within target. I used to pride myself, that if you sat in front of me, if it took an hour, that's how long it took, but you should never have to repeat the visit. Makes sense to me, but what do I know.

Referring to fraud was a luxury for quiet times and an exercise in hope over reality. I discovered (outside of work) that a claimant had used a large discretionary award to fund a boob job! Was anything done? Was it hell. A joke, and I am grateful to be no part of it any more.

Actually I loved that job once and took huge pride in it. For all the less ... easy to like, shall I say? ... there were also the pensioners who had never claimed, because some of that generation just don't.  One couple came in a few quid over their applicable amount and in course of interview I asked if any health problems, 'No' but the wife looked a bit hesitant and even though he was thunderous, I pushed it. It turned out she did have chronic health issues. Joy, to send them off to claim DLA and full h/ben and ctax.

There are still a hell of a lot of youngish self-employed men who have hit really hard times and only come in when the Summons hits the mat. Very difficult to get them to claim, but that 'Thanks, I felt so awful, such a scrounger, but you've made it bearable.' I merely pointed out that they had paid lots of tax, income had disappeared due to market forces, not for want of trying etc and until they got back on their feet, that's what the system is for! Again Joy.  

Tax rebates "based on trust"

A gang of Ukrainian illegal immigrants enjoyed a lavish lifestyle of expensive cars and luxury apartments after swindling £4.5million from the tax office by using false identities to claim tax rebates.

A court was told the fraudsters found the streets of London were 'paved with gold' after successfully claiming back millions of pounds through false applications.

A judge criticised the ease at which the gang was able to dupe HM Revenue and Customs by using 'flawless' identity documents and setting up bogus bogus firms to appear as employers on the doctored self assessment forms.

In each case, the gang made it appear as if the applicants had paid too much tax, and were owed a rebate.

The fraud was so convincing that Revenue officials were duped into paying out more than £4.5million, out of total applications for more than £8million.

Eleven members of the gang were sentenced to a total of 42 years and 10 months at Southwark Crown Court on Friday for conspiracy to cheat the Revenue.

By the time the con was uncovered last year the gang had spent a fortune on top-of-the-range cars, luxury apartments, weapons and lavish parties.

Judge Christopher Hardy, criticised the ease with which the defendants were able to obtain money.

He said: 'The prosecution has said the system was based on trust. Sadly, however, trust has become a very risky and unwise basis in this day and age to disperse millions of pounds of public money.

'It must have seemed to you as if truly the streets of London were paved with gold.'
Life of luxury: The illegal immigrants enjoyed lavish parties in London after using false identities to claim millions of pounds in tax rebates

He added that while the scam was not sophisticated 'you made up for it with the relentless determination and efficiency with which you went about relieving the British taxpayer of this money.'

The mastermind of the fraud, Ukrainian Volodymyr Panchak, 27, received a sentence of six years and one month.

His cousin Roman Panchak, 32, and Yuriy Brovarsky, 26, received five years each; Olegs Parkov, 35, was jailed for four-and-a-half years; Krzysztof Giers, 32, Olesya Kovbasa, 28, and Oleg Zdyshcuhuk, 23, four years apiece; Marek Pic, 25, three years and nine months; Marek Krinicki, 25, three years, and Andrey Klym, 26 and Andrey Babukh, 31, each received a year and nine months.

Another man, Vitalijuis Kostrominas, is on the run after he leapt from a fourth floor balcony and ran away when police tried to arrest him at a flat in Brentford.

Prosecutor Rosina Cottage told the court that Panchak and his henchmen took advantage of the system which allows self employed workers to claim money back if they have paid too much income tax.

Over a three year period between June 2006 and July last year, they created 1200 false identities and set up 600 bank accounts into which the rebates were paid.

Applications were made online through the HMRC website.

All of the defendants had either entered the country illegally, or had overstayed after their visas expired.

Panchak was arrested in March last year, and police followed up with raids on various West London addresses, seizing notebooks full of names and details of individuals, as well as £361,000 in cash.

Scores of false identity documents and driving licence applications were also uncovered.

Miss Cottage said the gang members bought the identities of real people who resembled them physically, before applying for new photocards with 'up-to-date' photographs of themselves.

'They used the DVLA to create perfect, untraceable identity documents for themselves', she said.

The fraudsters used their ill-gotten gains to lead a lavish lifestyle, blowing thousands on brand new Range Rovers and BMWs, and enjoying days out skydiving together.

The court heard Panchak's ultimate aim was to run an ongoing fraud at arm's length from an operating base in the Ukraine.

Housing benefit fraud - a family business

Their scam allowed them to drive around in Porsches and Mercedes, while the taxpayer paid their mortgages on a property portfolio worth £1.5million.

But yesterday, justice finally caught up with this fraudulent family of eight.

The swindle involved relatives putting in false claims for housing benefit of almost £170,000 which was used to pay off various mortgages.

Family fraud: Shamini Kowridas was sent to jail, while Sinniah Pathmanathan received a suspended sentence because of his ill health

One relative would apply for a mortgage, often using false information, then rent the house to a family member.

The tenant would hide the fact they were related to their landlord and claim housing benefit, which was funnelled straight into mortgage repayments.

The family even drew up bogus tenancy agreements to support the swindle.

But after the local council was tipped off and began to investigate, the eight were sentenced to a total of 50 months in prison.

At Harrow Crown Court, Judge Graham Arran told them: 'This was done for greed, and never for need.

'Every claim was dishonest from the outset, and I have no doubt the scam involved other fraudulent activity - mortgage fraud and other benefit fraud.'

The swindle began in 1993 when Premkumar Pathmanathan, 46, and his brother-in-law Sittamplan Soundrasritharan, 51, secured a deal for a house in Clayton Avenue in Wembley, North London.

Pathmanathan's father, Sinniah, 78, was installed as the fake tenant, and began claiming his bogus rent on benefits.

Three years later, the family got a mortgage for the house next door, in the name of Pathmanathan and his brother Sivakumar, 46.

Pathmanathan's estranged wife, Kalaivany Premkumar, 40, was installed as the pretend tenant, and she too began claiming illegal benefits which covered the mortgage.

Although the houses shared a conservatory and a garden the neighbours pretended they did not know each other.

Terraced houses on that road are valued at £260,000.

In 2000, a house in Harrow, North London, was bought in the names of husband and wife Nalliah and Shamini Kowridas, 43 and 38, also relatives.

Premkumar Pathmanathan's name was used on the tenancy agreement and the money rolled in. Houses in this area go for £305,000.

In total, about £50,000 of public money went into the mortgage of each house. In the past few years another £11,000 was gained by the family through two other nearby houses in North London.

But Brent Council got an anonymous tip that Kalaivany Premkumar had an unregistered partner living at her address, in 2006.

It took investigators two years to unravel the con.

Councillor Graham Henson, of Harrow Council, who brought the prosecution along with neighbouring borough Brent, said: 'This was a cynical and premeditated scam by a family bent on living the high life while honest taxpayers footed the bill.

'We're very pleased with the court's decision and will now be taking steps to recover the money and return it to the public purse. And the profits, we trust.

'In these tough economic times it's essential housing benefit goes to those people in real need, and not to fraudsters driving around in Porsches and BMWs.'

Each relative was found guilty of various offences related to the scam. They originally faced some 80 charges of housing benefit fraud, false accounting and obtaining money by deception.

Premkumar Pathmanathan, Sinniah Pathmanathan and Sittampalam Soundrasritharan all pleaded guilty before the trial.

Kalaivany Premkumar, of Tilehurst, in Reading, was sentenced to 12 months' jail suspended.

Sivakumar Pathmanathan, from Harrow, was sentenced to 15 months while his brother Premkumar, of Tilehurst, got 14 months.

Sinniah Pathmanathan, from Wembley, got 12 months suspended for a year because of his poor health.

Nalliah Kowridas, from Harrow, was handed 15 months. His wife Shamini was given six months.

Sittampalam Soundrasritharan, from Northolt in North-West London, was sentenced to ten months suspended for a year.

Another family member, Pathmanathan Pathmakumar , 44, will be sentenced next month.

• These people do it for the money. So hit them in the pocket. It was money that motivated them, and a financial penalty will help to deter them.
  
  Everyone convicted of benefit fraud who doesn't go to prison should have to do unpaid work.
  
  Benefit thieves should also have to repay twice what they've stolen, and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have. A confiscation order should be automatic and immediate.
  
  If you don't punish people who are convicted of an easy crime, the offence will continue to look attractive.

A visitor writes ...

Benefit Fraud - the Inside Story

Benefit fraud is a multi-billion pound industry. Investigating that fraud is a complex and sometimes dangerous enterprise that takes investigators to the heart of Britain’s social problems. “Benefit Thieves” is the inside story of the work of one undercover Special Investigator as he tangles with major criminals and the ingenious spongers on our Welfare State.

The villains are not just the benefit fraudsters. “Benefit Thieves” shows how central and local government fraudulently pretend to be tackling the problem. They prefer to meet so-called “targets” while letting the fraudsters get away with millions of pounds of our money.

Here is one maverick’s story from the inside, a page-turning account of the underside of British society. In any major company, a man who brought in 10 times his salary would be treasured. But Britain’s civil service is not like that. The Department that should be taking care of taxpayers’ money, while ensuring that the genuinely needy get the benefits they deserve, has dispensed with the Special Investigators who can help to make that happen.

Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction, and this book proves it. Would you sleep with your dead husband in order to draw his benefit? One woman did! Would you expect your benefit officer to risk the wrath and revenge of a major criminal? This Special Investigator did.

This book should be essential reading for policy makers in central and local government offices. It is also a rattling good read. Find out more about the book at www.benefitthieves.org.uk

Additional Information relevant to the Emergency Budget

Perhaps the Chancellor should read "Benefit Thieves" by"Six Hundred" which was published in June 2010.

The Budget forecast for June 2010 predicts spending £193.2b on Social Security Benefits and Tax Credits during 2010/11. As part of the Emergency Budget the Chancellor announced £11b cuts in Welfare Spending over the next 4 years. We could make significantly more savings with Benefit Fraud. The authorities need to conduct thorough investigations but the present policy does not support this. In the book "Benefit Thieves" it is very clear that thorough investigations are cost effective and a real deterrent.

By their own admission the DWP says that "The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because fraud is, by its nature, a covert activity..... and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases cannot be proven".

"Six Hundred" says:

1. The department abolished the role of the Special Investigator. It was a very effective form of investigating suspected claims of benefit fraud.

2. Roughly one third of overpayments are classified as 'Customer Error' simply because there is a lack of evidence for an Adjudication Officer to be able to classify them otherwise. More thorough investigations would unearth the evidence to classify them as 'Fraud'.

3. From research relating to overpayments classified as 'Fraud' that I conducted for a report that I submitted, the average number of week's benefit that was overpaid and classified as 'Fraud' averaged out at just over 50 weeks. Included in this average were my own overpayments that were nearly double this.

4. One policy change that was made was the removal of overpayments as part of the management information system relating to fraud work.

5. A subsequent directive was to prevent/stop benefit being paid on a fraudulent claim and quickly move onto another case. Hence there was no in-depth investigation. Policy makers and management took the view that a
'Prosecution Target' would take care of this.

6. Over the years the average number of cases referred for criminal proceedings was in the region of 1 to 3% of case referred for investigation. Hence a potentially massive void with overpayments not being pursued.

7. Savings attributable to fraud work were based on a multiplier. Where, as a result of a fraud specialist's intervention, benefit was reduced or stopped, there was a Weekly Benefit Saving (WBS). Very old research had ended up using a figure of 32 as the multiplier for the number of weeks that there was a saving of benefit.

8. With the emphasis of quickly moving onto investigating another suspected fraudulent claim, suspects certainly re-claimed benefit much more quickly. There was no overpayment established and this led to
re-claims much more quickly.

9. As far as I am aware no research was undertaken after the early/mid 1980's on this - why would they! That would reduce the figure attributable to the total for savings from fraud work.

10. Ministers were standing up in Parliament and promising higher and higher savings.

11. The policy was wrong - even fraudulent itself!

Information in the public domain:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_annexc.pdf

The Office for Budget Responsibility (part of HM Treasury) issued the Budget forecast for June 2010 from which table C13 (page 102) which shows they estimated spending £163.7b on Social Security Benefits plus another £22.9b on Tax Credits giving a total of over £186b for 2009/10. The total for 2010/11 is estimated at over 193b.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct08_sep09.pdf

The Information Directorate from the Department for Work and Pensions issued their report "Fraud and Error in the Benefit System: October 2008 to September 2009" earlier this year - they were collated in the autumn of 2009. Figure 2.1 (page 11) estimates the total for 2009/10 will be £3.1b. It goes on to break this down as £1b for 'Fraud', £1.1b for 'Customer Error' and another £1.1b for 'Official Error'.

Page 8, paragraph 1.11 of this report states "The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because fraud is, by its nature, a covert activity, complex official error can be difficult to identify and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases cannot be proven. For example, unreported earnings in the informal economy will be much harder to detect than those in the formal economy."

Read the 'Preview' page at www.benefitthieves.org.uk and make your own mind up!