djf Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision The Department for Work & Pensions is actively pursuing a proposal to charge individuals who are looking to appeal against sanctions to their benefits. The poorest in society are potentially to be made to pay a charge when they feel they have been victim to error or incompetence by the DWP. Why is this such a horrendous proposal? Over half of those who have appealed their sanctions in recent months HAVE had the sanctions over-turned. More often than not these sanctions are administered in error. That's not even getting into the long list of reasons why an individual may be sanctioned. Lets just say subjectivity and ludicrous demands are the order of the day. Even if your opinion is that benefits should be more strictly administered as the current coalition have done (872,00 sanctions in a year versus 500,000 in the final year of Labour's term) it is surely only right by that same argument that the appeals process is fair and accessible? Please remember that this tightening of benefits testing has done little to address fraud in the system. Levels of fraud have remained static for years now. This is just another ideological step to batter the poorest and blame those most in need for their suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Is it not the case that there is a very small percentage of benefit fraud compared to the tax evasion carried out by the wealthier of our society? TO answer your post - absolutely, that's scandalous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 If only they were so keen to chase Amazon Starbucks and Vodaphone to name but 3 for their alledged tax avoidance The poorest are always the easy targets tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Benefit fraud is miniscule to the point of being an irrelevance. More importantly stricter sanctioning is not addressing the already miniscule levels of it. These proposals will only hurt legitimate benefit claimants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Tax avoidance isn't illegal. So I would be pretty disappointed if anyone was chasing a company for acting legally. Criminals are always easy target. Morales don't count for much legally, as much as that upsets people. Illegal it's not I agree it is however morally corrupt especially when were "all in this together " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Just to be clear benefit fraud has to be stopped too aside from it being illegal it takes money away from those who genuinely need and deserve it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 In theory these proposals, if true, will only effect fraudulent claimants. Though I'm far from comfortable with principal of guilty till proved innocent which this is. Whether it's irrelevant or not do you not think govt should be looking to stop it? We are in times of austerity after all. You're not thinking it through. If you're struggling to feed your children are you really going to gamble your last ?50 to appeal some arbitrary sanction when the system is already failing over 50% of the time. It should be given about as much thought and time as the occurrences of it deserve. Nearly **** all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Benefit fraud is 0.8% of benefit expenditure. https://www.gov.uk/g...icator-2012.pdf This hasn't significantly changed in over a decade. You'd be as well calling it the cost of doing business and getting over it. If you guys wanna debate tax avoidance and it's morality would you mind starting a new thread? It's an interesting discussion and i'll be happy to contribute but it has nothing to do with welfare and discussing it here feels like an attempt to deflect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 I am, I just have a different perspective I totally get your point. I agree it's a disgrace. Though not sure it's how your painting it. Do you think the intent of a leaked paper is to stop fraudulent claims or to stick it to the poor? It might even be attempt to try and improve a messed up system. Two pronged. To cost cut by putting people off claiming and to lower the number of over-turned sanctions to attempt to improve the public perception of the sanctioning system. I also think that the paper was "leaked" so they could gauge public reaction before implementing it. That's why it's important to discuss it even though it's currently just a "proposal". Exact same thing happened with bedroom tax and there was no traction in public outcry and here we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Benefit fraud might be a very low proportion of the overall bill. The problem with that figure though is that you live among benefit frauds, as I did when I was growing up, it sticks in the craw to see people getting freebies when you are working your arse off. That's why people applaud action on it, even though it doesn't achieve much in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 So the govt shouldn't be trying to stop fraudulent claims? Increasing sanctions and introducing more demanding assessment procedures has led to over 50% of sanctions being over-turned. The final year of the Labour administration saw 20% over turned. Levels of benefit fraud remained static throughout. If you're desire is to address benefit fraud for financial reasons then which of these systems is more efficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Benefit fraud might be a very low proportion of the overall bill. The problem with that figure though is that you live among benefit frauds, as I did when I was growing up, it sticks in the craw to see people getting freebies when you are working your arse off. That's why people applaud action on it, even though it doesn't achieve much in the grand scheme of things. That's the problem with public perception. It's usually ignorant. A stupidly small percentage of anonymous reports regarding benefits fraudsters were successfully pursued last year. Like sub 10% small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 No I don't think the intent is sound. When over half of benefit sanctions are being over turned on appeal I think the LAST thing they should be considering is introducing any barrier whatsoever to appeals. They should probably be reviewing every single sanction as a matter of course with figures like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 That's the problem with public perception. It's usually ignorant. A stupidly small percentage of anonymous reports regarding benefits fraudsters were successfully pursued last year. Like sub 10% small. How is it ignorant when you know one of your neighbours is claiming to have a bad back to claim invalidity and then the next day is up a ladder cleaning windows for cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 How is it ignorant when you know one of your neighbours is claiming to have a bad back to claim invalidity and then the next day is up a ladder cleaning windows for cash? It's not a wide spread problem. One or two chancers colouring your whole world view seems pretty unnecessary . I met a Northern Irish guy once who when drunk told me he was an undercover agent infiltrating Catholic communities in Scotland but I don't feel like all Northern Irish folk are fantasists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 The point is that on a macro level you are absolutely right that it is a small problem. On a micro level in ordinary people's lives, the concept of the overall picture pales into comparison when the cheat is right beside you and flaunting their behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 The point is that on a macro level you are absolutely right that it is a small problem. On a micro level in ordinary people's lives, the concept of the overall picture pales into comparison when the cheat is right beside you and flaunting their behaviour. But the low figure of benefit fraud reports actually being successful would suggest that people aren't really the best identifiers of who is a benefit cheat and who isn't. For every 10 people someone might say are on the fiddle the evidence tells us that really only one of them actually is. Politics of envy and ignorance of both mental and physical disability play a huge part in people's perceptions of benefit fraud. I've heard people say things like "He says he's got depression but he was down at the pub last night" for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Skacel Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Having just come off the dole (thank god) I know what its like to live on the smallest of budgets. For them to start charging people whos money they have stopped and who most probably have no money to appeal is just ludicris. If their benefit has been stopped they wont have any money anyway and how can they be expected to pay to appeal if they have no money? People on the dole are treated like crap in my experiance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 But the low figure of benefit fraud reports actually being successful would suggest that people aren't really the best identifiers of who is a benefit cheat and who isn't. For every 10 people someone might say are on the fiddle the evidence tells us that really only one of them actually is. Politics of envy and ignorance of both mental and physical disability play a huge part in people's perceptions of benefit fraud. I've heard people say things like "He says he's got depression but he was down at the pub last night" for example. Do you think they are all dobbed in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Do you think they are all dobbed in? I don't see any reason why the figures on those dobbed in wouldn't correlate across the entirety of those on welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I don't see any reason why the figures on those dobbed in wouldn't correlate across the entirety of those on welfare. Er, ok. Anyway, there is also a need for resource to find the evidence to convict the alleged cheat. For example, proving that they have taken payment for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Er, ok. If you have the figures to suggest this isn't the case don't be shy. I suppose malicious reports could be a factor in the low success rate but the onus would be on you to prove this is worth considering. Anyway, there is also a need for resource to find the evidence to convict the alleged cheat. For example, proving that they have taken payment for work. I'm okay with not calling people benefit cheats until they are objectively proven to be a benefit cheat yeah. Reminder that your argument was that people are living in communities filled with benefits cheats and this clouds their opinion. The figures suggest that people don't have the first idea of how to spot a benefit cheat or what being one actually means so their clouded opinion is worth jack shit in terms of productive steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticJambo Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 No I don't think the intent is sound. When over half of benefit sanctions are being over turned on appeal I think the LAST thing they should be considering is introducing any barrier whatsoever to appeals. They should probably be reviewing every single sanction as a matter of course with figures like that. While I concede that someone on a very low income wouldn't necessarily appeal their last 50 quid I suspect that should their appeal be successful, they'll get the capital back, maybe even with interest. Again, an assumption but I suspect that's its a way to try and weed out fraudulent or I'll-chance-it claims, or rather the horrendous time required to follow-up on the 50% that are bogus or not legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/benefit-sanctions-are-state-terrorism-and-must-be-stopped-without-exceptions/ I'd urge anywhere considering a position on sanctioning the poor to read the above. Also the report it mentions if you would like to see some of the reasons the poorest can be sanctioned For the most part people don't choose to live solely off benefits, most benefit recipitants are in jobs, generations of families living only off benefits are nearly always a myth, benefits don't afford a comfortable life, the amount extra recieved for one more child would barely cover the child's food, capitalism demands that unemployment exists, companies making billions are paying people a wage they can't live on for 40 hours of their labour a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 If you have the figures to suggest this isn't the case don't be shy. I suppose malicious reports could be a factor in the low success rate but the onus would be on you to prove this is worth considering. I'm okay with not calling people benefit cheats until they are objectively proven to be a benefit cheat yeah. Reminder that your argument was that people are living in communities filled with benefits cheats and this clouds their opinion. The figures suggest that people don't have the first idea of how to spot a benefit cheat or what being one actually means so their clouded opinion is worth jack shit in terms of productive steps. Cool. I won't disabuse you of your belief that cheating is fine. There are guys that know how to play the system. I know them and they will freely admit to doing so. As I say, that does not mean the system is full of cheats but what I'm saying is that people will extract their known sample of people living on benefits on to the whole population, which is where it falls down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 The proposal to charge for appeals looks absolutely farcical. The standard of public administration is dreadful because it is driven by so many knee-jerk changes in political views. With regard to benefit fraud, the Government doesn't know how much fraud there is. I looked this up the last time that the subject was discussed on here. http://www.hmfckickb...t/#entry4014051 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I will throw this into the mix; did any of you know that if an overpayment is raised and its because a change in the customer's circumstances is reported late. The department now hits the customer with a ?50 penalty on top of said overpayment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 While I concede that someone on a very low income wouldn't necessarily appeal their last 50 quid I suspect that should their appeal be successful, they'll get the capital back, maybe even with interest. Again, an assumption but I suspect that's its a way to try and weed out fraudulent or I'll-chance-it claims, or rather the horrendous time required to follow-up on the 50% that are bogus or not legit. Even if they do get it back eventually, they'd still need to go without the ?50 until then which might mean food for the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticJambo Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Even if they do get it back eventually, they'd still need to go without the ?50 until then which might mean food for the week. yes, shan ... you'd think there was a better approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alba gu Brath Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Benefit fraud is neglible - something like 0.7% and most people in benefits are working or have worked for them - i.e. pensioners. Easy to hit the poor. The scale of tax avoidance and fraud is staggering though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alba gu Brath Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 From Ch4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Whittaker's Tache Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Something is rotten in the state of Denmark Great Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 djf - I was reading this the other day from the train and remembered a really hard-hitting report I'd read recently on the subject. Might be a little late to this thread but have now found it again if you're interested. It was compiled by Manchester Citizens Advice Bureau but the findings are probably not too far removed from the circumstances for people in any given area. Horrible reading though. Made me right angry. https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CB5ED957FE0B849F!350&app=WordPdf&wdo=2&authkey=!AJTbB-gzwsSCayQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moogsy Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Figures on benefit fraud by nature are inherently flawed because they only detail cases where people have been caught. It's impossible to put a figure on people who are doing it and getting away with it. I'd hazard a guess that it might be a fairly large number. Ridiculous to charge people simply for appealing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Figures on benefit fraud by nature are inherently flawed because they only detail cases where people have been caught. It's impossible to put a figure on people who are doing it and getting away with it. I'd hazard a guess that it might be a fairly large number. Ridiculous to charge people simply for appealing though. Fairly large number? No chance IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 Figures on benefit fraud by nature are inherently flawed because they only detail cases where people have been caught. It's impossible to put a figure on people who are doing it and getting away with it. I'd hazard a guess that it might be a fairly large number. Ridiculous to charge people simply for appealing though. It's a fair point but the problem arises when you inform your opinions on an unproven belief, especially when the government starts legislating based on nothing but rhetoric. In my opinion the means testing of benefits has become so bloated and exacting during this government that benefit fraud is likely to be extremely low. That the levels have not increased despite the rising scrutiny would suggest to me that there are a small number of people who will attempt to commit benefit fraud and there is little that can be done about this minority. It would be interesting to see figures on whether it would be more cost effective to simply introduce a national minimum income across the board and cut out all bureaucracy involved with the benefits system - excluding of course allowances for disabled claimants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 djf - I was reading this the other day from the train and remembered a really hard-hitting report I'd read recently on the subject. Might be a little late to this thread but have now found it again if you're interested. It was compiled by Manchester Citizens Advice Bureau but the findings are probably not too far removed from the circumstances for people in any given area. Horrible reading though. Made me right angry. https://onedrive.liv...AJTbB-gzwsSCayQ Truly awful. Sanctioned for applying for 10 jobs one week and 5 the following because their requirements were 7 a week. Sanctioned for arriving 15 minutes late for their appointment due to an earlier job interview. Sanctioned for not carrying on looking for work after securing a job. Sanctioned for attending a job interview over a benefits appointment. Sanctioned for not attending a benefits appointment on a day the office was closed. Over 71% left with no other income during their sanction period. More than 80% went into debt due to sanction. The downside of the report is that they took the safe option of recommending sanctions as a "last resort". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's a fair point but the problem arises when you inform your opinions on an unproven belief, especially when the government starts legislating based on nothing but rhetoric. In my opinion the means testing of benefits has become so bloated and exacting during this government that benefit fraud is likely to be extremely low. That the levels have not increased despite the rising scrutiny would suggest to me that there are a small number of people who will attempt to commit benefit fraud and there is little that can be done about this minority. It would be interesting to see figures on whether it would be more cost effective to simply introduce a national minimum income across the board and cut out all bureaucracy involved with the benefits system - excluding of course allowances for disabled claimants. Boom! Much more sensible but make this a step below minimum wage to ensure work pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Truly awful. Sanctioned for applying for 10 jobs one week and 5 the following because their requirements were 7 a week. Sanctioned for arriving 15 minutes late for their appointment due to an earlier job interview. Sanctioned for not carrying on looking for work after securing a job. Sanctioned for attending a job interview over a benefits appointment. Sanctioned for not attending a benefits appointment on a day the office was closed. Over 71% left with no other income during their sanction period. More than 80% went into debt due to sanction. The downside of the report is that they took the safe option of recommending sanctions as a "last resort". I can't remember the specific figure but the percentage of those sanctioned (and effectively left with nothing at all) because of administrative errors was pretty brutal too. Some of the examples given were just so sad. The associated effects on mental health were just terrifying. I wonder when they'll start producing figures for those who end up harming themselves (or worse) as a result of these sanctions? Maybe around the time they're finally honest about the way the targets work... When people have nothing left anyway, they take the one thing that does keep their heads above water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyw_1874 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I really wish a government would actually run a country with its best intentions in mind. Sadly this is not important as all they do is chase non issues to appease the people who vote for them. I.e the tories making the toffs and wannabe toffs happy by being seen to go after those scummy benefit frauds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Truly awful. Sanctioned for applying for 10 jobs one week and 5 the following because their requirements were 7 a week. Sanctioned for arriving 15 minutes late for their appointment due to an earlier job interview. Sanctioned for not carrying on looking for work after securing a job. Sanctioned for attending a job interview over a benefits appointment. Sanctioned for not attending a benefits appointment on a day the office was closed. Over 71% left with no other income during their sanction period. More than 80% went into debt due to sanction. The downside of the report is that they took the safe option of recommending sanctions as a "last resort". These read like something out of Kafka. Appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 These read like something out of Kafka. Appalling. You should read the whole report. I was left completely stunned by it, and not in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I was on the dole for a while a couple of years ago and got sanctioned for turning up to a meeting at the wrong time. It was an honest mistake, I was told by the guy in the job centre to turn up at one time and got a letter telling me a different time. The daft thing was I was still in the office on the required day but I still lost a week's benefit for the mistake. It was my own fault in the end but losing all that money did seem harsh, it wasn't like I slept in and didn't bother. A few weeks prior to that, I had applied for an ILA grant and I had to pass on the paperwork to the job centre. I never got the paperwork back and found another job in the interim, I hate to generalise but the level of incompetence in your average job centre is staggering. Worse still is the attitude a lot of the morbidly obese mediocrities cop when dealing with you, as if being in the job centre on dole day wasn't depressing enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I was on the dole for a while a couple of years ago and got sanctioned for turning up to a meeting at the wrong time. It was an honest mistake, I was told by the guy in the job centre to turn up at one time and got a letter telling me a different time. The daft thing was I was still in the office on the required day but I still lost a week's benefit for the mistake. It was my own fault in the end but losing all that money did seem harsh, it wasn't like I slept in and didn't bother. A few weeks prior to that, I had applied for an ILA grant and I had to pass on the paperwork to the job centre. I never got the paperwork back and found another job in the interim, I hate to generalise but the level of incompetence in your average job centre is staggering. Worse still is the attitude a lot of the morbidly obese mediocrities cop when dealing with you, as if being in the job centre on dole day wasn't depressing enough. You wont be shocked to learn that this is a common occurence. The amount of post that goes astray accross the whole DWP is also staggering. There is a serious lack of communication between job centres and benefit centres. But the customer always loses out. Sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.