Benefits cheating

[2bees]

It’s not so easy as some of you seem to think, if you had a couple of “one off” payments and could tell the dhss without losing your entire claim and having to go through the whole process again I’m sure people would be more forthcoming with “one off” payment disclosures but it’s not like that, it’s a total ball ache. Also, maybe she moved in with someone who isn’t the father of her children, so all of a sudden he goes from having a girlfriend to being married with a “loads of kids” responsibility, can you see many men hanging around for that? So, it’s not as black and white as some people think. 
And here we are talking about it, on a bloody public forum after it’s been brandished all over the news, it’s a bit grim for the poor girl really. 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, 2bees said:

It’s not so easy as some of you seem to think, if you had a couple of “one off” payments and could tell the dhss without losing your entire claim and having to go through the whole process again I’m sure people would be more forthcoming with “one off” payment disclosures but it’s not like that, it’s a total ball ache. Also, maybe she moved in with someone who isn’t the father of her children, so all of a sudden he goes from having a girlfriend to being married with a “loads of kids” responsibility, can you see many men hanging around for that? So, it’s not as black and white as some people think. 
And here we are talking about it, on a bloody public forum after it’s been brandished all over the news, it’s a bit grim for the poor girl really. 

As far as I can see the postings on this forum have been about benefit fraud in general ( a legitimate topic for debate).

Yes the debate might have been ignited by this particular case being in the newspaper but, apart from your own comments above, very little if anything, (certainly nothing of substance) has been directed towards this particular lady. 

 

[The Voice of Reason]

12 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Aren't certain benefits reviewed at some point? Surely they're not paid out indefinitely without review/checks in place?

You would like to think so. 

Regardless of that,  I would imagine the seriousness of making a false claim or failing to report a change in circumstances is made clear.

[thommo2010]

1 hour ago, 2bees said:

It’s not so easy as some of you seem to think, if you had a couple of “one off” payments and could tell the dhss without losing your entire claim and having to go through the whole process again I’m sure people would be more forthcoming with “one off” payment disclosures but it’s not like that, it’s a total ball ache. Also, maybe she moved in with someone who isn’t the father of her children, so all of a sudden he goes from having a girlfriend to being married with a “loads of kids” responsibility, can you see many men hanging around for that? So, it’s not as black and white as some people think. 
And here we are talking about it, on a bloody public forum after it’s been brandished all over the news, it’s a bit grim for the poor girl really. 

That's called life and being an adult 

[TheTeapot]

People are such cunts. And it's not the sometimes single mother with the conviction. Take a look at yourselves you absolute horrible bastards 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You would like to think so. 

Regardless of that,  I would imagine the seriousness of making a false claim or failing to report a change in circumstances is made clear.

I would like to think so too but it does make you wonder how often checks are made, ie. having a claimant attend DHSC office for face-to-face interview, ie not over the phone. For this latest case it's seems very odd that something like this was allowed to get as far as five years. 

[Chutney]

Funny how Benefit Cheats are publicly lambasted for say 30k of theft. yet multi millionaires who avoid paying massive amounts of tax will often put it down to a 'mistake' when theyre caught and are then invited in to negotiate a settlement.

[Roger Mexico]

4 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I would like to think so too but it does make you wonder how often checks are made, ie. having a claimant attend DHSC office for face-to-face interview, ie not over the phone. For this latest case it's seems very odd that something like this was allowed to get as far as five years. 

That's because it was intermittent, which is the point that Bees was making.  Again you need to look at the newspaper report - and read beyond the headline.  The "money she was receiving from two former partners [was] between July 2018 and November 2019".  Presumably she had a child by each, and though the elder is now adult, there's clearly no longer support for the other.  In the situation where such support is not regular it's very easy not to report it because you don't know if you'll get anything next week - or for months.  And you don't want to have to go through all the bureaucracy every time the circumstances change if they're changing all the times.

Similarly the later income was in addition to Employed Person's Allowance, which meant she had a job she was declaring, but it was probably part-time and poorly paid (maybe all you could manage as a single parent).  The other money would have come from a succession of irregular piece of additional employment over more than three years, there were five and the total earnings from them must only have been £16,741.  She may still have been entitled to EPA on some of that, but that's not how the penalties work.  Again she may not have known how long the work would have been for (this was also partly during Covid when everything was irregular) and having to constantly inform a Covid-deluged bureaucracy of endless changes would be a lot of work.

So at any specific time she may even have been operating legally and interviews won't pick that up.  And expecting a working single parent to trek into Douglas (probably paying for the bus) at the convenience of the Treasury is hardly the best way to encourage people into employment.

[Kopek]

200 hrs of community service is not a 'lenient' sentence?

I don't know how it works but trying to fit this work into a normal life and job commitments must be quite difficult? OK, it's a punishment but...........

Could the community work actually save the Govt some money? Could it be in a Care Home feeding your old Mum?

[Andy Onchan]

43 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's because it was intermittent, which is the point that Bees was making.  Again you need to look at the newspaper report - and read beyond the headline.  The "money she was receiving from two former partners [was] between July 2018 and November 2019".  Presumably she had a child by each, and though the elder is now adult, there's clearly no longer support for the other.  In the situation where such support is not regular it's very easy not to report it because you don't know if you'll get anything next week - or for months.  And you don't want to have to go through all the bureaucracy every time the circumstances change if they're changing all the times.

Similarly the later income was in addition to Employed Person's Allowance, which meant she had a job she was declaring, but it was probably part-time and poorly paid (maybe all you could manage as a single parent).  The other money would have come from a succession of irregular piece of additional employment over more than three years, there were five and the total earnings from them must only have been £16,741.  She may still have been entitled to EPA on some of that, but that's not how the penalties work.  Again she may not have known how long the work would have been for (this was also partly during Covid when everything was irregular) and having to constantly inform a Covid-deluged bureaucracy of endless changes would be a lot of work.

So at any specific time she may even have been operating legally and interviews won't pick that up.  And expecting a working single parent to trek into Douglas (probably paying for the bus) at the convenience of the Treasury is hardly the best way to encourage people into employment.

I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to understand why it went on for so long, that's all. There must be something significantly amiss with DHSC processes for it to have got to this stage and for the AG's office to subsequently hit the enter key. 

[parchedpeas]

1 hour ago, Chutney said:

Funny how Benefit Cheats are publicly lambasted for say 30k of theft. yet multi millionaires who avoid paying massive amounts of tax will often put it down to a 'mistake' when theyre caught and are then invited in to negotiate a settlement.

And it's all relative, isn't it? Are any of you crying about the UK taxpayers that are fleeced by the very existence of the Isle of Man and its business model? Didn't think so. Could be argued that you're all complicit in a very similar game.

£30k is small fry. Stop punching downwards.

[Andy Onchan]

12 minutes ago, parchedpeas said:

And it's all relative, isn't it? Are any of you crying about the UK taxpayers that are fleeced by the very existence of the Isle of Man and its business model? Didn't think so. Could be argued that you're all complicit in a very similar game.

£30k is small fry. Stop punching downwards.

Eh?

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Eh?

Eh? + 1

Edited October 5, 2023 by The Voice of Reason

[Barlow]

It's disturbing seeing the amount of posters attempting to justify the dishonest taking of £30k, and how they dress it up. A form of left-wing wokism gone crazy.

[woolley]

3 hours ago, parchedpeas said:

And it's all relative, isn't it? Are any of you crying about the UK taxpayers that are fleeced by the very existence of the Isle of Man and its business model? Didn't think so. Could be argued that you're all complicit in a very similar game.

£30k is small fry. Stop punching downwards.

The Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies finance centres exist to enrich the UK economy by drawing in investment to the City. UK taxpayers would have to stump up a lot more without us.