Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

And is this any different to the rules before 2010?

The criteria of not being able to do your normal job went a long time ago.
Link
Sounds like he didn't make the required NI contributions to qualify for contribution based ESA, which I think doesn't have other financial criteria.

If you qualify for DLA/PIP under special rules which override the normal criteria of your activities being badly affected, and those special rules no longer apply to you, then you no longer qualify unless the normal criteria apply. If they do, she can apply for PIP and be assessed in the normal way.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

That’s not a zero sum game. It’s possible to get more of them right first time without paying the 30%.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I have not had to use the system, so I am not really in a position to comment on its effectiveness. I certainly do believe that it is the charlatans who are out to defraud that system who are responsible for the rigidity of the application of the legislation.

Although some may highlight the problems that certain individuals have experienced, there is much more of a story than immediately meets the eye in many of these cases. It our right, an absolutely right, to require that the claims made to justify benefits are properly scrutinised. After all, these people are benefiting from the taxes of hard working families, and it is not surprising that they resent subsidising the layabouts and fraudsters who are seeking to take advantage.

I want the authorities to come down very hard on them whilst protecting those whose claims are justified. I am more than a little disturbed by some of the reports I am picking up of claimants who are put through unreasonable medical examinations or other justifications to prove what should be obvious. That is where we should be looking to improve the system.

It is unfortunate indeed that there are people out there, more than many realise, who are quite happy to behave in this fraudelent way, thus ensuring that those who are genuinely in need are required to jump through hoops to justify their eligibility.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The Government, and only the Government are responsible for the primary legislation that enacts benefits and the secondary legislation that underpins qualification criteria. To describe those legitimately entitled, made to jump through hoops, as if they are somehow collateral damage is quite insulting. The rules aren't being "rigidly applied" if they are getting overturned 70% of the time at tribunal - they're being incorrectly applied.

Getting decisions right first time saves money in the long run.

There's plenty of tax avoidance/evasion and I see little effort to close the loopholes and cause difficulties for those gaming the system at the other end.

I see the "hard working families" have been invoked. Many of the benefit claimants were hard working taxpayers before their circumstances changed. Which is the whole point of a social security system.

Of course an arch-capitalist like yourself would probably prefer to see an American system of welfare.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

There are stronger painkillers that aren't opiates, eg Nefopam.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I believe the rigidness isn't down to fraud but just cost cutting. The actual fraud rate for sickness benefits are really low. It is now down to evidence and the medical which can't be easy to defraud.

I have to agree with jfman, you seem to bare a grudge when it comes to benefits just because you don't need it. I'm sure all your opinions would change if you did need it at some point.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

What an incredibly naive post. Readers will make of that nonsense what they will.

Clearly, you do not care how many people are deliberately abusing the system.

---------- Post added at 02:45 ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 ----------

I have never said that. What I believe is that the system should be managed appropriately so that those who are meant to receive the benefit actually get it. If there are faults in the system, these need to be addressed.

You may not care if fraudsters get the benefit, but this is my money, and I do care. The system needs checks. Too many people who should not be receiving taxpayers' money are getting it. Are you saying that we should ignore this? Incredible!

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

A typical response from you again. Saying I don't care if fraudsters get the benefit and I should ignore it.... Please feel free to quote where I said this... Oh you can't.... Now that's incredible.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Absolute nonsense Old Boy. 3am on a Saturday night I can only assume you were drunk when you posted this, and I’ll happily accept a retraction this morning.

The instances of benefit fraud is less than 1% according to the DWPs own figures. Hundreds of thousands of people are going through demeaning processes, incorrectly applying the DWPs own rules in the basis of weak evidence, consistently overturned at Tribunals.

“If there are faults in the system”? I can’t decide what’s more astonishing your complete ignorance or your complete arrogance.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Using fraud figures is meaningless, of course. Can be difficult to find and prove. If somebody commits fraud using your bank account, usually you will notice it. The difference with benefit fraud is that it can be less obvious and noticeable and go undetected, sometimes for more than ten years.


You only have to look at some of the Upper Tribunal decisions, some of which are published, to see people trying it on.
Eg Guy with, according to the specialists, very minor problem to his shoulder, complaining that he is afraid to go out unaccompanied for being afraid of being attacked because of the minor problems in that one arm. He's ok, if his wife is there to defend him.:rolleyes: Do you buy that?
Eg Somebody had claimed and received the maximum £1,000 in Housing Benefit, when his actual rent was about a quarter of that.:shocked: £750 a time(each week?, after all we're talking Islington) in his pocket. His excuse was some unspecified person told him he could do that. He won a rehearing at another First Tier Tribunal.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

If the DWP aren’t applying the law correctly they’ll lose at Tribunals. Especially the Upper Tier - I don’t accept that your one line summaries of these cases are accurate reflections of reality.

As First Tier Tribunal decisions aren’t published I’m interested in how you know the facts of the second case. Do you work for DWP? If so, you should consider the Civil Service Code and reputational risk to the Department by your attitude towards benefit claimants in general exhibited on this forum.

If you heard it from a “man in the pub” that probably says all we need to know.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Despite the checks fraudsters still get through the net.

'Disabled' woman, 50, who said she was a single mother and 'too ill to work' while claiming £260,000 of benefits was caught living with her partner and dancing at a wedding

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-partner.html

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Which is a separate issue to 70% of appeals being lost at PIP tribunals. They're losing appeals because of bad decision making and poor quality medical evidence being used.

Resourced more appropriately, with better decision making, would reduce the amount of time spent on the administration of appeals and free up resource to investigate genuine fraud.

In the case you link no number of assessments, being found fit for work, appeals, etc would establish she was living with a partner. Nor would it establish this part: