Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

I know this and that needs doing, but these people will just turn to crime if they have no money for 3 years.
3 years to get used to stealing and robbing. it will become a way of life for some people.


Continue reading the main story

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

I suspect it'll reduce crime, especially given you'll need to be convicted three times for withdrawal of benefits to become an issue.

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

Isn't if they've been convicted of benefit fraud three times, not just any crime?

I can't imagine why anyone would do it once, let alone three times

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

By conviction, I don't think they mean like drink driving or assault.

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

Yup - linky btw, "could", not "will"......

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

If that's the case I can't see it causing any major increase in crime.

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

Actually i agree with gary on this one .For some people living on benefits is a way of life ,they are commiting a crime simply by claiming ,so any reduction in their income will be a severe blow to them and will have to be replaced somehow ,and for most turning to illegaly working (if they aren't already)or even burglary or mugging will be the answer

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

How?

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

At least some people will stay in employment in the public sector..

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

In reality this is not people staying in employment but rather 200 people being recruited to the public sector (the one they're trying to reduce).

This is a hairbrained idea which in reality will never work. It is being framed in this context purely to sate the people who have bought into the "scrounger", "fraudster" spin that has been fed to the media and forced down everyones throat for the past six months.

The real issue here is the sharing of information with credit reference agencies.

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

claiming jsa whilst working is a crime
claiming invalidity whilst working is a crime

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

As long as they improve the internal communications between the different benefit agencies. I know someone who was initially legitimately claiming housing benefit and JSA.

When he started work he informed the Benefits Agency to stop paying him JSA. When he asked what would happen re: council tax and housing benefit, they told him his claim with the council would automatically stop. This was not the case and they continued to pay in to his 'benefits' account which he no longer used.

6 months later his statement arrived showing the council were still paying housing and CT benefit. Even though he sent it all back to them they still investigated him and 6 month later he was interviewed under caution and ended up leaving court with a conditional discharge which meant although he walked free, he still has a criminal record.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 ----------

No, it's only a crime if you fail to inform them how many hours you work.

It's possible to legitimately claim JSA and still be working a small number of hours.

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

Ditto with Incapacity Benefit.

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

you know what i mean ;)
this idea is clearly aimed at those individuals who defraud the system by illegaly claiming jsa or other benefits either by working on the black market or claiming false invalidity which is a crime .I don't think that some of those people would think twice about turning to other forms of crime to replace any state income they lose

Re: Benefit fraud measures outlined (crime increase?)
 

I worked in this area for several years up to about 5 years ago and rarely saw anyone prosecuted for a second time let alone a third. The cost of preparing and taking a claimant to court, together with the time constraints of bringing a case, meant that only a relatively small number of cases ever got that far. That is not to say that repayment was not pursued just that only a small percentage of cases ever got as far as a conviction being sought.

There have also always been special drives to hit certain areas of fraud and the measure of success was not just the successful prosecution of a single claimant but the ripple effect that prosecution could have upon claimants in that area and/or in similar circumstances. Whether it be, for example, people doing undeclared work for complicit employers or a well publicised case of a public figure being caught out doing the supposedly impossible with their declared physical limitations.

I vividly remember one firm who were found to have over a hundred employees not declaring that they were working whilst claiming benefits. When our inspectors made spot checks the firm was left with virtually no employees below supervisory grade as they had all stopped working.

A fair few of the people investigated were found to be living well beyond the means of even their inflated benefit claims so we could only guess in most cases how they were funding their lifestyles and I could only assume they were already involved with other forms of criminal activity so stopping their benefits wouldn't have driven them to a life of crime, rather just shifted the balance.

As far as lack of communication between other benefit agencies is concerned I can only say that there are means to exchange information in place and they are, on the whole, effective in terms of stopping unwarranted benefit being paid however the shear number of cases involved meant that with the best will in the world there were months of work backlogged waiting to have any overpayments assessed and collection instigated, or the fraud aspect investigated.

This may have improved since I left but whilst I worked in that field it certainly never helped that staffing levels were never in line with the amount of work that needed to be done and using more investigators would only add to the backlog not help clear any existing problem.