Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
very true all figures regarding fraud are a guess ,my assumption that it is closer to double is just that ,an assumption. My point being that saying that it is not prolific is wrong ,it should be treated as prolific as no-one knows the full extent of the problem .
|
well no, it should be treated as is, you dont use a ak47 to kill a fly. your approach is the reason why we have vulnerable people now been turned down.
if you think its a prolific problem then prove it. otherwise it is just your point of view it is prolific. Of course when I say wrongfully turned down by that I also meant those people could wrongfully be counted as fraud depending on how they got turned down. So there will be variations both ways on the figures so best to just go on whats reported.
---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
The extent of the issue/challenge, perhaps.
We appear to have 1 in 20 of the population claiming some type of DLA, and 1 in 24 claiming some form of incapacity benefit.
|
DLA isnt a unemployment benefit it is worth noting that.
I dont think the seemingly high DLA claimant rate is anything to do with fraud but rather the assessment process. 1 in 20 people with ongoing illnesses isnt too surprising to me in itself, I am not in cloud cuckoo land where I think been ill is rare.
What about the amount of child benefit claimants? I expect that to be a very high number and that is not a problem?