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.
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.
£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.
Quote:
12. In my judgment the tribunal also erred in law in failing to enquire of the appellant more fully than it did the basis on which he had formed the belief that “the cap that was talked about in the press meant he was entitled to the capped amount of £1,000 whatever his actual rent was”.
...
15. These are all potential examples of the basis for the appellant’s belief. I have no idea which, if any of them, may be true in fact, or whether the belief sprang from elsewhere. However, they highlight that this was an area that called for investigation by the tribunal.
|