The state benefits system mega-thread.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Here is the official public link to selected upper tribunal decisions. Not all of them are published, and they are relatively anonymised, eg Mr X. They include details about the appellants claim and the First Tier Tribunals reasoning etc. It is only when an issue is raised that is thought to be of general importance that it may be published.

The older(2015 and before) ones are on a different link and in a different format.
Here is the link to the 2nd quoted decision CH/3295/2012
A rehearing ordered by the Upper Tribunal is not necessarily a sign that the claimant has "won". It can simply be that it was felt that the First Tier Tribunal hadn't explained or explored their reasoning in a sufficient manner. The principal being that the claimant has to have had a "reasoned judgment", so that even if they don't agree with it, they should know why. That is in the DWP rules, and even at the European Convention of Human Rights level(Article 6).

Can't remember any more specific details about the shoulder case to track it down, again. The 2nd case was easier as there was only one listed case of HB overpayment for Islington, and I had remembered that it was for Islington.


Too many of the cases referred to in this thread, can be quickly found to be not what they claim to be. Eg ESA refused, but claimant has died of a previously undiagnosed condition(brain cancer), yet the DWP is still blamed. Recent example of somebody with cancer being denied UC/ESA, when upon proper inspection of the article from the Daily Mirror, it was because they had a partner who was working. The cancer didn't come into it, yet it was claimed it was. Another classic, is the claim that over 100,000 had died as a result of DWP decisions. When looking at the original question asked of the DWP, it was merely the number of people who had died whilst receiving benefits in that time period. Bit like asking how many Labour Party members have died since Corbyn took over as leader, and blaming their deaths on him. Just ridiculous.


All too often, the headline deliberately misrepresents the detail of the article. Certain people readily buy into the headline, without reading and comprehending the details in the article. The truth is usually there for all to see.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Here is the official public link to selected upper tribunal decisions. Not all of them are published, and they are relatively anonymised, eg Mr X. It is only when an issue is raised that is thought to be of importance that it may be published.

The older(2015 and before) ones are on a different link and in a different format.
Here is the link to the 2nd quoted decision CH/3295/2012
A rehearing ordered by the Upper Tribunal is not necessarily a sign that the claimant as "won". It can simply be that it was felt that the First Tier Tribunal hadn't explained or explored their reasoning in a sufficient manner. The principal being that the claimant has to have had a "reasoned judgment", so that even if they don't agree with it, they should know why. That is in the DWP rules, and even at the European Convention of Human Rights level(Article 6).

Can't remember any more specific details about the shoulder case to track it down, again. The 2nd case was easier as there was only one listed case of HB overpayment for Islington.

You said in the housing benefit case they won a subsequent FTT? Is there a link to that? Those aren’t routinely published.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

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:

Those who cheat the system should have the book thrown at them of that there is no doubt but this article is a clear example of a flawed system which has ended up costing the taxpayer more in the end.

Its no surprise that 70% of original decisions are overturned on appeal as its not rocket science to realise there are considerable flaws in the system currently.

Statistics don't lie as they say.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...sions-17069886

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

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:

You make a good case for more vigorous assessments, digging deeper into peoples bank accounts/ property ownership/living status.......

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[/B]

You make a good case for more vigorous assessments, digging deeper into peoples bank accounts/ property ownership/living status.......

I make a case for better quality assessments/alternative forms of medical evidence from medical professionals. Not these slapstick copy and paste jobs served up by Atos/Capita/Maximus.

I’ve no issues at all with ploughing resource into genuine counter fraud work. Land registry data, credit referencing, etc.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[/B]

You make a good case for more vigorous assessments, digging deeper into peoples bank accounts/ property ownership/living status.......

The DWP can do any of that now if there is a suspicion that someone is defrauding the system.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

You said in the housing benefit case they won a subsequent FTT? Is there a link to that? Those aren’t routinely published.

Perhaps I didn't explain it properly. The Upper Tribunal decided that the claimant was to have a rehearing, ie a 2nd First Tier Tribunal hearing. I have no idea how that rehearing went, although the First Tier Tribunal hearings are theoretically open to the public to attend. The issue wasn't what any final decision was, but what the claimants were trying to get away with claiming.


This is the normal type of explanation of the Upper Tribunal decision.

The Upper Tribunal is not in a position to re-decide the appeal. It therefore refers the appeal to be decided afresh by a completely differently constituted First-tier Tribunal and in accordance with the Directions set out below.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I make a case for better quality assessments/alternative forms of medical evidence from medical professionals. Not these slapstick copy and paste jobs served up by Atos/Capita/Maximus.

I’ve no issues at all with ploughing resource into genuine counter fraud work. Land registry data, credit referencing, etc.

What do you mean by medical evidence? The problem is that the "evidence" is all too often just what the claimant has said, without any possibility of proving or disproving it. The new non-disprovable "back pain" type things are things like anxiety, depression, and agoraphobia. How does a GP prove or disprove any of those? They have to accept what the patient says, without question. That is the opposite to the approach the DWP etc has to take.



The single person claiming when there is somebody else living there, can be a new situation that can arise. The signs can be difficult to find without a very deep financial investigation into things like bank accounts. Not sure they should be constantly monitoring bank accounts for inconsistencies.

[jfman]

There's plenty of plumbers, taxi drivers and carpet fitters out there doing a ton of work for £10 000 a year as well, equally a preposterous notion and costing genuine taxpayers who are left footing the bill for public services.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

What do you mean by medical evidence? The problem is that the "evidence" is all too often just what the claimant has said, without any possibility of proving or disproving it. The new non-disprovable "back pain" type things are things like anxiety, depression, and agoraphobia. How does a GP prove or disprove any of those? They have to accept what the patient says, without question. That is the opposite to the approach the DWP etc has to take.

Evidence from a medical professional is medical evidence.

Are you claiming that all of the above conditions are easily faked to the point GPs prescribe medication, refer to specialists, etc.

I think not.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

There's plenty of plumbers, taxi drivers and carpet fitters out there doing a ton of work for £10 000 a year as well, equally a preposterous notion and costing genuine taxpayers who are left footing the bill for public services.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 ----------



Evidence from a medical professional is medical evidence.

Are you claiming that all of the above conditions are easily faked to the point GPs prescribe medication, refer to specialists, etc.

I think not.

So what irrefutable medical tests are there?
Link

Tracy Johnson is jailed after she was caught funding a 'globetrotting lifestyle' through benefits by claiming she was agoraphobic

Link

A window cleaner from Lancashire falsely stated he had agoraphobia so he could illegally claim more than £70,000 in benefits, a court has heard.
John Booth, 63, said he was unfit to work over a 14-year period due to various illnesses but was actually doing his rounds in Cheshire.

Link

Karen Trant was caught holidaying in the idyllic west Indian region of Goa, where she was also photographed riding a horse.
The 51-year-old pocketed disability handouts for 13 years by claiming she could not leave her home by herself, travel alone or go to unfamiliar places.

Link

A woman who falsely said she was disabled but was seen dancing at a wedding has been jailed for claiming benefits worth £260,000.
...
She claimed the fraudulent "complex raft of benefits" between 2002 and 2013 based on being a single parent with poor mobility who was too ill to work.

More than 10 years of it going on without being caught and being in any fraud figures.



Link

AN AMATEUR actress who stole £740,000 from taxpayers by conning the authorities into believing her dead father was alive and still eligible for his benefits has been jailed for nearly six years.
...
The "sophisticated fraudster" also feigned dementia and mobility issues for more than two decades to steal money from the public purse, but was caught out when DWP investigators filmed her moving around and even driving despite claiming she needed a wheelchair.

Link listing several cases

The overpayments in these benefit fraud cases heard at court in the last year add up to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
In one case, Recorder Patrick Harrington QC said: "Benefit fraud is rife and costs honest hardworking people a lot of money."

In at least some cases, a claim that has been refused, will have been an attempted fraud but won't be in any fraud figures.

[jfman]

You still haven't demonstrated that incorrectly refusing PIP claims and losing 70% of appeals reduces said fraud. All it does is increase the administrative burden and cost of the application process.

It's also unclear what, if any, evidence the DWP used in making the decisions mentioned above. Some of them will almost certainly have gamed the entirely inadequate PIP/ESA assessment process.

The reality is it has little credibility at tribunal, making it easier for fraudsters not harder. The copy and paste private sector reports carry little weight in the absence of any genuine insight into the person being assessed.

Not acting aggressively to the assessor and adequate eye contact is no measure of a whole raft of mental health issues. Yet the DWP will copy and paste it over and over.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what irrefutable medical tests are there?
Link
Link
Link

Link
More than 10 years of it going on without being caught and being in any fraud figures.



Link
Link listing several cases



In at least some cases, a claim that has been refused, will have been an attempted fraud but won't be in any fraud figures.

If only the Govt. were as proactive in making sure those that are entitled to benefits get them. The whole farce around PIP a s to try and disuade those who are entitled from claiming or appealing. As they are vulnerable anyway, they're an easy target. Same with Pension credit, massively underclaimed. The fraud rate in comparison is miniscule.

[nomadking]

If the cases that get put in this thread as being slam dunk ones of being eligible, are anything to go by, then 99% of accepted claims are bogus. That isn't the case, but it still remains a fact that the cases in this thread are not what they seem, and that is what I keep highlighting.

Eg Link
Head of story

A terminally ill dad whose son was murdered has been refused Universal Credit and told to find a job despite being given just months to live.
Scottish 60-year-old Michael McClelland is undergoing gruelling treatment for a brain tumour - but was told by the Department of Work and Pensions he is fit for work.

If you look further on in the story, then you find that the bit in bold never happened. He was diagnosed in July, and therefore wouldn't have been time to go through all the assessment and appeal stages. Eventually the story explains the truth, which contradicts the headline and tone of the article.

“We thought I was getting Universal Credit but at the Job Centre Plus in Johnstone they told me I wasn’t eligible because my partner Terry works part-time.

Eventually you get to the end of the story to be told.

The department also says it has terminal illness special rules and anyone subject to it can have their work-related requirements waived.
It added on Thursday that it had reviewed the case and Mr McClelland had been awarded the enhanced level of the mobility allowance.

Eg Link

The shocking statistics reveal that 111,450 ESA claims were closed following the death of claimants between March 2014 to February 2017.

I pointed out that the what should be obvious fact that the claims were closed because they had died, not the other way around. They were still receiving benefits at the time of death.

Total number of working age individuals who flowed off Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance (IB/SDA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) andwhose date of death was at the same time, by ESA phase of claim (for ESA only). Great Britain: March 2014 to February 2017

They hadn't been turned down for benefits, as it was meant to be incorrectly inferred.

Headline
Dad cries moment before suicide after Universal Credit wait left him with £4.61

He was left with just £4.61 in his bank account as he waited for the benefit. As it is paid monthly in arrears there is an average five-week wait for the first payment to be received.

Yet look further into the same story.

Phillip Herron, 34, ended up £20,000 in debt, including payday loans with 1,000 per cent interest, and his children told their grandmother Santa hadn’t come the year before.

That much debt in less than 5 weeks?

Letters at his home detailed how much debt he was in, and he had also been served an eviction notice.

Eviction notice in the space of less than 5 weeks?

The watch the TV programmes complaining about UC.
Eg Person complaining about UC, answering the front door to bailiffs seeking money for Water charges, which is twice yearly bill(ie must have had more than 6 months to save up for it), with iPhone clapped to her ear.
Person complaining about DLA/PIP assessments, refused to have one, but managed to travel all the way from Merseyside to the streets of London, to become a fake homeless beggar because he earned more money that way.

[jfman]

I’m quite sure the £20 000 of debt individual had wider issues, but being unable to keep up repayments (which benefit delays exacerbate). I’m not sure why you appear to be implying he’s any less worthy of sympathy/benefit because he’s in debt.

He’s exactly the sort of individual that “the system” be it regulation of lenders or social security ought to protect. Now we’ve a family with no father although I suspect many on this forum have more sympathy for the accountant writing off bad debt.

All of these stories you are spinning are a tiny amount of all claims. You may say “these are only the ones we hear about” but I suspect there’s a huge PR machine that goes into releasing these stories to demonise claimants.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m quite sure the £20 000 of debt individual had wider issues, but being unable to keep up repayments (which benefit delays exacerbate). I’m not sure why you appear to be implying he’s any less worthy of sympathy/benefit because he’s in debt.

He’s exactly the sort of individual that “the system” be it regulation of lenders or social security ought to protect. Now we’ve a family with no father although I suspect many on this forum have more sympathy for the accountant writing off bad debt.

All of these stories you are spinning are a tiny amount of all claims. You may say “these are only the ones we hear about” but I suspect there’s a huge PR machine that goes into releasing these stories to demonise claimants.

The point is that UC was blamed, when it wasn't to blame if anybody actually bothered to read and comprehend the full article.

He was left with just £4.61 in his bank account as he waited for the benefit.

That just isn't true. We don't know how long he had been waiting for anything, at that stage.

Phillip quit his job in a factory to look after his three children but fell behind with rent and trying to feed and clothe them.

Has access to benefits ever been that instant?
The eviction notice will have been planned before applying for UC. Even if he had instantly been given UC, it would have made little difference.

Phillip Herron, 34, ended up £20,000 in debt, including payday loans with 1,000 per cent interest, and his children told their grandmother Santa hadn’t come the year before.

Xmas had been 3 months beforehand. So severe issues by then.


I'm not claiming that these stories represent the bigger picture. It is the people who are posting these stories that are doing that. They are posting them as a "typical example".

[Stephen]

I have just sent off my ESA form and it was a fairly long form. Now to wait and see what happens.

Have to say though, having been on UC for the last 2 months it really has been a horrible experience and I would not want my worst enemy to go through it. Barely enough money to pay 2/3 of our rent. ESA gets deducted from it too and then ESA is every two weeks. So paying bills has been tough.