divided our society ?

[the_neurotic_cat]

Originally Posted by martyh

I disagree ,i don't think it is a semantic one at all i think it is a correct description of estates that are used by LA's to keep all the undesirables of society in one area as much as possible.You have to realise that welfare fraud is only part of the problem .Quite a lot of long term claimants know the system better than the people working in the department and know all the tricks of getting as much out of the system as possible ,not fraud just in depth knowledge .I have ,in the course of my work ,heard people having conversations along the lines of "betty down the road gets x amount from the nash and she says that if i tell the nash y then i will get it as well", word gets around and before long everyone in that circle of friends is getting X just like betty creating a ghetto of people unwilling to give their lifestyle .Getting people like these off the system is going to be just as hard as stopping people getting on it in the first place imo

When I applied for DLA I was initially refused. During the appeal process I turned to an advisor that helped me give the correct responses to be awarded the benefit, it wasn't fraud but one has to know how to respond to the DWP or people with legitimate claims get turned down. Hearing people giving each other advise on how to fill out claims for benefits doesn't necessarily mean there's fraud.

The budget of the DWP is about £130bn (last time i checked) and fraud counted for about £1.6bn of that. It's a problem yes, but it's not prolific.

We've also got to bear in mind that once you've been unemployed for a while it gets a lot harder to get back into work. Employers are very picky and the job market is currently going to be expanding due to thousands of redundant government employees hitting the jobs market looking for work, that's going to make it even harder to long term unemployed to get a job.

Some people are just plain, unemployable. I'd rather risk someone getting welfare that doesn't need it than someone who does not getting it.

Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat

When I applied for DLA I was initially refused. During the appeal process I turned to an advisor that helped me give the correct responses to be awarded the benefit, it wasn't fraud but one has to know how to respond to the DWP or people with legitimate claims get turned down. Hearing people giving each other advise on how to fill out claims for benefits doesn't necessarily mean there's fraud.

The budget of the DWP is about £130bn (last time i checked) and fraud counted for about £1.6bn of that. It's a problem yes, but it's not prolific.

We've also got to bear in mind that once you've been unemployed for a while it gets a lot harder to get back into work. Employers are very picky and the job market is currently going to be expanding due to thousands of redundant government employees hitting the jobs market looking for work, that's going to make it even harder to long term unemployed to get a job.

Some people are just plain, unemployable. I'd rather risk someone getting welfare that doesn't need it than someone who does not getting it.

most fraud goes undetected so the figure of £1.6 bn is a nonsense ,it is a guess based on the amount of people who have been caught .You can bet your bottom dollar that it will be closer to double that at the least .Remember that welfare fraud is a way of getting money without being caught and some people are very good at it

[Chrysalis]

martyh but you are simply guessing yourself.

whilst there will be some undetected fraud its also worth noting legit claimants get wrongfully turned down due to very strict rules in place. not to mention the amount of people who simply dont claim because they dont want the stigma.

Statistics page 2

At August 2010, there were 3.18 million recipients of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), 551 thousand recipients of Carer's Allowance (CA), and 1.62 million recipients of Attendance Allowance (AA).

At the end of January 2011, the Employment and Support Allowance and incapacity benefits (ESA/IB) earlyestimate was 2.570 million.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Statistics page 2

point of showing stats?

[the_neurotic_cat]

Originally Posted by martyh

most fraud goes undetected so the figure of £1.6 bn is a nonsense ,it is a guess based on the amount of people who have been caught .You can bet your bottom dollar that it will be closer to double that at the least .Remember that welfare fraud is a way of getting money without being caught and some people are very good at it

If it's undetected then how do you know about it ?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

martyh but you are simply guessing yourself.

whilst there will be some undetected fraud its also worth noting legit claimants get wrongfully turned down due to very strict rules in place. not to mention the amount of people who simply dont claim because they dont want the stigma.

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 .

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

point of showing stats?

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.

[the_neurotic_cat]

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.

If we just look at the employment force which is about 30 million, just over 10%

Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat

If it's undetected then how do you know about it ?

because i'm not naive enough to believe that it doesn't happen ,also any government figures on fraud will be used to either prove they have control of the system or to prove that people abuse it so they can justify cuts in the system either way the figures are just guess work

[Chrysalis]

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 ----------

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?

[the_neurotic_cat]

Originally Posted by martyh

because i'm not naive enough to believe that it doesn't happen ,also any government figures on fraud will be used to either prove they have control of the system or to prove that people abuse it so they can justify cuts in the system either way the figures are just guess work

The figures reflect detected fraud, yes. It's fair to assume that not all fraud is detected. Undetected fraud can't directly be quantified but even it it's 100% that of what's detected, it's still going to be 2.5% of DWP spending.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

Given that the soft approach has resulted in record claimants of all benefits ..and there are about 50 types of benefit iirc,i think it's time for the ak47

Also it must be considered that the different types of fraud ,such as gyro stops ,working cash in hand ,not declaring hours worked are a lot harder to detect than the more blatant types

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

point of showing stats?

To elucidate what others are spout err saying...

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by martyh

Given that the soft approach has resulted in record claimants of all benefits ..and there are about 50 types of benefit iirc,i think it's time for the ak47

Also it must be considered that the different types of fraud ,such as gyro stops ,working cash in hand ,not declaring hours worked are a lot harder to detect than the more blatant types

what soft approach?

there is some weird assumption been made that if claimant numbers are going up it means fraud must be going up.