Richard Smith was unlucky. He obtained benefit of £6,481.53 over a three year period from Stockport Council even though he had £24,000 in the bank. This was not picked up by the council and we can have no idea how long it might have continued, had the council not been alerted anonymously through the fraud hotline.========
Rossendale Council is to try naming and shaming. They are warning people who claim benefits they are not entitled to that "they will be caught and placed on their website" (though I can't find the page yet), and posters will be displayed across the borough. Given the squeamishness of some police forces about publicising criminals, it will be interesting to see whether the campaign faces human rights challenges. The report of this initiative gives examples of three types of frauds.
- Anne Egan received a 36-week suspended sentence and 100 hours community punishment after she cheated tax payers out of over £30,000 by failing to declare that her partner was living with her.
- Keith Broxton was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 costs when he lied about his savings so he could claim over £11,000 in job seekers allowance and council tax benefit [which doesn't feel like a deterrent sentence].
- Shirley Smith dishonestly received housing benefit and council tax benefit payments totalling over £11,000 by failing to notify the Council and Department of Work and Pensions that she was in employment.
None of these bodies sounds fierce. The Local Authority Investigation Officers Group "aims to provide its members with access to information from Parliamentary sources, the Department of Work and Pensions, Data Protection and the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, which is relative to their fraud enquiries".
The aim of the National Anti Fraud Network is "to make available a national intelligence service to assist in deterring, detecting and preventing fraud. It also aims to provide a regular source of intelligence and focal points for Local Authorities on a wide range of fraud related matters".
The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate "was launched in November 1997 in response to widespread concerns about the estimated high levels of fraud in the Social Security system. Their mission is to maximise counter fraud performance and minimise the risk of fraud throughout the Social Security System". Their latest annual reports are dated 2002 and 2005 (state sector, innit). It is now to be closed. Its site reports that "the responsibility for the Government's inspection and assessment of housing and council tax benefit transfers from the BFI to the Audit Commission from April 2008".
The BFI published a few reports on local authority performance based on the authorities' self-assessments (none for September 2007 - March 2008), and undertook inspections (four in that period, all dated October). These are for underperforming authorities. Here are two.
The Haringey inspection, reported on in October, had taken place in May. "The Benefits service has a Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) caseload of 37,200 and paid out £201 million in HB/CTB in 2006/07." There were 77 cautions, 29 administrative penalties, and 10 prosecutions, a total of 116 so called sanctions out of the 37,200 caseload (0.3%, or 16.6 cases per investigator over the whole year). Your chances of being caught in Haringey are probably slim. No ifs, no buts, you're likely to get away with it.
In 2006/07 Broadland District Council paid Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax (CTB) totalling £17,949,870 to 6,739 "customers". The council reported 4 successful prosecutions, 24 formal cautions and 5 administrative penalties, a total of 33 sanctions out of the 6,739 caseload (nearly 0.5%).
The inspection reports are wordy and unwieldy, do not follow a standard format, and seem to have taken a long time to produce. It hasn't proved easy to find the cost of the Inspectorate. It's probably desirable to give the Audit Commission a shot at doing better.
Benefit thieves, do you know who's following you? Probably nobody.
3 comments:
is it easier than vat fraud?
I should stress I don't have direct experience of either! But benefit fraud must be easier to set up.
Benefit Fraud is fairly easy to do as the system relies heavily on the claimants honesty in making an original statement that is truthful and that changes in circumstances are reported. Councils do follow guidence contained in something called the 'Verification Framework' but obviously if the true circumstances are not given or reported it is not that easy to identify the 'false claim' or 'failure to disclose a change in circumstances'. Council's often focus on the time it takes to assess a claim rather than identify the false claims, this is due to the lack of funding, especially as they can use what ever Government Grants are paid for providing the benefit service, in the way they choose. A few years ago Councils were rewarded for achieving 'Sanctions' against Benefit Fraudsters, this is not now the case and the Government have changed the focus of funding. There are thousands of Fraud Investigators across the country employed by LAs investigating Benefit Fraud, but as I say funds are limited. There is much to be gained by increasing the funding of the Fraud Teams, but its not always the focus of those who have control of the funds to put the money into tightening up the controls or investigating the alleged frauds.
Post a Comment