Worth looking at a case today in some detail. Naomi Welford-Hill, 22, from Chorley, has pleaded guilty to claiming over £3,500 in benefits that she wasn't entitled to, encompassing Housing and Council Tax Benefits and Income Support.Previously she had legitimately claimed Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as a single parent at her old address. However, she failed to notify Chorley Council and the DWP that her partner had moved in and that he was in full-time employment. She withdrew her claim for benefits when she moved to her present address.
- The council acted on information received - they don't seem to have discovered the fraudulent claims themselves.
- She had to find her way through claiming three different benefits.
- Her entitlements ended when her partner moved in with her. Two parent families are generally agreed to be better than one. This is an example where the state rewarded the woman for being a single parent. Financially, she and her partner might well have been better off if they'd continued living apart.
- It was up to her to take the initiative to stop her benefits. If there were clear, standard penalties, maybe there would have been less temptation for her. But £3,500 is doubtless a lot of money to them.
========
Continuing our tour of local authorities, we see Kennet District Council announcing that they have uncovered more than £60,000 in overpaid housing and council tax benefit as a result of benefit fraud in the first 9 months of the financial year.
However, there is probably more to find.
The council are not telling us how much they pay out each year, or how many claims they process. That's probably significant.
We do know that Harrow Council has saved around £336,711 in benefit payouts. And we know that Scarborough Council is paying out more than £35m a year in rent and council tax benefits, dealing with with around 150 new claims and 210 changes in circumstances each week.
So Kennet District Council probably has a lot more to find. Come on, Mr Plaskitt!
However, there is probably more to find.
During this period the Councils Investigations Team has prosecuted 11 fraudulent benefits claimants in the Courts, handed out 7 administrative penalties against fraudsters in excess of £2000 and given 18 official cautions.Thus fewer than half the detected cases came to court.
The council are not telling us how much they pay out each year, or how many claims they process. That's probably significant.
We do know that Harrow Council has saved around £336,711 in benefit payouts. And we know that Scarborough Council is paying out more than £35m a year in rent and council tax benefits, dealing with with around 150 new claims and 210 changes in circumstances each week.
So Kennet District Council probably has a lot more to find. Come on, Mr Plaskitt!
2 comments:
Compared to benefit fraud, which I suspect is often non-malicious drowning in the system, the amount of money wasted on Global Warming Officers hurts the taxpayer more, surely?
Having been in the benefit trap I can assure you it is almost deliberately confusing as they shuffle you around schemes to massage the figures.
Another point is that the benefits are reclaimed 'for the tax-payer' far too sharply. So there is a large range in the bottom income brackets where pay-rises and hence motivation are simply swallowed by reduction in benefits.
I'm sure there is room for original thinking in reforming the benefit structure, and it is needed, since currently hard work by claimants is not being rewarded.
Hi sandyrham
The NAO figures try to distinguish between deliberate fraud (£690m, but probably more) and customer error (>£1bn from memory).
You may be right that 'green' measures are costing us more. Greenery is a deliberate government policy, whereas benefit fraud is a crime against taxpayers which government is merely tinkering with.
I'm sure there's scope and reason to attack the government on both these fronts.
You're certainly right about the complexity of the system, and the high marginal tax rates people suffer at absurdly low levels of income.
Post a Comment