Ship of Fools: Mugged and laughed at

Thread: Mugged and laughed at Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026108

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

I watched Inside Out exposing how some Middle Eastern people are getting Housing Benefit for apartments in Westminster, then sub-letting said dwellings. An estimate of 10% of claims were said to be fraudulent.
Apart from taking money from schools, hospitals etc this creates social disharmony as many young couples cannot afford even a basic flat. They laugh at us and we despise them. The Council say they are being mugged and politicians are too cowardly to do anything more than cap benefits.

Can anyone think what rules/laws can be changed to stop this?

[ 03. October 2013, 17:34: Message edited by: NJA ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I watched Inside Out exposing how some Middle Eastern people are getting Housing Benefit for apartments in Westminster, then sub-letting said dwellings. An estimate of 10% of claims were said to be fraudulent.
Apart from taking money from schools, hospitals etc this creates social disharmony as many young couples cannot afford even a basic flat. They laugh at us and we despise them. The Council say they are being mugged and politicians are too cowardly to do anything more than cap benefits.

Can anyone think what rules/laws can be changed to stop this?

The fact that 90% of the claims for this government service actually go to people who need it is fantastic, as far as government assistance goes.

I don't see what being Middle Eastern has to do with it. Care to clarify the issue there on that point?

[ 03. October 2013, 17:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Its already so bloody difficult to get Housing Benefit that even half-hearted application of existing rules would get rid of all of them and a few thousand legitimate claimants as well.

Frankly, they make it so hard to claim benefits nowadays I have a sort of admiration for anyone with the brains and balls to cheat and get away with it. It must be really fucking difficult.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There doesn't need to be a change in the rules: sub-letting isn't allowed.

I'm not exactly certain why you pick on the furrins, though, as I'd be reasonably sure of my ground to say that far more native Brits cheat - or attempt to cheat - the system than those from overseas.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Around 2007 I had a Serbian patient in central London who was running a similar scheme. He volunteered this to me after he'd been caught and lost the flat he was sub-letting (he himself was living at an entirely different address). He was quite put out that he'd lost this flat (and source of income, obviously), and insisted that he didn't know that what he had been doing wasn't allowed. I half believed him, as he was quite narcissistic.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Course if you had a system to permit people to sub-let and set it against their housing benefit claim, you would be half way to solving the problem that the bedroom tax was supposed to solve - but without people ending up stuck in properties they can't afford with no where to move to.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken
Frankly, they make it so hard to claim benefits nowadays I have a sort of admiration for anyone with the brains and balls to cheat and get away with it.

God help us if the left ever come back to power, with attitudes like that. [Mad]

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see what being Middle Eastern has to do with it. Care to clarify the issue there on that point?

It's just that the program was about Westminster Council (London's West End) and they have found a preponderance of their offenders are from that part of the World.

Here's a clip.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Color me surprised- anti-welfare muck-rakers focus on brown, foreign moochers.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

My question is about the system & the laws, and how they are enforced.

For example, should names & addresses of all recipients be given to the Royal Mail for them to check names on letters for that address?

Should we employ people to pose as tenants and ring round people advertising properties to see if the address matches that of an HB claim?

[ 04. October 2013, 01:17: Message edited by: NJA ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
My question is about the system & the laws, and how they are enforced.

For example, should names & addresses of all recipients be given to the Royal Mail for them to check names on letters for that address?

Should we employ people to pose as tenants and ring round people advertising properties to see if the address matches that of an HB claim?

I'm sure all of us are irritated by fraud, but of course it's possible in all sorts of areas of life, in both public and private sector. Is there a reason why you're so anxious about this particular form of fraud, as opposed to, say, corporations who fabricate documents to avoid government regulations or taxes? Or employees who skim out of the till?

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
My question is about the system & the laws, and how they are enforced.

Then why mention the offenders' ethnic backgrounds? It's akin to me saying; 'My Chinese neighbours keep me awake at night with their partying' - well, they do - but it's the noise that's the problem, the Chinese-ness is incidental.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

So how does this fraud rate compare to that of Members of Parliament fiddling on their housing benefits?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Benefit fraud is a criminal offence, and many councils (including Westminster) have dedicated units to deal with it. I guess they fund them on the basis that overall they save the council money. These units both catch offenders, and - if they are effective - deter potential offenders.

There is also a government hotline with a freephone number and an online reporting system, and ditto for Westminster Council.

I think people have previously regarded benefit fraud as a so-called victimless crime, and tend not to want to 'shop' their neighbours. Also I think what was a small individual operation has in some places (inc. Westminster) become an organised crime operation because of the large sums involved.

But to put it all in perspective in 2011 fewer than 1% of people on benefits committed fraud, and very often it was done for small amounts and for something like replacing a broken appliance or having a little extra money for Christmas. (Interesting Guardian story here.)

In 2010 the total cost of benefit fraud was estimated at £1bn, which is a large sum, but compares with an estimated £15bn lost in the same year to tax evasion (which is also a criminal offence and about which we seem to hear a lot less). That's all before you add in the loss due to legal tax avoidance of the kind which has been in the UK news over recent months e.g all Amazon's sales being treated by them as taking place in Luxembourg, and Starbucks making no UK profits because

quote:
As part of its tax affairs, the firm transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Then why mention the offenders' ethnic backgrounds?..

I just quoted from the program, it may well be that HB fraud is equally distributed across ethnic backgrounds, I don't know, do you?

If there is a statistically significant pattern, this should be considered.

My question is about how fraud, by anyone, can be stopped. So far no-one here has made any new suggestion, the current provisions don't seem to be adequate so I wondered if there was anyone here with insight or intelligence that could make a suggestion.

[ 04. October 2013, 09:41: Message edited by: NJA ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Course if you had a system to permit people to sub-let and set it against their housing benefit claim, you would be half way to solving the problem that the bedroom tax was supposed to solve - but without people ending up stuck in properties they can't afford with no where to move to.

NJA - what about this idea? Seems reasonable to me.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

It may sound reasonable, but it has the fatal flaw that it assumes most people claiming benefits are basically honest citizens who only want what's due to them. It also assumes that they do not deserve to be punished for being poor.

Judging by the rhetoric coming out of Whitehall, this is not at all how the government views welfare recipients.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
My question is about the system & the laws, and how they are enforced.

For example, should names & addresses of all recipients be given to the Royal Mail for them to check names on letters for that address?

Should we employ people to pose as tenants and ring round people advertising properties to see if the address matches that of an HB claim?

Bit puzzled by this one. Are you suggesting that if one is investigating crime, one should deliberately not use some detection expedients that common sense would suggest are likely to work, for some abstract reason that isn't clear? e.g. Are you saying that it is unfair to the offenders? Or are you suggesting that the investigators don't do that at the moment and they'd be more successful if they did?

[ 04. October 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jane--

Yeah, unfortunately the various American benefits systems take the same "you're all liars!" approach--at the same time, defending their own right to treat people badly and take their own fracking time doing it.

E.g., the federal Social Security Disability programs (SSDI and SSI) are extremely difficult to apply for, and even harder to finally get approved for. People are routinely turned down, even if they're visibly disabled and have all their documentation. It can take many years, and several court cases. And applicants are not eligible for welfare while they're waiting. (Though sometimes food stamps.) The SSA will go against the approval recommendations of their own examiners. Etc., etc., etc.

It's been said that America and England are two nations separated by a common language. Maybe they're also two governments united by disbelief and mistrust of those in need.

NJA--don't mean to derail your housing thread; just interacting with Jane's related comments on benefits.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Are you suggesting that if one is investigating crime, one should deliberately not use some detection expedients that common sense would suggest are likely to work,

The fact that I have suggested them shows the opposite of the thought that is puzzling you

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or are you suggesting that the investigators don't do that at the moment and they'd be more successful if they did?

Maybe they do, I'm hoping someone here knows, all I know is, there are ways around the current procedures and this is attracting the wrong sort of attention.

"lead us not into temptation" and all that.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Course if you had a system to permit people to sub-let and set it against their housing benefit claim, you would be half way to solving the problem that the bedroom tax was supposed to solve - but without people ending up stuck in properties they can't afford with no where to move to.

Seems good to me, what's the gov't argument against it?

Of course it doesn't stop the problem that the program highlighted.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Then why mention the offenders' ethnic backgrounds?..
I just quoted from the program, it may well be that HB fraud is equally distributed across ethnic backgrounds, I don't know, do you?

If there is a statistically significant pattern, this should be considered.

There are often statistically significant patterns, especially if one looks for Serbian or Middle Eastern claimants. If you look in a what has been described as a tomato patch, you'll see tomatoes.

quote:

My question is about how fraud, by anyone, can be stopped. So far no-one here has made any new suggestion, the current provisions don't seem to be adequate so I wondered if there was anyone here with insight or intelligence that could make a suggestion.

Odd that the government is so hot and bothered about a billion pounds of benefit fruad, when it is defrauded out of £20 billion in all (most of which is tax, but that covers procurement too) and the UK economy a total of £73 billion.

The benefit fraud hot line is well-known and publicised but this document on fraud in general mentions one which I hadn't heard of before. It hasn't had the same publicity for certain.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

NJA,

To respond to the OP, I doubt any rules or laws need to be changed. The Parliamentary expenses fiddles broke existing laws (if they hadn't then MPs and Lords couldn't have been prosecuted); all that was missing was enforcement, but that was hindered because fees office staff were instructed (by Parliament, IIRC), to trust claimants!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Incidentally, NJA, you may not know the answer to this because you got your information from a TV programme, but is that figure of 10% *really* 10% of successful claims, or just 10% of those who apply? Because quite a lot of people put in applications for a benefit and are then told that they aren't eligible to receive it. If you pick your statistics carefully, these people (who never get the benefit they applied for, and may have honestly believed they were eligible for it) would inflate the 'false claims' figure considerably.

I'd be surprised if the figure of *successful* fraudulent claims was as high as 10%. I'd expect it to be more like 1%, like Doc Tor said. And that would mean 99% of the actual money is going to genuine claimants.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Course if you had a system to permit people to sub-let and set it against their housing benefit claim, you would be half way to solving the problem that the bedroom tax was supposed to solve - but without people ending up stuck in properties they can't afford with no where to move to.
Seems good to me, what's the gov't argument against it?

Of course it doesn't stop the problem that the program highlighted.

Essentially, that they would be profiting from property they don't own I would think. Landlords don't like it because it gives them less control over who is in the property.

A solution would be a requirement to notify the landlord, split the lodgers rent 50% 50%, and then deduct a set amount from the housing benefit. Perhaps (radical this) not deduct the entire amount made from the claimant's sub-let, so that there would be a financial incentive to have a lodger and thereby slightly relieve the housing pressure.

Currently home owners can make £350 gross from a single lodger in their property without having to declare for tax - its called the government rent a room scheme. If the landord got £150, the council got £150 and the claimaint got £50 - you'd have an extra person housed at a significant discount, and the landlord would get a slightly increased profit.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Is there a psychological element to this? I'm looking at the thread title and wondering if frauds and financial wrong-doing that seem to exploit - and therefore mock - generosity either are, or feel *wronger* than frauds and financial wrong-doing that rip-off ungenerous people and systems?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see what being Middle Eastern has to do with it. Care to clarify the issue there on that point?
It's just that the program was about Westminster Council (London's West End) and they have found a preponderance of their offenders are from that part of the World.

Awww, purleease... don't confuse us all with the FACTS!

The cause of political correctness is just faaaar too important to be distorted with something called T-R-U-T-H!!

[brick wall]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

You want facts? Here's one:

quote:
A poll conducted by the Trades Union Congress in 2012 found that perceptions among the British public were that benefit fraud was high - on average people thought that 27% of the British welfare budget is claimed fraudulently;[4] however, official UK Government figures have stated that the proportion of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget in 2011/12.

(Wikipedia)

You may also be unaware that failing to inform the DWP of a change in your circumstances (eg inheriting some money, partner with job coming to live with you) whilst receiving benefits is considered to be fraud.

But gosh, yes, it's terrible. All those people from the Middle East taking over London's West End while decent hardworking British folk are being priced out of the property market. What IS the world coming to?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I watched Inside Out exposing how some Middle Eastern people are getting Housing Benefit for apartments in Westminster, then sub-letting said dwellings. An estimate of 10% of claims were said to be fraudulent.
Apart from taking money from schools, hospitals etc this creates social disharmony as many young couples cannot afford even a basic flat. They laugh at us and we despise them. The Council say they are being mugged and politicians are too cowardly to do anything more than cap benefits.

Can anyone think what rules/laws can be changed to stop this?

One could ask why tenants need to rent in such circumstances, but there has been a shortage of sensibly priced rented housing in Westminster since the 1980's when the then council fixed (some say gerrymandered*) the vote by moving council tenants from marginal wards and into those where their vote make no difference, and closing some council accomodation entirely. Look up "Dame Shirley Porter", and "Homes for Votes" for more gory details. Unusually for a Conservative, the Daily Mail was utterly condemnatory of Lady Porter, but then she's Jewish.

*not the right term, as the council moved the people, rather than the boundaries.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by NJA

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see what being Middle Eastern has to do with it. Care to clarify the issue there on that point?
It's just that the program was about Westminster Council (London's West End) and they have found a preponderance of their offenders are from that part of the World.
Awww, purleease... don't confuse us all with the FACTS!

The cause of political correctness is just faaaar too important to be distorted with something called T-R-U-T-H!!

How on earth is that a fact though? The programme wasn't saying that all offenders involved in benefit fraud (1% of all claimants, not all of them as Daily Heil types like yourself would have us believe) are Middle Eastern. In fact, given the statistics, most fraudulent claims are almost certainly made by white people, given that they make up most benefit claimants in the first place. Acting as if some of them being non-white indicates some kind of inherent racial aspect to benefit fraud is spectacularly weird and just plain untrue.

I wonder if Jesus would have committed benefit fraud? Middle Eastern, unlikely to have read the Daily Heil, homeless and relying on charity to live....He's definitely a prime candidate according to you and the OP.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jane--

Yeah, unfortunately the various American benefits systems take the same "you're all liars!" approach--at the same time, defending their own right to treat people badly and take their own fracking time doing it.

Which is counterproductive. I think I may have mentioned it before, but a couple of years ago I read about a study on tax compliance where 2 different versions of a letter were sent out. One version had a paragraph basically saying 'here's all the penalties we can dish out when we catch you cheating', and the other version had a paragraph saying 'we trust you and we know people want to do the right thing'.

And compliance was significantly better amongst people who received the 'we trust you' letter.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0