Benefit Fraud - But who's really cheating who?

[nickd]

Benefit fraud is attracting a lot of media attention







But shouldn't we be asking why all the focus?


Only this week a top DWP executive Terry Moran went to town with the Daily Mail in a call for posters to be put up on street lamp posts so we can all pick out the convicted benefit cheats in our neighbourhoods.

Watch this space as we take a good look at benefit fraud. Whilst the DWP may well continue to rely on their well work worn slogan 'No Ifs, No Buts' , we will see how benefit fraud is actually full of 'ifs' and 'buts', out and out benefit fraud is in reality very low; even government ministers accept it is wildly misreported and yet all we here is 'benefit cheat' 'scroungers' 'fakers' 'skivers' 'malingerers', they've even likened benefit cheating to mugging someone on the street.


What we can be certain of is where this crack down comes from...







Yes Disability Dave knows it will secure him those all important votes. But is he just leaving it to his henchmen to do all the dirty work? ....


I just don't get David Cameron when it comes to disability benefits. Ever since he became Prime Minister he has shown an almost contempt for people on benefits, primarily those on disability & incapacity related benefits. It's all very different to when he talked on a much more passionate note of his own experiences, once upon a time he seemed far more able to relate to those facing a genuine need of support from the State. However, since forming the Coalition government with the Liberal Democrats it's as though he has waged war on almost anyone who has to rely on welfare. Cameron has developed an inherent knack of capturing the attention of those his government perceives as potential mass voters by pandering to their apparently 'populist' views. Yet when it comes to pushing out his policies he leaves it to his team of front bench ministers to roll out the tough messages in an almost 'henchmen' like manner; the same old messages seems to echo down the corridors of Westminster to each and every government department. It's as though government departments are no longer allowed to express a view of their own, each and every press release reverberates along the same old tired lines. Cameron & co are in distinct danger of being perceived as bullies, they are clearly picking a fight with those least able to fight back.


But is this benefit fraud message the right one? Is government really tackling benefit fraud in a responsible way which is proportionate to the presenting problem?


Or is it once again a case of Government setting an agenda founded upon its propaganda just to satisfy the wider electorate with little or no regard to the real consequences of those who face wrongful accusation by a media fuelled by hatred?


It's strong stuff and always provokes a reaction; the question is who's listening?

[nickd]

"Pin photographs of benefits cheats to every lamppost on their street as punishment, says government official"









Says Terry Moran of the DWP



Tough talking Moran in a recent article in the Daily Mail spares no mercy in highlighting how he would like to see all benefit cheats humiliated by posting their pictures on every street lamp post. He'd have a job because with an estimated 8 million street lamps littered around the UK there are more posts than Incapacity Claimants. I say Incapacity because this is currently where the media focusses all of its attention. (Incapacity encapsulates the previously introduced Incapacity Benefit & its tougher replacement 'Employment & Support Allowance'). Here's how the article highlights the key areas Moran seems determined to tackle:

• Benefits cheats cost more than £1 billion a year
  
  
• 47,000 people who have been claiming incapacity benefit have been found to be fit for work
  
  
• The Government is reforming the welfare system with a single payment program
  

"Benefits cheats should be shamed by having their photo pinned to every lamppost in their street", an official at the Department for Work and Pensions said.

Benefits cheats cost British taxpayers more than £1 billion a year and Terry Moran, Director General, Chief Operating Officer at DWP wants to disgrace these bogus claimants.


'If I had my way I would put their photograph on every lamppost in the street where they live because it is a very distressing thing for genuinely disabled people to see the reputation of disabled people damaged in the way that [it] is by those people,’


Mr Moran said at the Civil Service Live conference in London. A video of the conference doesn't come across as a recruitment drive for yet groups of anti - benefit advocates to join the disability hating 'hue & cry' mob brigade aimed at making life distinctly uncomfortable for benefit claimants who will worry themselves sick at the prospect of making a mistake in their benefit claims.



The 'Civil' Service Conference








Sounds remarkably civil to me...



From what I can see of the meeting agenda which you can view here it doesn't seem like the kind of venue where Moran's comments would naturally flow with the discussion. One has to wonder how many of these meetings are being couched in different terms to what really is on the agenda. I could understand Moran's comments in say a conference on fraud detection but not in this particular setting. Have a listen to the video and check out the links and make up your own mind?


You have to wonder what talks are going on in the guise of 'civil' discussions as government rolls out its reform agenda. Surely how a benefit 'fraud' claimant is punished should be left to the Court rather than to the likes of Mr Moran? Any responsible Court decides upon a punishment which fits the crime and the particular circumstances leading up to the offence. This article will look at how easy it actually is to unwittingly commit a benefit offence, it's one which can earn you a criminal record for all the wrong reasons. We'll also take a look at the vital role many welfare benefit specialists play when a benefit claimant finds themselves accused of benefit fraud; it's a lot more complicated than many of you could possibly imagine. Welfare benefit specialists often work in conjunction with criminal defence lawyers, this article will explain when and how our joint expertise can make all the difference to whether a completely innocent claimant can be acquitted of a wrongful accusation or the authorities being made to realise that a prosecution is entirely inappropriate.


Needless to say no one is protecting the out and out cheat but benefit fraud is generically categorised as fraud with no real regard to the severity of the offence. Benefit 'offences' vary enormously, the press exposure is always given to the most serious of offences. Very few get to hear about the raft of technical offences which arise out of fraud reforms back in 2001 and later in 2006; it's all too easy to find yourself on benefits and in trouble when you are seen as having done something wrong.


In our next post we'll take a look at what Mr Moran was saying a few years back; it's all very different when he's accountable to Parliament & having to answer questions on his own department's performance.


More soon, stay with this one it gets interesting...

[nickd]

Here's what the DWP was saying...









When Mr Moran & his colleagues gave evidence to Parliament in December 2008....

• It was Jobcentre staff who were encouraging claimants to apply for Disability Living Allowance - even though they were confused over who was entitled to it

[/b]



Q35 Tom Levitt: "Similarly - and this may be the same sort of question in fact - an analysis has been done of the DLA claims which are turned down and it has found that a disproportionately high number of those appear to have come from Jobcentre sources. Is that the same sort of thing happening there as well?

Mr Moran: It is. For members of staff in any part of the Department, this is a very complex social security system. To have the full knowledge that everybody may need to give absolutely the right advice every time I think is a very high demand, but we should continue to pursue it.

"....so that when we have a customer sat before us we can be sure that we are not thinking because of our limited knowledge of DLA that this person may be entitled and then raise expectations only for those to be dashed. It is one of the areas we are particularly concerned about, because we do not want to have to do the work, quite honestly,"



[/li][li]The take up on Disability Living Allowance increases when people come into contact with the benefits system often for mental health related reasons.



Mr Moran:"...The issues around in work/out of work I think is and has been, ever since DLA came in, a problem for us all. Consistent with the anecdote is that if anybody phones up to say that they are starting work, we tell them, "Then that's it, DLA is over." In fact, it is not a reportable change of circumstance in all the information that we send but everybody does feel they have to report it. In a way, I understand that. Do I think it is suitable for mental health cases? I do not know if I have an answer either way, to be honest Miss Begg.

Ms Hopkins (DWP): "I think that is an unanswerable question for us. It is a fact that an increasing proportion of people who claim DLA will have mental illness as part of their group of disabilities. As high as 70 per cent will now declare that there are some mental health problems as well as whatever other disabilities they have."



[/li][li]Advice from the Jobcentre was of a lower standard than advice agencies - a need for specialist advisers was recognised



Q36 Tom Levitt: One gets the impression from the figures that Jobcentre advice on DLA may be of a lower quality than welfare rights organisations and the Citizens Advice Bureau, for example.

Mr Moran: I think some of the evidence may suggest that and I think it is as a result of the work we will want to do with Jobcentre Plus.



[/li][li]The DWP needed to do more to get reluctant Pensioner's to claim benefits


We do know that there is a lot of unclaimed benefit. Some of it is Pension Credit and, in volume terms, the biggest proportion is Council Tax Benefit. I will invite Nigel in a moment to talk about what we have been doing, but one of the things with Pension Credit that we find repeatedly is that some of our customers who are on State Pension and who have an eligibility for Pension Credit from the information that we already know, when we have written to them to pursue their entitlement, they have declined it, for all sorts of reasons. Some of these people we have written to six times.


[/li][li]The DWP needed to look at benefit entitlement more 'holistically'



"For example, we are seeing Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance claims rise in just this year alone forecast to be 11 per cent higher than last year as a result of activity we are generating by looking at the customer more holistically. I think those are some of the early signs of what we are doing. Over time, we want to ensure that the service people receive when they phone us will go beyond just the pensioner benefits and the Housing Benefits and the Council Tax Benefits that we can do over the phone, but that we will also trigger entitlements to other disability benefits, for example, where those exist."



[/li][li]Mr Moran had a problem with sickness benefits but it was with his own staff



"I want my staff to be at work when they are well enough to be at work. When they are really not well enough, I do not want them there. When they have more chronic or serious conditions and they want to return to work, we are trying to work with them, very often working with the TU - and we have had some success with it as well - and with the health providers to get an agreement so that we can get them back to work."



[/li][li]With representation claimants were seeing success rates at appeal of between 300 and 400%.



Q71 Chairman: It is not the case that 50 per cent of decisions are getting overturned?

Mr Moran: Indeed.

Q72 Chairman: I am surprised at what you say about your internal evidence on representation in that there is a great deal of evidence that, when a claimant is represented, the chances of winning goes up 300 to 400 per cent.

Mr Moran: Yes.
[/li][/ul][/size]

Mr Moran and his fellow's remarks seem to be in stark contrast to those he voiced in his recent attack on benefit claimants. The agenda for change back in 2008 seemed to be far more focussed on disability take up campaigns, better standards of decision making, raising low staff moral, recognising a need for better staff training & generally being far more receptive to a 'welfare friendly' approach towards the claimant. So why has the agenda changed so markedly in the last four years?


Why are we now excluding benefit take up campaigns & going to town on catching fraudulent claimants despite the evidence that there are far more people under claiming than over - claiming. It really is the minority who fiddle their benefits, people are simply too scared of getting caught and the vast majority like to play by the rules. For those of you who want to take a look at the source of this information please use this link

[nickd]

David Turner on 'history of distrust of disability'




'Suspicion of poor has a long history' says David Turner (via BBC)


Here's an interesting BBC article on Disability Hatred & benefit fraud...



What do these people have in common?


A woman claimed she needed crutches, but managed to skydive from a plane, a former mayor who refereed and ran the line at 67 football matches, but claimed mobility allowance, and a woman filmed on a water slide, despite saying she was severely disabled.


In recent years they were all hauled before the courts for benefit fraud. Successive governments have tried to crack down on cheats who take from the taxpayer by pretending they cannot work. Like its predecessors, the current UK government says it wants to make sure help goes to those who really need it. But this is nothing new: ministers are confronting a problem that has existed since the earliest origins of state welfare.


Historian David Turner, of Swansea University, says our fascination with fraudsters is not new. In an academic paper, he says the history of disability reveals more than society's concern for the vulnerable.


'Authenticity questioned'


"It is also a history of distrust, in which the authenticity of symptoms has been consistently questioned," he says.


The passage of the Elizabethan Poor Law in 1601 gave the state a role in supporting the poor. But from the outset, there was suspicion that some people were exaggerating or faking their ailments. While undeserving recipients are held up by the press today, they were vilified as "rufflers", "palliards", or "clapperdogeons" in Elizabethan times.

News stories today often tell of people who are fit to work, but pretend not to be. Similar tales were on offer to readers of 18th Century newspapers and periodicals. They were warned to be weary of beggars out to fool the compassionate.


"Alongside these images are depictions of deserving disabled claimants, suggesting that you have to behave in a certain way to prove that you are disabled," says Dr Turner.


"In the 18th Century we have descriptions of people whose disabilities are beyond doubt in the mind of the author, but they are still considered cheats because they claim to have lost an arm as a result of battle rather than as a result of a brawl in the streets or an irregular course of living, as it's described."


People were encouraged to scrutinise those who were claiming to be disabled and therefore in need of help - a tendency that persists today, Dr Turner says.


"There's a direct link to people paying close attention to who is parking in that particular disabled bay."


Rapid population increase and war put welfare systems under strain in the early 19th Century. As the cost increased, an idea that welfare trapped people into a life of dependency entered the public debate. Dr Turner says welfare legislation in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries continued to try to refine ways of classifying the poor. They extended support, but also fed concern about "a crisis of malingering". Even the modern welfare state has failed to end the stereotyping, providing "new ways of stigmatising recipients of benefits", he writes.


'Feckless'


In a campaign launched in August 2010, The Sun announced it was "declaring war on feckless benefits claimants" - people who the paper said could not be bothered to work or who pretended to be too sick. But are lots of people choosing a life of taxpayer funded leisure when they are fit to work?


Disabled people protested against benefit changes in Cardiff last October
Dr Turner contends there is not - nor has there ever been - any evidence to support the "media-fuelled perception of widespread benefit fraud". News stories of people abusing the system may not be representative cases. Benefit fraud is a problem that has always existed, he says, "but it needs to be put in context".


The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that overpayments due to fraud and error across all benefits cost £3.3bn last year - 2.1% of the total benefit expenditure, which was £154bn in 2010/11. The government - which says it is committed to supporting disabled people - is replacing Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payments. The DWP says the old system was "poorly managed" and that 70% of people got the benefit for life without systematic checks to see if their condition has improved. The new system will include face-to-face checks "to make sure people are getting the right level of support".


The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is currently playing a game of legislative ping-pong as its reforms to the welfare system are batted back and forth between the Lords and Commons. A DWP spokesman said the changes were "designed to restore integrity into the benefits system", but they have brought disabled people on to the streets in protest. The Hardest Hit campaign organised rallies in 14 places across the UK last October.


The danger, says Dr Turner, is that negative stereotypes about scroungers impede progress towards dismantling the barriers that stop people from earning a living instead of relying on the welfare system.


"It stops us from focusing on why there are so many people claiming disability benefit. That has more to do with better healthcare, longer life expectancy," he says.


"It stops us from focusing on the reason why people with disabilities find it difficult to enter work."


Mylegal comment


Whilst this article does raise some interesting points over the longer term history of what I term 'benefit bashing', should we be allowing history to provide us with an excuse to revert back to the past? Surely the whole purpose of history is to learn from it and use what we learn to adapt ourselves to a more modern & civil society? History has in its routes the most primitive of life styles, some would argue such basic instincts as may be related to our ancestry still influence our thoughts & actions, but haven't we moved a million miles from those days? It's almost as though we have reverted back to a culture founded upon the principles of the survival of the fittest; except how do we define fit? It's seems as though we've been plunged in to allowing ourselves to be talked down by those who see fit to stamp on those that they feel are beneath them. It's definitely a return to primitive values as we do away with the more sophisticated concept of caring for one another; social justice is becoming a thing of the past - why are we allowing ourself to head this way?


You can read the full article by David Turner here. I don't think we should ever allow history to provide us with an excuse to cast doubt over the validity of a disabled person's integrity without a proper knowledge of their problems. Even then we have to ask ourselves; do we have the right to be so intrusive into the lives people lead just to prove someone's out to cheat the system, whatever happened to trust? In my view the current welfare reforms have provided us with a media fuelled excuse to pour scorn on the disabled, indeed on almost anyone who has a need to rely on the State for support. I have definitely noticed a pronounced increase in the number of people who will all too easily accuse someone of 'faking' their illness without any perception of what their illness actually is. How can we possibly tell what disables a person just by looking at them? The current wave of benefit bashing comes from those who advocate change in Parliament, but have these privileged politicians really got the first clue as to what it is like to have to rely on the State for support?


No article on benefit fraud would be complete without a reference to how Parliamentarian's were hauled over the coals for 'fiddling their expenses', yet there was very little action in the way of criminal prosecution & now they move on unblemished by the experience as they steer towards passing laws which are set to focus on benefit claimants with a pronounced accent on prosecution & a new wave of 'civil fines'. Why does the benefit bashing public not concentrate their discontent at those who frankly should lead by better example?


Benefit claimants are frightened witless by these reforms. The media hasn't got the first clue how the system operates so when Government changes the rules on entitlement as they did when introducing Employment & Support Allowance to a much stricter regime thousands of claimants are being wrongly 'exposed' as 'fit for work'. In reality it is merely a question of introducing a different set of rules where there is a greater expectation upon those with a limitation to do some work; yet Terry Moran of the DWP happily goes along with the Daily Mail headlines inferring that 47,000 claimants have been wrongly claiming on the grounds of incapacity - what's almost laughable is how it was his department which confirmed all of the decisions! Moran seems to change his message according to whatever the government of the day tells him what is required of his department.


What's all the more worrying is how these welfare reforms bring with them a radical introduction of some of the toughest sanctions we've ever seen together with the introduction of new technology which will expose many claim inconsistencies as the DWP, Local Authorities & HMRC 'data trawl' records in readiness for the introduction of the new Universal Credit and other benefits subject to reform. The scope for exposing error is immense and my fear is that the authorities will wrongly conclude claimants have been 'up to no good' when in truth all that is being exposed are thousands of undetected mistakes. And by mistakes that's precisely what they'll be - but what chance will completely innocent claimants have in proving their innocence with so little access to justice & a benefit bashing public out for their blood?


This is serious stuff. Rather than live in fear read on for more information about the new changes and what you should do when things go wrong, it will be vital that you get the appropriate level of help.....

[nickd]

Let's take a look at the real statistics







Benefit fraud has halved over the last decade.



Yes the figures from 2000/01 to 2009/10 have actually seen benefit fraud fall from £2.2 billion to £1.1 billion pounds. And where's does this stunning revelation come from? Some lefty think tank? No, no from none other than the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, following his appearance before the Committee on 9 November 2011. Isn't it amazing how you never get to hear any of this in the papers. You can access the information right here on the Parliamentary website ; you could hardly get a more reliable source of data could you?


A breakdown of the figures in 2008/2009





You can read a good insight into how benefit fraud is significantly overshadowed by tax evasion in a blog by Lisa Ansell, click on the link to Lisa's comparison chart and see how much more is lost through tax evasion than it is through benefit fraud. Here's what she has to say:


"Until the 1980s, we knew that the relatively low levels of benefit fraud would be offset by unclaimed benefits by miles. Then someone hit on the notion of demonising the unemployed, and all our political parties decided that was a very good way to whip up fury to distract from economic failure. Now we don't talk about benefits outside those terms. We don't talk about why women are the main receivers of benefits, we don't talk about the cost of providing god knows how many layers of ineffective services to treat symptoms of preventable poverty. We don't talk about the £4billion lost in error, because the entire system geared towards prevent 1% of benefit fraud. Political debate does that. Obscures reality. Quite effectively."


What I fail to understand is how when you talk to people they will almost laugh off tax evasion as somehow being socially acceptable, yet when it comes to benefit fraud the same individuals will express an almost loathing for claimants who fiddle the system. I don't get the difference if you are going to get all moral about it surely cheating the State is the same crime; what's the difference between falsely filing your tax returns and falsely claiming benefits? It's as though those who use a degree of 'cleverness' to avoid paying their true amount of tax due are seen as fairly playing the game, it's somehow smart to cheat the State on the one hand but not when it comes to claiming benefits. We really do need to ask ourselves why we've turned on the benefit claimant in such a draconian way. Media exposure on MP's who cheat their expenses, or businesses which avoid their taxes tends to be short lived. How many of you for instance saw much exposure over Tory donor and one time 'man from Del Monte' Asil Nadir in his recent conviction at the Old Bailey for numerous charges relating to a £29 million pound fraud? You can read about Asil Nadir here; the judge in his £4 million fraud trial even called him 'charming'. What's charming about a man who cheated many people out of millions?

[nickd]

Here I hate to say it is the kind of article we've almost come to expect from some of the journalists who write for the media and enjoy foisting their bigoted and misinformed views upon viewers that are frankly far too gullible in believing all they read. You access the article using this link and read some of the comments over this wretched piece of journalism:




"THE PARALYMPICS SHOW UP A CORRUPT BENEFITS SYSTEM"







Thursday September 6, 2012
By Leo McKinstry - Thursday September 6,2012




David Weir is a shining example of human achievement


THE Paralympic games have shown the human spirit at its most inspirational.


"In every arena, we have witnessed astonishing feats of endeavour, skill and determination from competitors who refuse to be held back by their physical disabilities.


None of them captures that heroic outlook more brilliantly than David Weir, the British wheelchair athlete who has powered his way to a pair of gold medals on the track against the toughest completion.


Born with a spinal cord transection which left him paralysed from the waist down, Weir can now be regarded as one of our nation’s greatest sporting champions.


Just like in the Olympics last month, the British Paralympic team has performed magnificently over recent days, reaching second place in the medal table.


And our country can also take great pride in how superbly these Games have been organised and supported.


"The bill for all forms of disability and incapacity welfare now reaches over £25 billion"


The crowds at the venues have been at capacity. Such enthusiasm reflects well on our enlightened attitude towards disability.


Indeed, it was the most famous disabled athlete of all, the South African runner Oscar Pistorius, who recently praised Britain’s “progressive” ethos and paid us this generous compliment,


“A lot of people around the world are going to see these Paralympics through the eyes of people in the UK and I think that’s a great thing.”


Yet some have refused to join the celebrations. Throughout the Paralympics, there has been a constant soundtrack of grievance from welfare rights campaigners who complain that coalition government’s support for the Games is in graphic contrast to their policy of social security reform.


"MINISTERS are cruelly slashing benefits for the disabled, causing widespread anxiety and misery".


One particular target of the activists’ fury is the international firm ATOS, which, under the coalition’s new, more rigorous, benefits regime, carries out assessments to decide if individuals are fit to work and what level of support they might require.


The anger of the welfare rights lobby over the Paralympics is just part of an increasingly hysterical campaign against the Government over benefits reform.


Absurdly, Cameron and his Cabinet have been painted as reactionary demagogues.


Some have even drawn a parallel with the Third Reich. “Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith are little more than Hitler and Goebbels in suits, the chief architects of the Government- sponsored anti-disability pogrom,” writes one protester.


Such language is as offensive as it is misplaced. Despite all the emotional blackmail, it is ludicrous to suggest that the coalition is engaged in an ideological attack on the disabled.


What ministers are trying to do is reform the welfare system so that it no longer rewards fraudsters and scroungers, but instead targets its funds at those most in deed.


The real hypocrites at the Paralympics are not the Government but the professional protestors, whose mentality is the opposite of the spirit of the Games.


The Paralympics is all about transcendence, where the athletes use their courage and resolution to conquer bodily constraints.


In contrast, the anti-coalition brigade expend all their energy on defending a system that traps people in a culture of victimhood, limits their ambitions, and reinforces a downward spiral of benefits dependency.


The current welfare structure is so vast, so sprawling that it encourages widespread abuse and learned helplessness.


Claims have rocketed in recent decades because the system is so lax. In fact, the definition of incapacity has been remorselessly expanded to widen the scope for dependency.


No fewer than 77,000 drug addicts and alcoholics receive Disability Living Allowance because of their self-inflicted conditions, while claims for incapacity benefit are dominated, not by the physically disabled, but by those with mental health problems like depression, stress and behavioural disorders.


In this chaotic world, it is no surprise, that the total number of people on Disability Living Allowance has gone up from 1.1 milllion in 1992, when the benefit was first introduced, to 3.2 million today, while the number on Incapacity- related payouts has soared to 2.7 million.


The bill for all forms of disability and incapacity welfare now reaches over £25 billion.


AND the anti-reform campaigners are in denial about the extent of this costly failure. They are fond of telling us that fraud represents just 0.5 per cent of disability claims, but that is a completely bogus figure.


In the courts there is a constant parade of cases involving serious benefits fraud, like the conviction last week of serial cheat Barry Brooks, who grabbed £1.8 million from the taxpayer by pretending to be confined to a wheelchair.


In addition, the assessments carried out by the muchmaligned ATOS have helped to expose the widespread levels of abuse.


More than half of those examined have proved fit for work and since the Coalition came to power, the number of disability claimants has fallen by an utterly astonishing 37 per cent.


In their eagerness to defend the corrupt status quo, the welfare rights lobby has done a terrible disservice to the genuinely disabled.


Public faith in the system has been undermined.


Thankfully, the heroic Paralympics provide an alternative, far more uplifting vision of the future to the grim world of state-controlled victimhood.

[nickd]

Mark Lever responds to McKinstry's column.





Mark Lever - CEO National Autistic Society



CEO speaks out....



"Leo McKinstry’s column, The Paralympics show up a corrupt benefits system, is factually incorrect since the Government's own research shows that disability benefit fraud is just 0.5%. On top of this, the article is hugely offensive to disabled people some of whom - through no fault of their own - need support with essentials such as food and living costs.


The Paralympics is a fantastic example of the sporting success that some disabled people can achieve, but in the same way that not every non-disabled person is going to be an Olympian, there are many thousands of disabled people who aren’t going to be Paralympians. To pit all disabled people against Paralympians is a grossly unfair comparison.


What’s more, many Paralympians will themselves be receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA) - a sum of money given to disabled people (regardless of whether or not they work) to help them meet the additional costs to living that having a disability brings. Far from fuelling a dependency culture as the article claims, DLA helps disabled people across the country to get out and about and lead more independent lives.


Rather than the culture of ‘victimhood’ being created by the benefit system, it is articles such as this that are in fact guilty of victimising disabled people, and contributing to increased resentment and abuse being directed at disabled people, as they find themselves being labelled as scroungers.


The article makes the point that claims for incapacity benefits are dominated by those with hidden rather than physical disabilities - but just because someone’s disability isn’t visible, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Autism is a hidden disability and we know of many children and adults with autism who have extremely complex needs - not only will they not ever be able to work, but they will require a lifetime of specialist support.


The suggestion that Atos has helped to expose the widespread level of abuse in the system doesn’t tally with the fact that there is a 40% success rate with appeals.


Thirty per cent of disabled people live below the poverty line. Articles like this threaten to make this number higher and consequently fail a whole generation of society’s most vulnerable.


You can read the response by Mark Lever, Chief Executive of The National Autistic Society in reply to McKinstry's column using the link here

[nickd]

This just makes me sooooooo angry









What kind of a kick does McKinstry get out of writing such utter garbage as this???



I make it a rule on this forum to be 'polite' because those we engage with on Mylegal are the public and some of you folk out there can get easily offended. Indeed in my working week as I speak with my clients, judges and officialdom I have to remain calm. I've had to learn to contain my underlying anger at the world this is becoming. You have to - it's all part and parcel of being a 'professional'. But on this occasion and at risk of losing followers, viewers and the attention of those in positions of influence who watch this forum I am going to break a few of my own rules and ask what [auto mod] planet the despicable McKinstry is on? Seriously why is this moron of a 'journalist' even on our planet? - I’m baffled over the purpose of his existence in a society which we like to think of as 'civil'. My use of swear words should not offend because we have a neat feature here on Mylegal called 'auto mod' and every time I [auto mod] well swear it will blank out my offensive words. I leave it to your imagination as to what those words may be, I can see them and I assure you they are not 'tame'.


Honestly, what kind of a sick world is it that we have total jerks like McKinstry writing such [auto mod] garbage and getting paid for it? What does it say of the intelligence of the tabloid readers who are so easily influenced by the writings of someone so full of such bigoted ignorance? Do people really believe all they read when this kind of rubbish is placed in front of them, are people really that stupid? Why oh why are there people out there reading this kind of gutter press and believing McKinstry's cheap nasty trash? Do people get as much pleasure reading it as the despicable McKinstry gets out of writing it? Are people really that sadistic?


I rather suspect they are because it seems to me we have become a nation of ‘benefit bashers’ who seem to positively enjoy poring scorn and casting doubt upon the disabled. It absolutely disgusts me when I hear so many of you out there echoing the views of imbeciles like McKinstry; on what basis do you think you're [auto mod] qualified to judge disability? Are you a nation full of [auto mod] doctors who can 'diagnose' people with a unique ability to make your own misinformed diagnosis without any knowledge of the underlying problems experienced by people you know nothing about? Are you that qualified and so clever?


Of course you're not; you haven't got the first clue.


What sickens me most about McKinstry's article is how he cruelly capitalises upon the Paralympics as a way of glorifying his 'point'. He uses the games to conjure up an image which he wants to impress upon his readers. It's an image which he tries to sell in his cheap attempt at portraying all benefit 'scroungers' as being capable of all that a paralympian can achieve if only they got off their backsides and tried. McKinstry appears to be suggesting that all benefit claimants should be capable of propelling themselves around the paralympic stadium at a rapid rate of knots in their wheelchairs. It's nothing short of sick to use such as an absurd example as illustrative of his unwelcome and unwarranted 'point'.


McKinstry needs reminding that disability and incapacity come in all shapes and sizes. To be perfectly honest we should not only be celebrating the achievements of our wonderful paralympians but also how we have modernised our benefits system to a point where we now pay people an allowance in recognition of their disability. In particular we should positively celebrate how we have recognised mental health problems as just as debilitating as those which are physical.


Supporting the mentally ill is absolutely the right direction to be moving in, we should be glad that we have steered away form the dark days of institutionalizing those with troubled minds - far and away from the days when we used to lock them away in secure mental 'hospitals'. I remember the days when we used to mock those who had been taken away to the 'loony bin'. Thankfully we no longer hide the mentally ill away and see the virtue in integrating them in to society. Although sadly too many remain wrongly placed in our prisons for being bad rather than a bit mad. the use of the word mad is not intended to offend by the way - it's used to illustrate a point.


Does McKinstry not realise that such allowances are paid to allow for the increased cost of living with a disability? Does the bigot not realise that it is entirely because of the kind of the prejudices which he harbours that the disabled are placed at a profound disadvantage when it comes to the workplace? Disability benefits are paid in part to compensate for the reduced earnings capacity of a labour force which is seen as less 'capable' than people like McKinstry cares to realise. The real 'disability' is that which exists around his ill - found prejudice, he's one of far too many people who create the real stumbling block which unhelpfully ends up labelling people as more 'disabled' than they need be. In many ways the mere use of the word disability creates the disability itself.


It is perhaps one of the biggest failings of the benefits system that it centres so much on distinguishing the 'disabled' from the rest of us. Yet we do have to recognise that some of us have limitations which make it more difficult to battle our way through the rigorous demands of life. In setting the 'dis' 'abled' apart from the 'abled', people like McKinstry see themselves as in some way 'superior' enough to be able judge those who they see as less ‘able’ than themselves. How many times do we have to listen to contemptuous individuals like McKinstry as they tell us how much ‘they've achieved without ever needing to claim benefits'?


To be quite honest I'd rather my taxes were paid to put someone like McKinstry out of work and on to benefits, I would rather he was paid to lounge around his home well out of harms way and paid NOT to write the kind of stuff he does. How can we truly say someone like McKinstry is a contributing member of society? He's not, he sponges a living by preying on the stupidity of the readers who are taken in by the rubbish he writes, it's a deplorable way of earning a living. I fail to see why the Leveson enquiry never got to grips with the gross media distortion created by an army of McKinstry's all of whom get their kick out of labelling perfectly legitimate benefit claimants as fraudsters; it's an absolutely deplorable way of 'earning' a living.



What McKinstry fails to acknowledge is the difficulty faced by far too many in finding work when they are troubled by physical or mental limitations. It is these limitations which become more of an obstacle than any hurdle found within the paralympian arena. There is a total lack of recognition in his article over the huge problem caused by a nation full of employers who are reluctant to place those with limitations in the workplace. Take any paralympian out of the stadium and place them in the same job-seeking queue as someone who is apparently more 'able bodied' and tell me in all honesty who the average employer is more likely to pick? Physical problems aside, prey tell me what employer will look twice at someone who has a long history of mental health problems in deciding whether he or she wants them in their workforce?


Rather than get to grips with the real issue of employability, McKinstry takes the easy route and joins the disability hating mob in the labelling of all benefit claimants as malingering fraudsters. He totally lacks any willingness to explore the facts and to accept that the welfare expectation has changed with the implementation of Employment & 'Support' Allowance. It's not a question of finding people 'guilty' of fraudulently claiming their incapacity benefits over the last couple of decades, it is about the DWP changing the goalposts and now expecting a much greater number of claimants to find work, be they able - partially disabled - or totally disabled; the expectation is now subject to much more rigorous testing than ever before.


There has to be a recognition that no matter how much we may want the perfect world in which all people can work, we will always have to accept some can't. The numbers of claimants who can't work will increase in a society where higher mortality and living through illness becomes the reality.


McKinstry condemns those driven to drink and drugs with no thought to how they can be integrated in to the workforce. He does nothing to explore the reasons why people find themselves driven to alcohol or drugs. I have listened to endless accounts of how people started taking drugs or drinking following all manner of horrid happenings in their childhood; they are harrowing tales and often involve the ‘morally upstanding’ kind of parents who McKinstry targets his views towards.



What would McKinstry know of the difficulties experienced by the paralympians he purports to marvel at in this most deplorable piece of journalism? It’s so obviously aimed at demonising the disabled; he deceptively gets over his message by placing a badge of honour upon those who display ‘ability’. How can he possibly know of the obstacles experienced by those in their respective journeys as they’ve made their way to some well earned gold on the podium? He's not a [auto mod] doctor and nor is he a [auto mod] competent psychiatrist; he's a cheap bigot who indulges in rotten journalism and he ought to be [auto mod] ashamed of himself.


His preposterous analogy of Barry Brooks as representative of a typical benefit cheat is nothing short of ridiculous. Brooks milked the system by defrauding the tax payer of £1.8 million out of the DWP's evidently badly policed 'access to work scheme' whilst living a lavish lifestyle according to the Daily Mail. It's ludicrous to compare Brooks with the more typical type of benefit 'cheat'; most of which involve comparatively minor offences of failing to report a change in circumstances such as an increase in the amount of tax credit received by a single parent struggling to make ends meet.


McKinstry dismisses the 0.5% fraud DLA figure as 'bogus', on what [auto mod] basis? The laws we have on benefit fraud are some of the toughest going, they have been substantially tightened up and make it relatively easy for the DWP and Local authorities to prosecute. Indeed with subsidies being paid to them and increased access to personal data in the detection of fraud they have been positively encouraged to go after the benefit cheats helped by the DWP's relentless 'no ifs no buts campaign. Why with such vigorous detection measures in place are the fraud figures so low?


How many times did we see adverts and posters promoting the DWP's 'bubble line? Most of the calls to the DWP's 'fraud squad' via their 'hotline' enable disgruntled neighbours and estranged partners to rat on those they have fallen out with, most do so anonymously. They rarely have much evidence and nor do they want to go to Court as a witness against those they report. Benefit fraud is low because the vast majority of claimants are not cheating in the way McKinstry suggests; the fact is if they were we would see more prosecutions in Court. The bogus claim is the one made by McKinstry in his unfounded claim that huge numbers of claimants are on 'the fiddle'. If they were they would be in Court, the fact they are not speaks for itself.


McKinsty's defence of Atos is hard to understand given the widespread concern over the quality of their assessments and the quality of the decisions reached by the DWP which are being overturned on appeal by an average of 40%; it increases to 80% when the appellant receives legal aid to help them state their case for support back in to employment. If more people were helped in the appeal process and there was less of the prejudice promoted by McKinstry the appeal rate would increase further as people would feel less frightened at the prospect of appealing. Perversely, If the prejudice disappeared altogether we would be seeing a much fairer mode of assessment with a subsequent reduction in the number of appeals but increased support being given to the disabled in finding their way in to employment.


Yes I can hear some of you now with that same old tired line: " I know someone in my road who's on the fiddle, I know they're claiming and there's nothing wrong with them"


So [auto mod] what? Half the [auto mod] country claims at least one State benefit so it's well and truly within the balance of probabilities that you may just know someone who is on the fiddle. Equally it's quite likely that you know someone who's fiddled their taxes, their expenses, or someone who's upped the value on something they've claimed for when making a claim on their household insurance. It's far more likely that you will know a much greater number of benefit claimants who are quite legitimately claiming all they are entitled to. But how it is that people like McKinstry have this inherent 'knack' of diagnosing people's lives with their apparent awareness of the problems they face behind closed doors. Since when have any of us been able to recognise whether a person with mental health issues is claiming their benefits on genuine grounds?


McKinstry omits to mention how his fraud busting coalition kings Cameron and Osborne were booed into oblivion by a crown of 80,000 in what must have been a Mexican wave of discontent levelled at those the vast majority of disabled positively loathe. Both of these loathsome creatures have benefited from state benefits and in Cameron's case it included the disability benefits he now condemns. I don't see it as political to suggest Cameron is a bare faced liar; indeed nothing will persuade me otherwise. There is nothing genuine about a man who preaches the support of the disabled in the way he did to the National Autistic Society back in 2009 and then goes back on all he said when he finds himself in power.


To quote one of my followers (Thomas) just taken from Twitter:


"I don't know how David Cameron, of all people, can create policies that are persecuting & hurting people with disabilities"


No, Thomas and nor do I.


I hate to do this to you Cameron but your tears of grief are absolutely meaningless unless you learn that grief extends well beyond you and your wife...







Your policies, promoted by the likes of McKinstry bring thousands of tears to the lives of individuals affected by your reforms. You should incorporate humanity in to all that you do; you need to learn from your own bitter experiences in life.


Indeed all of us need to stop waging this war on those reliant on welfare. We need to be prepared to realign how we view our thoughts on disability itself. Perhaps we should throw away the label altogether and be a little bit more humane in our attitudes towards people who for whatever reason find it difficult to 'contribute' to society. In my work as a welfare benefit specialist I've come to realise that people present their case for a need of support in a whole variety of different ways. In many cases it is neither exclusively due to severe physical or mental limitation, it is often a complex combination of both; in almost all cases there exists a profound inability to cope with the pressures of a society which is placing an expectation upon them to contribute after years of being left out in the welfare wilderness unchecked.


You cannot call a lost generation back into society after years of casting them adrift in the wilderness; it is support which is the aid to integration rather than the misplaced alienation caused by labelling them a fraud.


The barriers to successful integration are the shameful writings of bigotry and the lack of understanding caused by those who should learn a lesson in humanity from their personal grief.

[nickd]

Coming up.....








Yes you be the judge!



So far in this article on benefit fraud we've taken a look at what I'd call a difference of views. The government has clearly made benefit fraud detection a key part of its reform agenda, we've seen how the views of the DWP can change from recognising they're underpaying claimants their benefits to a new stance on naming and shaming all those who have been fraudulently overpaid. We've also looked at the viewpoint expressed by a journalist and the response to the article by the Chief Executive Officer of the National Autistic Society. For what it's worth I've added in my own comments in response to McKinstry's article; I'm angered by what he chose to write - it's nothing short of disgusting.


You can read all that we've covered in the preceding posts but now I want to turn to you and ask you to be the judge.


The scenario is one which I hope you can relate to; it involves two individuals:


(1) David (within the) Laws (MP)


and


(2) David (fall foul of the) Laws (Benefit Claimant)



One ends up charged and prosecuted for cheating the state of money paid by the taxpayer, the other gets off and ends up being rewarded with a Ministerial Post in the recent Coalition government reshuffle:


We will look at how benefit fraud works in its practical application including a look at a typical charge under sections 111/112 of the Social Security Administration Act? The question I ask: by the same analogy would both be guilty of an offence if the same principle of benefit fraud was applied to both cases?

[nickd]

This is where Mr (fall foul of the) Laws ends up...









In the Magistrates' Court on a charge...



That Mr Laws (the benefit cheat) did, contrary to section 112 (1A) of the Social Security Administration Act (as amended) fail to promptly notify Westminster City Council of a change in his circumstances which he was required to notify.


Details of charge:


That on or about the 10th May 2009 the defendant Mr Laws failed to disclose that he was living with a partner. This being a change in his circumstances that he was required to notify and which he knew would affect his entitlement to Housing & Council Tax Benefit for the period from the 10th May 2009 to 8th November September 2009.


The total amount of benefit which was over paid to the defendant was as follows:


Schedule of overpayment

27 weeks at £125 per week in overpaid Housing Benefit = £3375 27 weeks at £25 per week in excess Council Tax Benefit = £675 Total amount overpaid in benefits to which the defendant was not entitled amounting to £4050

“(1A) A person shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) there has been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to any benefit or other payment or advantage under any provision of the relevant social security legislation;

(b) the change is not a change that is excluded by regulations from the changes that are required to be notified;

(c) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of his to such a benefit or other payment or advantage; and

(d) he fails to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.


The defendant has pleaded not guilty.


The evidence


A fraud investigation was carried out in to Mr Laws's claim and evidence was gathered which showed that he was residing with a male partner Mr Barry Jones. The evidence includes that which shows Mr Laws & Mr Jones were in a relationship, shared their financial resources, had been publicly acknowledged as having a relationship, shared the same household and had a relationship which was stable. The Council produces evidence which shows a number of sightings of Mr Jones's car at Mr Laws's address, that Mr Laws visited Mr Jones at his workplace and introduced himself as his 'partner'.


When initially claiming benefit Mr Laws provided the Council with an assured short-hold tenancy which he had entered into with Mr Jones but he did not disclose the material fact that his tenancy was with his partner.


The Council has made a recoverable overpayment decision relating to the alleged overpayment of Housing Benefit & excess payment of Council Tax Benefit which is subject to separate civil proceedings for recovery of the said sums.


When interviewed under caution by the Council's investigating officers, Mr Laws said "he could could see that his relationship with Mr Jones could be seen as living with a partner but he did not think that was the nature of the relationship he was having and in any event he did not want his girlfriend to find out that he was living with Mr Jones because she had previously accused him of being in a relationship with him". In answer to the investigating officer's questioning during the interview under caution Mr Laws accepted "that he knew a change in his circumstances would affect his benefit and that in hindsight he should have told the Council about his close relationship with Mr Jones".


It is further alleged that the fact that Mr Laws did not claim other benefits to which he was entitled to shows that he was financially reliant on Mr Jones and to that end they shared a bank account consisting of savings of £5,000 which Mr Laws freely shared with Mr Jones.


Mr Laws was not represented at his interview under caution and he appears in Court unrepresented. Mr Laws has some mental health problems but in interview he accepted he understood the nature of the declarations he made during the course of his claim and also the allegations made against him.

[nickd]

This is where Mr (within the) Laws ends up...









He escalates his way back up to a ministerial position after cabinet reshuffle....


Despite having been involved in a £40,000 scandal
over his expenses



Now this isn't about politics and nor is it about Mr Laws's sexuality, it is purely and simply about an analysis of his actions in comparison with the 'Mr Laws' I used in my previous post. What we are taking a look at is how Mr Laws would have been treated had he been subject to the same laws as a benefit claimant.


I think this is a fair analogy because State benefits and Parliamentary expenses are both paid out of the public purse; I see no reason why they should be treated any differently.


Now for those of you who don't know the history, shortly after his appointment to the Coalition government Mr Laws had to resign from his position over a publicly aired scandal which emerged over £40,000 of his Parliamentary expenses. Laws has most recently returned back in to government in the recent cabinet reshuffle as a minister.


The Telegraph was first to break the story in May 2010, they broke the story with a series of sensational headlines:


"MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim"


"The Cabinet minister charged with rescuing the Government’s finances has used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner, The Daily Telegraph can disclose."



You can read the articles in the Daily Telegraph here and also more about his expenses here.


Here's how the Guardian press covered the story in May 2011:


"The former Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury David Laws has been found guilty of breaching six House of Commons rules in a report by the parliament's standards watchdog.


But John Lyon, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, has concluded that there is no evidence to suggest Laws had broken the rules out of a desire to maximise profits.


The finding will strengthen his argument that he claimed more than £40,000 in expenses for rent paid to his partner because of a desire to keep his sexuality private.


Laws resigned from the cabinet on 29 May after admitting he made a mistake after the rules of the Commons were changed to bar such claims in 2006.


The report by Lyon was considered on Tuesday by the cross-party standards and privileges committee. The committee is expected to publish the report on Thursday, possibly with a recommendation that Laws should apologise to MPs.


It is understood Lyon has concluded that Laws broke one over-arching rule: claiming for the £950 a month in rent he paid to his partner, Jamie Lundie. The five other breaches are understood to be related to subsidiary rules broken as a consequence of the major mistake over his expenses.


Lyon is also understood to have concluded that he found no evidence to suggest Laws had made the claims to benefit himself or his partner.


Laws is likely to argue that the findings by Lyon endorse what he said when he resigned – that he broke the rules but did not do so out of a desire to maximise profits.


Nick Clegg is keen to see Laws – one of the most influential Lib Dems – return to government. But the Lib Dems acknowledge that it will be difficult for Laws to return if the criticism in the report is harsh."


There's more in the Guardian here.



Despite the scandal, Government ministers were strongly supportive of Laws...



Cameron offered hope of a future return to the government, saying he recognised it had been:


"an extraordinarily difficult and painful" 24 hours. "You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that throughout you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else. I hope that in time you will be able to serve again as I think it absolutely clear that you have a huge amount to offer our country."


The chancellor, George Osborne, expressed sadness at Laws's resignation. It was


"as if he had been put on earth" to do the job of Treasury chief secretary.


Clegg also held out hope of a return after Laws had dealt with questions about his expenses. The deputy prime minister said:


"I have always admired his intelligence, his sense of public duty and his personal integrity. My admiration for him has only grown as I have seen how he has dealt with the cruel pressures of the last 24 hours. I very much hope that there will be an opportunity for him to rejoin the government."


The die had been cast when the Daily Telegraph made the revelations on Friday night about Laws's expenses claims, paid to his partner, James Lundie. Laws had said he deeply regretted the situation.


"My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality," he said.


Lord Ashdown, insisted he should not resign, branding the row a


"terrible personal and public tragedy". "He is a man who is deeply private. I can tell you he is Mr Integrity. I've known him for a long time.".


Mylegal comment


So there you have it, the tale of two Laws. On the one hand our benefit claimant could potentially be steering towards a whole lot of trouble as he appears before the Magistrates on a charge relating to £4,000 in overpaid benefits and on the other hand we have our ministerial man who seemingly gets away with over £40,000 in incorrectly claimed expenses. He ends up back in the ministry having never faced the rigours of a criminal court and what's more appears to be widely praised by his friends in government.


In the next few posts we'll take a look at this in the form of a discussion over the rights and wrongs of all this and how easily you can fall foul of the benefit laws, yet escape prosecution when it comes to Parliamentary expenses.


The next few posts will also help you understand the importance of criminal defence solicitors working in conjunction with trained welfare benefit specialists...

[nickd]

Discussion points







So what do you think?



This raises a fair few issues in my view. The next post gives you some links to the operative law under which Mr Laws (the benefit claimant) would be prosecuted. You may want to have a look at this as well as some of the above posts to get an idea over how emotive the subject of benefit fraud can become. It's widely misunderstood by many including not just the general public but courts, prosecutors, claimants, advisers and in some cases even defence lawyers. Of those I've spoken to over the years a fair few tell me that they are confused over the burden of proof required to secure a conviction under section 112. Some regard it as 'strict liability' offence where the prosecution only needs to prove the case using the four stage test laid out in the regulations. The Fraud Act amendments of 2001 seemingly made it much easier to prove an offence has been committed if:


(A) There has been a change of circumstances affecting his entitlement to benefit under the relevant social security legislation.


(B) The change in circumstances are not excluded from a duty to report them.


(C) He knows that the change affects his entitlement to benefit.


and


(D) He fails to promptly notify the Council (in this case) of the change in the prescribed manner.


There are conflicting views on the issue of the strict liability attached to this offence and case law (to follow) which throws a different light on how Courts should deal with it. One of the problems is created by the presence of a more serious offence under section 111 which uses the same wording but inserts the word 'dishonestly' into the offence. By defining a section 111 offence as one which has to be based on a dishonest intention, many take the view that a breach under section 112 can lead to an offence being created even if the claimant simply makes a mistake. Any criminal lawyers care to give a view?


If a prosecution can be created on the basis of a mistake and no defence can be offered on the grounds of 'reasonable excuse' for making the mistake, some take the line that a conviction is inevitable. I suppose you could best liken 'strict liability' to say an offence of drink driving. The prosecution need only prove your were over the limit whilst in charge of a motor vehicle, the question of intent becomes irrelevant. Feel free to correct me if any of you criminal lawyers believe this to be an incorrect interpretation?


Questions raised....



Well it would be great if you add your thoughts and write a few lines on here over some of the issues thrown up by all of this. You don't need to be all technical to add your thoughts, although of course I'd welcome those who may want to add their views on the legal issues. Mylegal is for all so you are all more than welcome to have your say. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't, but hey if it gets you talking from the comfort of your sofas or in the office I'm happy. So here's a few pointers, please add your own views....

• Do you think David Laws the MP should be treated any differently to a benefit claimant?
  
  
  
• On reading the various links to David Laws the MP and the brief outline relating to our benefit claimant who would you say was more in the wrong?
  
  
  
• What are your initial thoughts on the guilt of the benefit claimant?
  
  
  
• Do you think Mr Laws the benefit claimant should have got some help and if so from who?
  
  
  
• Is David Laws's defence to not declaring his Parliamentary expenses (wanting to keep his private life secret & not profiting) a reasonable excuse?
  
  
  
• On the evidence so far do you think the Court has enough to conclude that Mr Laws the benefit claimant was Mr Jones's partner?
  
  
  
• Do you think the laws on benefit fraud are too tough under section 112 or not tough enough?
  

[/b][/size]
[/li][/ul]


[/size]

[nickd]

The law & details of the offences











How benefit law works in criminal actions




Here you can access the original version of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the amendments made to it in 2001 by way of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. You can also follow some of the guidance used by the DWP (which will be similar to Local Authorities) in consideration of a fraud action, as well as read some discussion by criminal solicitors over the use of section 112 offences via their on-line forum. The purpose of this article is not to advise you what to do, it is (a) about making moral comparisons involving benefit fraud and (b) making you aware over how closely associated benefit rules are to criminal fraud actions for people who find themselves 'in trouble'.


You can view some of the guidance issued to the DWP on how to treat 'living together' cases including those relating to civil partnerships using this link.


Here is the 2001 amendment to section 112 of the original 1992 act:


"(3)For subsection (1A) of section 112 of that Act (knowing failures to notify change of circumstances) there shall be substituted—


“(1A)A person shall be guilty of an offence if—


(a) there has been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to any benefit or other payment or advantage under any provision of the relevant social security legislation;


(b) the change is not a change that is excluded by regulations from the changes that are required to be notified;


(c) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of his to such a benefit or other payment or advantage; and


(d) he fails to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.


(1B) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if—


(a) there has been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of another person to any benefit or other payment or advantage under any provision of the relevant social security legislation;


(b) the change is not a change that is excluded by regulations from the changes that are required to be notified;


(c) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of that other person to such a benefit or other payment or advantage; and


(d) he causes or allows that other person to fail to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.



We shall also take a look at the more serious offence under section 111 involving an act of 'dishonesty' and some interesting case law related to these cases. Mylegal is a forum which predominantly deals with civil matters of law but in this instance we are dealing with the elements of criminal law which overlap with complex social security regulations.

[davem]

The Standards and Privileges Committee Report for David Laws the MP makes for interesting reading too. There seem to be several aspects to this case which don't appear to have been widely reported in the press. I wasn't aware that Mr Laws had contributed £99,000 to the purchase of a second property that he later claimed rent for before reading that document. I also wasn't aware that his rental claims were considerably higher than the market rate or that he withheld information that would have allowed the Fees Office to determine the market rate.

Personally I think David Laws the MP is more in the wrong due to a (possibly my own) higher expectations of integrity from a person in a position of authority. The fact that Mr Laws the MP "had made significant financial contributions to the purchase and upgrading of the property" and the fact that "desire for secrecy led him to act in a way which was not compatible with the standards expected of an MP." lead me to believe that, rather than a 7 day suspension, he should have been prosecuted.

Given the legislation involved it would seem that the benefit claimant is guilty. Sadly it appears that he is without the benefit of a system which apparently defaults to not prosecuting the offender. As someone with a low income I would say he should probably have received more help from CAB and/or organisations dedicated to helping people with mental health problems. Even with that help I doubt he is ever likely to get off as lightly as Mr Laws the MP who certainly has the wealth to afford more high powered legal assistance.

David Laws the MP wanting to keep his private life secret & not profiting is, in my opinion, far from an excuse for quite blatant disregard for the code of conduct.

Mr Laws the benefit claimant seems to be fairly obviously Mr Jones' partner, from his own admission and statements that he'd introduced himself as such at Mr Jones' workplace.

I find it quite disturbing that section 112 has been modified to remove the requirement to prove dishonest intent. There don't appear to have been equivalent modifications to the Fraud Act of 2006 which suggests to me that it would be much easier to prosecute and convict a benefit claimant than someone not claiming benefits at all. I don't understand how this can possibly be considered justice or compatible with ECHR Article 6. From reading through the Fraud Act I did notice that gain or loss can refer to intangible property which I assume would include reputation.

There was talk of a police investigation into Mr Laws but, as far as I can tell, there is no report of the results of that investigation - if it ever took place.

This brings up many questions for me

• Was David Laws investigated at all and, if so, what were the results of that investigation?
  
• Who decided whether or not there should be a prosecution?
  
• Given that Mr Laws, as an MP is supposed to act in the public interest and receives an income by way of the taxpayer, can the general public insist that he resign and be prosecuted?
  

[tjay]

Not necessary to read the article to get the point!
Leo McKinstry. Daily Express Journalists: article. www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/344254/Leo-McKinstry
This is one of the worst examples of a hate attack on the disabled wrapped around a stinking fawning sycophantic article full of inaccurately and only worthy of a failing first year journalism student.
Please don’t waste your time writing to him at this instrument of the neo ConDem’s Fourth Reich, it won’t be published. If you do you will be invited to register before you can comment. Now forgive me for being cynical but haven’t the press been known to hack people’s emails and dig until they find any dirt?
Now Mr McKinstry wind in your neck and wake up to the fact that this government and their out of control Rottweiler ATOS, and there cowered rubber stamping Decision Makers at the DWP are mistreating people. (Sorry out of work disabled workless and all that crap). Welfare reform has now, by governmental deceit and its ideological hidden agenda become one of the worst examples hate crime inflicted on, not just the disabled but also anyone who may become ill in the future.
If you must comment remember to speak to the people who are suffering under this draconian regime. Don’t just spin the dribble and Hyperbole gleaned cut and pasted from an unelected un-mandated government press office release. Speak of the people not the ideology Mr McKinstry. You quote the peoples hatred of ATOS Healthcare, but fail to mention how this company comes to a decision on those who are unfortunate enough to become ill and disabled. Can its random and inconsistent computer generated decision be fair MR McKinstry? Would you expect or even allow a decision on your own health from your GP to be made this way? I think not.
You quote words like “Hysterical” and “absurd” being used to describe the people’s reactions to the process and describing how Cameron and his cabinet are “painted as reactionary demagogues”. No doubt then whose flag you are fling now Mr McKinstry.
Please remember that history tells us that the persecution and cleansing of one group in society is only the thin end of a divisive wedge and won’t stop with the ill and disabled unless the United Kingdom’s people power stops it right now. Remember the press could be next and extreme regulation looks more than likely with the outcome of the Hutton report Mr McKinstry. Type your drivel into an ATOS terminal in your office and wait for a decision on its content and permission to publish could be next. Would you applaud that equally as well?
In the name of unelected government’s dogma and hiding behind the budget deficit a pittance will be saved when compared to the spending on lethal weaponry to kill a handful of Afghan terrorists and 100 times more men, women and children.
I note that you don’t quote the numbers of suicides and premature wholly avoidable death rate in your article, that’s a really balance and impartial stance to take isn’t it Mr McKinstry.



Physical abuse and mental torture that is now inflicted on a daily basis upon anyone who dares to become ill. The numbers of people who choose to leave the human race by their own hand because of unjust and woefully wrong decisions about their conditions are a national disgrace. They have become an embarrassment to our Government task masters, routinely discredited or just ignored up to highest level.
Wholly avoidable Psychiatric Injury’s inflicted by this Governments flawed dogmatic ideology inflicted on disabled and mentally ill’, leave psychological scars that cannot be seen and are near impossible to heal. Deliberately injuring ill people further by making flawed and heavily weighted decisions in favour of denial of benefit that are unjust, and on appeal are overturned makes no sense. economically or morally. This therefore can only be seen as an attempt to inflict unusual and cruel forms of punishments for become ill or disabled by government choice.
When faced with a DWP unjust decision many disabled and ill now feel that they aren’t believed and that’s the thing that hurts the most. With the well-worn platitudes of Cameron and the rest of the ConDemn Government ringing in their ears, they take the decision that I believe this morally bankrupt government with its eugenic agenda have planned all along, forced live in object poverty until the end of their days by a misplaced sense of shame and humiliation or ether giving up and killing themselves. What a wonderful land we have the misfortune to live in. what a putrid legacy we leave to the next generation if we allow this to happen.
Now onto your real grip Mr McKinstry the good old whip hand cry of;
“Look Out He’s In A Wheelchair, He Has A Vacant Look He Must Be Mad, On Drugs Or Drunk. Next He Will Be Inside Our Pockets Looking for “Our Hard Earned Money”. Let’s Put Him In A Place Where We Will Be Safe From Him. ”
Your opinion of the mentally ill is a disgrace. Your words are by implying that they are the biggest group and responsible for the largest proportion of benefit fraud trivialising their condition and is entirely offensive and hatefull.
Saying that 0.5 % is bogus figure for benefit fraud is outrageous. Come-on Mr McKinstry as you seem to know it all, what are the real figures then? Did you forget to include them or just pluck them out of fresh air? Who are you as a representative of a corrupt press that is currently in the dock for fraud and phone hacking able to pass judgment on anyone?
You call campaign groups “Anti-reform” in denial, dead right we are. Our one and only goal is and has always been for a fair and compassionate reform that has no connections to deficit reductions or fiscal management. Nothing more, nothing less.
I truly believe that that this unelected immoral government will be in years to come be will be judged to be one of the worst purveyors of eugenics ideology and the cleansing of the disable. They will be brought to account for their hate crimes against anyone who they deemed to be less than perfect and unable to contribute to the coffers of the rich ruling classes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Bringing the question of lawful euthanasia to the high court has opened up the debate on how the disabled see themselves and what rights they have over their own existence. In a civilised society those unfortunate enough to suffer from physical and mental illnesses are treated with compassion and dignity they deserve. Provision is made to look after them from the cradle to the grave if necessary and the best of excellence in healthcare is freely available to all.

Why are lifesaving treatments and drugs now regularly refused on the ground of cost and likely mortality? Is this overt attempt to encourage ill and disabled to “Do the right thing” for the betterment of. (Yawn) “Hard working employed economically active families”. Is it encouragement to “Do the right thing” check out of this hell hole that this country and disembowel health and welfare services has become. Do you agree with this hypothesis Mr McKinstry?
Assessing the disabled fit for work or work related activity when they have well documented mental or physical conditions assessed by a qualified and compassionate doctor and specialists, on the say so of an ATOS computer programme heavily weighted against a just and proper decision, then rubber stamped by a cowered Decision Makers fearful for the own jobs is the worst Orwellian nightmares imaginable.
If we allow this happen we are all dammed to a life that demands nothing but perfection and unequal class uniformity. In the past the United Kingdom was set apart from other despot governments by virtue of the help and support it gave to ill disabled and unemployed. Now in this government’s perfect world of utopia our unelected coalition has decided that without a clear mandate from the country this is not way forward and is now looking for “A final solution” for all disabled and the ill by denial and withdrawal of welfare benefits. As the disabled and ill fail to meet the capitalist value for money ideology they will be and sacrificed on the altar of pure dogmatic greed. Will we soon be doomed by this unelected government to a life of hard labour until we drop.
So come on Mr Cameron, IDS and the rest of you well healed public school boys, Get out the pens and calculators start legislating for the next logical step, the letting of the contracts for ATOS Healthcare (what a benevolent, kind and humanitarian name for a company) to provide termination chambers on a street corner near you for the disabled, ill and unemployed to “Do the right thing”. We could even use solar and wind to power them then use the ashes to fertilise the back garden of number 10. Oh Joy and wonderment that would bring to the ConDem’s.
Start the task and publicity now and maybe you can continue to pit even more people against each other with your eugenic flawed ideology. You must be very proud of what you have achieved so far it’s certainly working well with disability hate crimes and suicide numbers increasing day by day.

But remember when you get to hell as this is certainly where this government heading Remember to tell Hitler and the rest of the world scum that more or less had the same ideology that it was “The right thing to do”
I’m sorry Mr McKinstry if my views make you as sick as your article mad me, but I think you will by now have moved onto the next band wagon to vent your anger on.
TJay
Ashamed To Be Born Into This Unjust And Putrid Land That Long Ago Used To Belonged To The Good And The Free.

[nickd]

Many thanks for the above responses from Tjay and DaveM. Lots of people expressed views over this on Twitter and without exception they all came down on David Laws in the belief he shouldn't be treated any differently to a benefit cheat. As for McKinstry's article I certainly don't think he's won any friends amongst the disabled community of for that matter the wider general public.


I'll post a view on my comments in a look at how how Mr David Law's (the benefit cheat) would be treated as soon as I can find the time to write it up.

[nickd]

Who's spying on who?







Benefits are becoming big brother....


If there's one area of welfare reform which causes me concern it's the increasing use of 'information technology'. It a recipe for a spectacular disaster with all the risks of mixing the DWP with the cyber sphere - a lethal cocktail I'd say. It seems our dear friends at the Department are now trying to sell the use of social media logins to the unsuspecting customer as 'an easier way of verifying your identity for Universal Credit'.


How thoughtful.


Be afraid, very afraid are my initial thoughts. You can read more about the use of social media logins in a recent article in the Telegraph. I'd also recommend you cast your eye over ones of Ron's Rants who suggests it may be a bit of 'snooping by the back door'; I reckon Ron's hit the nail on the head.


What's to fear?


The DWP, local authorities and the Police commonly analyse social media websites when investigating benefit fraud and other crimes. In an era where people all too readily bare their entire souls all over Facebook; a good number of them will end up having it used in evidence against them. This kind of stuff is an 'exciting' find to the benefit busters, they can use it as they become all Columbo during an investigation. Take say the case of a person claiming benefits on their own. It could end up a big mistake if they publicly declare their affections for their loved ones especially if in a message "can't wait until you get home hun XX", or perhaps display a happy snap of them in warm embrace within the home from where the benefit claim is registered. It's all the kind of stuff which may be used in an interview under caution as evidence of cohabitation. Or perhaps you're a disability claimant who's thrown caution to the winds in escaping from your wheelchair; that picture of you in dipping your toes in to the kiddie's paddling pool on a warm sunny day may end up becoming the decision-maker's red card on your mobility allowance.


Benefit fraud busters love Facebook, favourite hits include damning pictures of gardens sporting washing lines with a veritable display of 'his n her' clothing, an undeclared partner's works van parked in the background in a snap taken at the weekend becomes 'compelling evidence' in the mind of a benefit buster. Links to friends provide a useful source of intelligence especially if they indicate a grudge or two; - they may be seen as an ideal candidate for providing an adverse witness statement.


So when logging in via social media remember how much of your life you're about to give away if the information is subsequently needed in the 'detection of crime'.


The fact there may be a perfectly innocent explanation becomes an irrelevance because benefit fraud investigators will rarely want to listen to it. 'No ifs, no buts' - they're out to get you. Since when has the DWP ever wanted to make it easier for a benefit claimant? - you have been warned.

[nickd]

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/preventionofsoc/121024/am/121024s01.pdf

[nickd]

Any one for snooping?









£200 million bounty from DWP up for grabs...



Oh good news - there really are jobs it seems. I am however somewhat surprised by this late recruitment given how it's an important part of the "on time - on track - and on budget " Universal Credit - to quote the absurdly optimistic words of IDS wisdom who'll no doubt end up with some kind of honour for inflicting carnage upon thousands at some stage in the future - by which time hopefully those affected will have recovered from various states of malnutrition enforced upon them after waiting months on end for their 'single' payment to hit their bank account.


I wonder who the bidders were and whether they will be in place by March 2013?


Hey never mind splashing all of £20 million a year on people who need our help to prove they are perfectly genuine and fully entitled to their benefits; lets go all out to spend ten times as much in proving they're not with an army of computer software super snoopers. It just goes from bad to worse...


Contract Finder is high-lighting a 72 month opportunity, but it's only for the big boys. In terms of those who are excluded you can expect the usual story:


Is this suitable for smaller suppliers? No


Is this contract suitable for a voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations? No


So it'll be more Serco, G4S, Capita and so forth...


I wonder if this was included in IDS's original Universal Credit implementation budget or is it yet another unforeseen contingency overlooked by his department? I suspect it's yet another oversight which desperately needs to be put in place to stop the impending train crash - by which I refer to the IDS single streamlined payment express which is to be found hurtling towards guaranteed derailment near you any time soon.


You were warned. Seems like I'm not the only one who's harboured a deep concern over the horrendous cost attached to all of this. This little project is but a small slice of the overall £2 billion bill to be footed by the tax payer.


Find out how much it will end up costing you....





Read on:


"Identity assurance service. In supporting the digital by default policy in general and the Government’s welfare reform agenda in particular, cabinet office have produced guidance for all major public service provider departments relating to the need for identity assurance of members of the public when accessing government services.


The intention of this guidance is to leverage secure identity assurance capabilities that are already available or will be developed in the private sector, allowing citizens to choose the private sector partner(s) they wish to use to assert their identity and so access a government service. This approach will support: — Increased digital uptake – supporting channel shift, — Maintaining security – through collaboration between private and public sectors, — Uniformity – standards based approach will reduce complexity and costs, — Integration of a diverse set of suppliers through a common published integration standard.


DWP is intending to establish a commercial framework of suppliers to deliver an identity assurance service consistent with these guidelines and agreed standards and to support the rollout of strategic customer services and DWP programmes including universal credit and personal independence payments. The service will be required to provide identity assurance for approximately 21 000 000 claimants of DWP services. As the DWP customer base is diverse, a wide range of business types will be required for the framework to ensure demographic coverage and that no claimant sector is unfairly disadvantaged by limiting supplier choice.


To support the rollout of universal credit and personal independence payments providers will be selected by June 2012 and systems will need to be fully operational from March 2013. Further details of service delivery and implementation will be provided at supplier briefing events and within the invitation to tender pack. DWP wish to contract with organisations under a framework agreement to provide an identification service covering the following: — Identity verification. The provider will verify that sufficient evidence exists to verify that a person presenting on a given channel is the owner of the claimed identity. DWP will provide a standard against which to judge ‘sufficient evidence’. This standard will be issued with the ITT, but indicatively DWP wish to verify identity at levels of assurance aligned with 1, 2, and 3 of the 2003 eGif standard. The draft standards present a more ‘online’ or ‘remote’ verification flavour than the eGif document, and present a more granular scale than discrete levels, 0, 1, 2, 3, Verification will be performed in an appropriate channel (web, telephone or face to face), — Credential management.


The provider will securely manage the credential lifecycle (e.g. user name, password, hard or soft tokens, grids, voice samples, memorable information, one time passwords etc), from issue to decommission, including all aspects of management of the customer, which will include for example credential loss/recovery/reissue. Again a standard with the ITT will indicate varying credentials and management thereof compatible with various levels of assurance, — Identity correction services. Managing and resolving customer and DWP driven identity errors, and revocation of the identity (or use thereof for government authentication purposes) from the supplier, — Identity authentication. The provider will enable authentication using appropriate credentials in the relevant channel (web, telephone). In the web channel the interface with departmental systems will be standardised in a SAML 2 profile to be issued in the ITT.


DWP will also present a standards based approach to technical integration with private sector identity providers, supporting authentication requests and responses in the telephony channel. — The identity asserted in the relevant channel will be described in terms of a standardised data description (to be detailed in the ITT) indicatively: Names, Gender, DOB, DOD, address, and the history of these items. The authentication will also carry technical information describing the level of assurance and of authentication, — The provision of associated data attributes, out-with those above may also be requested by the DWP and provided by the service provider: e.g. bank account details, e.g. verified telephone numbers, e.g. history of addresses, — The supplier will comply with standards of assurance over its operational practice in line with terms to be published covering, audit, support for investigation, support for assurance visits and processes, access to data and standards of operation substantiating proper discharge of the supplier’s duty under the contract and compliance with agreed processes, — The assurance regime and operational capability of the service provider will be required to support a privacy model and consent process on behalf of the customer, indicatively ensuring that the customer has an understanding of the type of information which may be released to the DWP as a result of their consent to use the service, — Channel support.


Identity provider services invited under this framework should support access over one or more channels: online web browser and by telephone, and or face to face assurance. No one supplier is required to offer services on all channels and at all levels. Combined service offered by telephone and web browser are desirable, — Geographical reach. Services of potentially more than one identity provider will be available for use for the whole of DWP across the United Kingdom, and including Northern Ireland, — Demographic reach.


It is expected that segments of the DWP customers will likely be serviced by potential identity service providers with a history of contact of subgroups, in demographic and socioeconomic terms. Different suppliers may have reason to support a particular group more effectively than other groups. This Framework may be accessed by Central Government departments in Great Britain, with a requirement for identification assurance of individual customers accessing their services.


It will also be used by “DSD” The Department for Social Development acting for and on behalf of the Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland). Further information on this department can be viewed at: www.dsdni.gov.uk. The Customer volumes associated with this notice refer to volumes for DWP only. CPV: 72310000."
[/i]

[swlabr]

It's been announced today in the Indie that national rollout of UC has been put back for a year as - surprise! - the IT isn't anywhere near ready. No doubt this time next year it'll be put back for another and this online ID nonsense will be too. It isn't anything to lose sleep over.

[nickd]

Yes saw that swlabr. We should play them at their own game though. Highlight where they aren't doing what their beloved benefit bashing voters want as then people will start to see through their crazy plans.