Should forum members report scammers?

Richard Dower

Reading the threads it seems like everybody knows somebody, in the end who does the burden of proof lay on?....should we all "do our bit" and report people we suspect or of scamming?

Or are we just looking to blame and get back" at someone, anyone for the current debacle?
Or should we all just shut the HELL up and stop making wild accusations and peeping out the window at the neighbours with the '09 car who we know is on the dole?

gcgirl

I think its gotting to a point where we are going to have to report and as much as much as i hate being a snitch there are a hell of amount of people that give genuine claments badnames!

aare

I think we will all get through this far more easily if we support one another rather than digging around looking for ways to stab each other in the back.

Most people want it that way, there are just a few who get a thrill out of believing they have the power to hurt someone else.

Welease

If someone is abusing it..report them... or don't complain when services are cut..

There is a finite budget available, and real adults and children do miss out on opportunities that could benefit them and the country by people defrauding the system for their own selfish benefit.

Edit for clarity - 09 car and unemployed doesnt mean they are scamming the system... knowing they are claiming and working is.. and that should be reportred.

aare

Honest to god...

Life has never gone out of it's way to be kind to me, any way you want to cut the cards..but I would rather cut my own throat than be responsible for the means of survival being taken away from another human being, guilty or innocent...

Trust me, it won't even save someone else...

ynotdu

For love of Country or Jealousy ?

Lobelia Overhill

T'is a tough one, at the end of the day it's hard to get benefits because of the faff you have to go through, so on the one hand fair play to anyone who's managed to find a loophole and exploit it, buuut the money comes from somewhere, and it's not fair on the "working man" ...

I heard about a woman [in the UK] who was on the dole, claiming single parent, child benefit and something else because she had a cousin living with her - she was clearing over £200 a week (this was about 20 years ago). Turns out she was working a night shift in a factory (the public don't see you, so no one need know), the fella she had living with her was in fact her BF and the father of her child, therefore she wasn't entitled to any of the benefits she was getting. I might have dropped her in it, as that's just extracting the urine. but then I wasn't the one who had proof that she was doing anything dodgy.

Someone threatened to report me [during the last Recession] cos I had a pony - bought with an insurance policy that had matured - I worked at the stables where I kept her in exchange for her "keep". Dole office knew about it cos the mother of one of the other kids worked there, nothing was ever said to me about it ...

Quartet

Richard Dower wrote: »

Reading the threads it seems like everybody knows somebody, in the end who does the burden of proof lay on?....should we all "do our bit" and report people we suspect or of scamming?
Or are we just looking to blame and get back" at someone, anyone for the current debacle?
Or should we all just shut the HELL up and stop making wild accusations and peeping out the window at the neighbours with the '09 car who we know is on the dole?

Ok this is a tricky one....

So you know of an indiviual unequivocally committing fraud by claiming a welfare payment they are not entitled to and dont need (lets say that in this scenario that there is fraud actually being committed)

Do you
a) Ignore it
b) Say something to them in the hope they will develop a conscience
c) Report the facts of the case to the relevant authorities

Ok so from the threads there would appear to be a range of opinions on this equating roughly to a), b), and c)

What is a fact that SW fraud is actually a criminal act. Just because it is taking money (ie theft) from someone you dont actually know doesnt mean that it is less excusable in terms of being both morally and crimally wrong.

lets us change the scenario to that of Bank Robbery being committed

So you witness an indiviual committing a bank robbery ie taking money from the bank they are not entitled too and dont need.
Do you

a) Ignore it
b) Say something to them in the hope they will develop a conscience
c) Report the facts of the case to the relevant authorities

Most people wil report a crime if they witness one and infact we are often called upon as responsible citizens to report criminal acts (crimecall etc).

Now lets add an additional factor to the Welfare Fraud and Bank Robbery scenarios

and here is the conundrum...The individuals committing the crimes both claim to need the money to pay living expenses - would we ignore the SW Fraud and the Bank Job and not report either or report one and not the other.

Is there a difference or do we have a right (legally or morally) to help ourselves to other peoples possessions when it is clearly wrong and should we be surprised if people report such criminal activity....

Reporting crminal activity is it backstabbing?

smelltheglove

I havent read all of this but first that comes to mind is be sure they are scamming.

I was a single mother working part time, I worked hard for 4 days a week for pittiful wages and saved all of my lone parents and fis to get affordable housing. Unfortunately the affordable people said I didnt earn ennough and turned me down. Luckily I had a family member in a bank who just about swindled a mortgage for me with my dad going guarantor.

Someone reported me for scamming the systme, I am 99% sure I know who it was, someone very jealous of my ability to buy a house at 22 and being a single mother but they were sure I was scamming, I wasnt, all they did was put me under enormous stress and fear that my money could be stopped, even though I did nothing wrong I was so afraid of not being able to pay my mortgage. I was reported within a month of buying my house, I do know people claiming more than they should, most of us do, but if anyone is going to report make sure you are not reporting falsley because it can cause a huge amount of upset.

eddiehobbs

To all those who say they wouldnt report welfare fraud spare a thought for the cystic fibrosis sufferers who wont be getting their 30 million euro unit because there isnt enough money, welfare fraud accounts for considerably more than this every year,

just a thought........

aare

eddiehobbs wrote: »

To all those who say they wouldnt report welfare fraud spare a thought for the cystic fibrosis sufferers who wont be getting their 30 million euro unit because there isnt enough money, welfare fraud accounts for considerably more than this every year,

just a thought........

eddie, last I heard the CF unit was back on stream, and going ahead - even after the budget.

If you know differently, please let me know?

eddiehobbs

aare wrote: »

eddie, last I heard the CF unit was back on stream, and going ahead - even after the budget.

If you know differently, please let me know?

Dont believe that it is. There is some talk of a public/private scheme but nothing confirmed that i know of. Was just using it as an example. I could give you plenty more if you need them. Point being that theres alot you could do with the amount of money being claimed fraudulently and for this reason i believe you should report those defrauding the system.

wylo

My sister worked for years and then decided to go to college for a year before going back working, she was denied the back to education allowance and grants on the grounds that she HADNT been on the dole long enough. They told her if she had been not working the previous 6 months she could have got it. I do appreciate that back to education is for people not working but it was literally like she was punished for working in a job she hated.

I know 2 people off hand working and claiming, its very hard not to report it when you have someone close to you being done out of benefits.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

If someone is getting cash in hand then it is hard to prove, if they are working in a legit business then they should be found out in the end. They will have to pay back what they falsely claimed.

What if someone was living in a differant address and their financial situation was the same. Given that the new address wouldn't allow them to claim, for some odd reason.

What about someone claiming social welfare, and not bothering to work, or to look for work. You know those people that are very happy to be on 200 a week and nothing more.

What about those who spend most of their money on beer or drugs?

I think there are different elements of scamming, someone driving a hilux and getting a lot of money (cash in hand) every week for certain jobs and claiming is just wrong.

I wouldn't anyway, I will keep to my own business. It's the best way to be in my opinion.

aare

eddiehobbs wrote: »

Dont believe that it is. There is some talk of a public/private scheme but nothing confirmed that i know of. Was just using it as an example. I could give you plenty more if you need them. Point being that theres alot you could do with the amount of money being claimed fraudulently and for this reason i believe you should report those defrauding the system.

Well, you will probably be delighted to know that I was right, and the CF unit WILL still be going ahead:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0407/1224244138051.html

aare

wylo wrote: »

My sister worked for years and then decided to go to college for a year before going back working, she was denied the back to education allowance and grants on the grounds that she HADNT been on the dole long enough. They told her if she had been not working the previous 6 months she could have got it. I do appreciate that back to education is for people not working but it was literally like she was punished for working in a job she hated.

The irrationality of the training schemes have always beggared belief to my mind...they never seem to make any kind of sense, financially or otherwise...and it is for this reason that people say FAS is a joke.

Nikolai Shallow Sepia wrote: »

I wouldn't anyway, I will keep to my own business. It's the best way to be in my opinion.

I absolutely agree with you.

Hobbes

If you know someone who is commiting fraud you should report them. End of story.

If you don't report them, then you are just as much as the problem as the scammers. I'm not talking about "I heard of this guy who ...." but if you actually know then report it.

As for "my own business" if you pay taxes or receive social welfare then it is your business.

Quartet

Hobbes wrote: »

If you know someone who is commiting fraud you should report them. End of story...

Agree. Where there is definite proof of fraud being committed (where somebody is claimining something they have no entitlement to), what is best for everyone should dictate our actions (the greater good). If there are flaws in the Social Welfare system it does not follow that individuals should take advantage on it and choose to commit fraud. It only takes one person to ignore what is wrong for it to being to be accepted as the norm.

trickymickey

Hobbes wrote: »

If you know someone who is commiting fraud you should report them. End of story.

If you don't report them, then you are just as much as the problem as the scammers. I'm not talking about "I heard of this guy who ...." but if you actually know then report it.

As for "my own business" if you pay taxes or receive social welfare then it is your business.

when you report them do you let it be known it was you,
or can you hide and be all sneeky about it.
because i have 3 Polish neighbours who are all doing the double but they would wreck my gaff if i squelled on them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Hobbes wrote: »

If you know someone who is commiting fraud you should report them. End of story.

If you don't report them, then you are just as much as the problem as the scammers. I'm not talking about "I heard of this guy who ...." but if you actually know then report it.

As for "my own business" if you pay taxes or receive social welfare then it is your business.

Utter rubbish, stick your nose in other peoples business and prepare to lose it. It causes more trouble than a little, and saying people are the problem if they do not reporting them is complete bullcrap. It's a lazy way, they should have this sorted since the beginning, with a proper system. Blaming the people for the governments mistakes, lolable...

Quartet wrote: »

Agree. Where there is definite proof of fraud being committed (where somebody is claimining something they have no entitlement to), what is best for everyone should dictate our actions (the greater good). If there are flaws in the Social Welfare system it does not follow that individuals should take advantage on it and choose to commit fraud. It only takes one person to ignore what is wrong for it to being to be accepted as the norm.

The social welfare offices have a system (maybe more) in place to prevent fraud, but guess what, they don't bother their arses implimenting it... Saying they don't have the manpower is crap too, they should hire someone for each office to prevent scams, it could save a lot of money in the long run.

How can you get definite evidence. Someone claiming they are scamming may not be enough. Then it could also be hard for them to prove it, you know?

aare

Quartet wrote: »

Agree. Where there is definite proof of fraud being committed (where somebody is claimining something they have no entitlement to), what is best for everyone should dictate our actions (the greater good). If there are flaws in the Social Welfare system it does not follow that individuals should take advantage on it and choose to commit fraud. It only takes one person to ignore what is wrong for it to being to be accepted as the norm.

Does that apply equally to, for example, FAS Officers who are scamming huge amounts out of the budget for personal use?

aare

Nikolai Shallow Sepia wrote: »

How can you get definite evidence. Someone claiming they are scamming may not be enough. Then it could also be hard for them to prove it, you know?

That is SO true...because when someone claiming they are scamming IS enough the whole system becomne one big, impersonal, tool for spectacular acts of personal malice.

Quartet

If there are flaws in the Social Welfare system it does not follow that individuals should take advantage on it and choose to commit fraud. It only takes one person to ignore what is wrong for it to being to be accepted as the norm.

Where a criminal act is committed it is not malice to report it...
This applies to everyone committing fraud, there are no special considerations and somebody committing fraud shouldn't expect any. There will always be people who may have malice of forethought however this doesn't cancel out that all types of fraud are wrong and doing what is right.

Everyone has to look to themselves and their own motives and reasoning. Where someone is committing fraud and their own conscience takes no part, then thats where the common good should prevail.

rugbynut

Look, can people not see that if the only people that were entitled to Social Welfare got social welfare then the budget we just witnessed would not have been so severe. If the government addressed the Social Welfare scams they would re-coup their 3 billion in no time. But because of these scams the paye workers are being screwed again. So yes, reporting the scammers is a must.

Richard Dower wrote: »

Reading the threads it seems like everybody knows somebody, in the end who does the burden of proof lay on?....should we all "do our bit" and report people we suspect or of scamming?

Or are we just looking to blame and get back" at someone, anyone for the current debacle?
Or should we all just shut the HELL up and stop making wild accusations and peeping out the window at the neighbours with the '09 car who we know is on the dole?

rugbynut

We are only targetting people who are claiming SW who are NOT entitled to it. It is effectively stealing money - your money and my money.

aare wrote: »

Honest to god...

Life has never gone out of it's way to be kind to me, any way you want to cut the cards..but I would rather cut my own throat than be responsible for the means of survival being taken away from another human being, guilty or innocent...

Trust me, it won't even save someone else...

Nothingbetter2d

NOT all welfare receipients are criminals but for those that are here is some suggestions to catch them

1st make it so you must have your children living with u in ireland in order to claim child benefit from the state then randomly select those claiming child benefits have to turn up to the welfare office with the actual children (with passports/id cards if not irish - birthcerts allowed if irish) before payment is given out. this will cut down on bogus claims. If your children live in a different EU state u should claim there for your child benefit.

2nd Manditory Drug Tests -- I dont see why I should pay more taxes to line drug dealers pockets and then have to pay even more taxes to have the law find, arrest, prosecute, and incarserate these drug dealers ---- Pass the test u get your dole money ---- Fail u get food vouchers --- time to quit drugs or get a job to pay for the habit & stop leeching off the state.

3rd Manditory Child welfare tax on those parents that do not have custody of their children to go into a welfare fund from which the custodial parent can receive this money. It ensures all single parents with custody of their kids get the money they require from the other parent to raise their kids as best as possible.the tax should be based on a percentage of the noncustodial parent's income regardless of whether they receive dole or work. -- U made the baby now u gotta pay for it.

aare

I haven't been looking at any of these threads for a few days, I needed a break from looking at all the scapegoating, scaremongering and hatespeech that was cropping up...

...but these are truly excellent, 100% fair and impartial suggestions that cannot possibly do anybody any harm:

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

NOT all welfare receipients are criminals but for those that are here is some suggestions to catch them

1st make it so you must have your children living with u in ireland in order to claim child benefit from the state then randomly select those claiming child benefits have to turn up to the welfare office with the actual children (with passports/id cards if not irish - birthcerts allowed if irish) before payment is given out. this will cut down on bogus claims. If your children live in a different EU state u should claim there for your child benefit.

2nd Manditory Drug Tests -- I dont see why I should pay more taxes to line drug dealers pockets and then have to pay even more taxes to have the law find, arrest, prosecute, and incarserate these drug dealers ---- Pass the test u get your dole money ---- Fail u get food vouchers --- time to quit drugs or get a job to pay for the habit & stop leeching off the state.

3rd Manditory Child welfare tax on those parents that do not have custody of their children to go into a welfare fund from which the custodial parent can receive this money. It ensures all single parents with custody of their kids get the money they require from the other parent to raise their kids as best as possible.the tax should be based on a percentage of the noncustodial parent's income regardless of whether they receive dole or work. -- U made the baby now u gotta pay for it.

It was a tonic to read that post,

Thank you,

ejmaztec

aare wrote: »

Does that apply equally to, for example, FAS Officers who are scamming huge amounts out of the budget for personal use?

Yes, I've had experience of some of those feckers (for want of a better word), all fiddling the expenses, some getting free computers and bits of furniture in their houses. One supervisor that I knew years ago went on a 350 mile round trip to Dublin on the train. When she came back, she decided that she would be able to get more travelling expenses if she pretended that she went by car, then used the mileage rate accordingly. Those schemes are licences for jolly old pals to print money.

Hobbes

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

1st make it so you must have your children living with u in ireland in order to claim child benefit

Have you actually read the rules on child benefit? I don't think you have.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/child_benefit

You have to be working in Ireland to claim. So you are paying taxes so I don't see why a tax payer should be penalized. There is nothing to stop you moving your family to England and working here.

But have you tried moving a family to another country? It isn't easy and most people if they are moving here to do a minimum wage job it is unlikely they are going to be able to pay to move the family.

Also EU members have to prove every 3 months that they are working here. Non-EU members have to prove that they not only live here for a long time but also their children do too. So stories of Nigerians sending money back to imaginary children is just that, a story.

I agree that the checks on fraud should be more stringent but if the person is living here, contributing to the Tax then I don't see why they should be penalized for working here.

2nd Manditory Drug Tests

It is an interesting idea. I'd like to know how people trying to get off drugs would be impacted by a scheme.

Personally I am not convinced it will work. I still remember the time of the EU "ciggy vouchers" (otherwise known as butter vouchers).

Dealers will probably just launder them some how.

3rd Manditory Child welfare tax on those parents that do not have custody of their children

If the other half is to pay tax then they should be allowed to access to the child. Not every single parent is because the other half is not a good role model.

aare

Hobbes wrote: »

If the other half is to pay tax then they should be allowed to access to the child. Not every single parent is because the other half is not a good role model.

Though it is a completely separate issue, a million miles from the topic, I feel SO strongly on this that I have to pick it up and underline it...

If I live a thousand years I will never see how, unless there are serious, proven abuse issues, any parent should be expected to contribute to the maintenance of their child unless they are allowed a relationship with that child.

Maverick88

This is an issue in which I have a personal interest as I've been a Benefit Fraud Investigator for nearly 17 years. I would add I'm an investigator in the UK not Ireland, and while I've spoken to counterparts in DSW I do not claim to be an expert in DSW rules.

In the UK Benefit fraud is a crime, covered by either the Social Security Fraud Act or the Fraud Act. Its theft.

Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime.

By reporting someone you are not being judge and jury. You are merely alerting the DSW to a possible irregularity. No investigator is going to pull someone in just on the basis of an anonymous telephone call/letter. This is merely a referral which will be investigated.

My investigations have to be carried out in the same way as a Police investigation, and any interview has to be conducted in accordance to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) the person is therefore cautioned, advised of their rights and the interview is taped.

The UK Social Security budget comes to approx £120 billion per year. It is believed that 10% of this lost through fraud and error.

I am unfortunately limited In what I can and cannot say.

As Investigators we are not in the business of stopping genuine claimants from receiving what they are entitled to receive.

Regards

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

This is an issue in which I have a personal interest as I've been a Benefit Fraud Investigator for nearly 17 years. I would add I'm an investigator in the UK not Ireland, and while I've spoken to counterparts in DSW I do not claim to be an expert in DSW rules.

In the UK Benefit fraud is a crime, covered by either the Social Security Fraud Act or the Fraud Act. Its theft.

Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime.

By reporting someone you are not being judge and jury. You are merely alerting the DSW to a possible irregularity. No investigator is going to pull someone in just on the basis of an anonymous telephone call/letter. This is merely a referral which will be investigated.

My investigations have to be carried out in the same way as a Police investigation, and any interview has to be conducted in accordance to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) the person is therefore cautioned, advised of their rights and the interview is taped.

The UK Social Security budget comes to approx £120 billion per year. It is believed that 10% of this lost through fraud and error.

I am unfortunately limited In what I can and cannot say.

As Investigators we are not in the business of stopping genuine claimants from receiving what they are entitled to receive.

Regards

Isn't it true that the UK treat anyone under investigation as "guilty until proven innocent" and withhold benefits, pending investigation, regardless of hardship, or, of course, eventual outcome?

And don't you think that, in itself, is "punishment without trial"?

Maverick88

aare wrote: »

Isn't it true that the UK treat anyone under investigation as "guilty until proven innocent" and withhold benefits, pending investigation, regardless of hardship, or, of course, eventual outcome?

And don't you think that, in itself, is "punishment without trial"?[/quot

If there is evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt it will be suspended pending a decision. However there has to be evidence to support any suspension and subsequent termination.

Maverick88

I would add that the evidence is presented to someone independent of the Investigation team. An fraud investigator cannot cancel a claim, this has to be undertaken by a Decision Maker (DM). The investigator is not judge and jury

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

If there is evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt it will be suspended pending a decision. However there has to be evidence to support any suspension and subsequent termination.

Would you agree that "suspension" deprives the claimant of his means of livelihood (in direct contravention of the magna carta, incidentally) without trial, for an unspecified period of time?

Do you have any thoughts (or official viewpoints) on how the claimant is supposed to live, without means, in the event that he is innocent?

(Personally I would never wish to have any part in placing an innocent person in such an impossible position.)

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

I would add that the evidence is presented to someone independent of the Investigation team. An fraud investigator cannot cancel a claim, this has to be undertaken by a Decision Maker (DM). The investigator is not judge and jury

I am not "getting at" you Maverick, but you did choose to come here, and announce that:

"By reporting someone you are not being judge and jury."

When, as benefits can be "suspended", without trial, as a result of such a report, that is not, strictly, true, is it?

Maverick88

aare wrote: »

I am not "getting at" you Maverick, but you did choose to come here, and announce that:

"By reporting someone you are not being judge and jury."

When, as benefits can be "suspended", without trial, as a result of such a report, that is not, strictly, true, is it?

A benefit claim would not be suspended merely on the basis of a telephone call. So strictly it is true.

As I pointed out, there has to be evidence and a telephone call or letter from a member of the public is not evidence it is merely intelligence. A lot of things happen between receipt of intel and suspension, which I will not go into.

As for feeling got at, not at all, I spent working years working on the front counter of a DHSS office assisting claimants where I was threatened everyday (usually I gonna f**king kill you) and sworn at every couple of minutes. However 17 years as Fraud officer and only threatened once, strange that.

As for depriving someone of their livelihood, if they're working and claiming it fairly obvious that their benefit livelihood is not required as they have an income, and before you ask we would already have evidence of that income. Again not going to go into how we get that.

There is a whole raft of legislation that we have to adhere to, it is not just a case of person rings up reports fraudster we drive around in the Mk3 Capri ala Professionals (no doubt showing my age with that)and kick the door in shouting "Fraud Squad".

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

As I pointed out, there has to be evidence and a telephone call or letter from a member of the public is not evidence it is merely intelligence. A lot of things happen between receipt of intel and suspension, which I will not go into.

I should hope you would not! Not least because those *things* must surely vary wildly, by their very nature from case to case.

However, the one common factor is that those *things* hardly need to be conclusive before benefits are suspended, do they?

Maverick88 wrote: »

As for depriving someone of their livelihood, if they're working and claiming it fairly obvious that their benefit livelihood is not required as they have an income, and before you ask we would already have evidence of that income.

But as there is no requirement for that evidence to be conclusive prior to benefit being suspended, there is, equally, not necessarily any income at all, is there?

Maverick88 wrote: »

Again not going to go into how we get that.

I am starting to wonder if you ever, really "go into" anything at all, and can you blame me?;)

Maverick88 wrote: »

There is a whole raft of legislation that we have to adhere to, it is not just a case of person rings up reports fraudster we drive around in the Mk3 Capri ala Professionals (no doubt showing my age with that)and kick the door in shouting "Fraud Squad".

I should hope you don't! (Particularly the mk3 Capri - an embarrassment to HM Government, if ever there was one) But the fact still remains that you do suspend benefit without conclusive evidence and there are numerous cases where the party involved turned out to be innocent, and without other means during that suspension period...thus "deprived of the means of his livelihood" which means, in effect that a caller can be "judge and jury" on a whim, doesn't it?

BroomBurner

Aare, I would think that Maverick has explained very clearly that there guidelines and actions followed through before the stopping of someone's benefits. He even said that benefits would be suspended in cases where they have evidence that the person in question has an additional income (i.e. breaking the law in my mind).

Perhaps you should read his posts again, they were pretty clear cut to me.

old boy

eddiehobbs wrote: »

To all those who say they wouldnt report welfare fraud spare a thought for the cystic fibrosis sufferers who wont be getting their 30 million euro unit because there isnt enough money, welfare fraud accounts for considerably more than this every year,

just a thought........

yeah and what about the broken promise about tds incomes in the recent budget, get them scammers first, on the news last evening a certain b. aherne is receving 240 euro monthly, to get around his constintuency, and he did not know he was recieveing it, my pension is 209 weekly, so if i could get a days work which i cannot as i am disabled, then i am a scammer.
just a fact

aare

BroomBurner wrote: »

Aare, I would think that Maverick has explained very clearly that there guidelines and actions followed through before the stopping of someone's benefits. He even said that benefits would be suspended in cases where they have evidence that the person in question has an additional income (i.e. breaking the law in my mind).

Perhaps you should read his posts again, they were pretty clear cut to me.

Seemed clear cut to me too...he *very clearly* explained that benefits could be, suspended without conclusive evidence. End of

The Brits do have a rather odd legal system y'know...strangest things...for example, I know it is illegal for a British Civil Servant to specify which area he works in...might even be "high treason", isn't that silly?


Regardless, very few would chance it, and when you take into account the kind of technology our friends at the FO would have available to track anything like that, if they were bored enough...well you can't really blame them, can you?

BroomBurner

aare wrote: »

Seemed clear cut to me too...he *very clearly* explained that benefits could be, suspended without conclusive evidence. End of

The Brits do have a rather odd legal system y'know...strangest things...for example, I know it is illegal for a British Civil Servant to specify which area he works in...might even be "high treason", isn't that silly?


Regardless, very few would chance it, and when you take into account the kind of technology our friends at the FO would have available to track anything like that, if they were bored enough...well you can't really blame them, can you?

I don't really understand where your dislike for someone doing their job is coming from.

To me, it's fairly black and white. If you're on disability or welfare and you work for extra cash, you're commiting a crime. Simple as. If you're able to work, you should not be receiving benefits.

From what Maverick said above, benefits would only be stopped once they have evidence that there is fraud afoot. If you want to ignore what he said, then that's ok. You only show yourself up for it.

aare

BroomBurner wrote: »

I don't really understand where your dislike for someone doing their job is coming from.

I didn't say I had any "dislike"...please don't put words in my mouth.

BroomBurner wrote: »

From what Maverick said above, benefits would only be stopped once they have evidence that there is fraud afoot.

No, what he actually said was:

Maverick88 wrote:

If there is evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt

"In Doubt" - very different thing...hardly conclusive.

BroomBurner wrote: »

If you want to ignore what he said, then that's ok. You only show yourself up for it.

Is that your best shot?
:rolleyes:

Maverick88

Dear all,

You'll have to forgive this post if it jumps about (never been good at cutting and pasting).

AARE: You are indeed correct in one respect in that I am unable to say many things, which you may think its because I'm wanting to avoid answering some of your questions/comments, however its all covered by the Offical Secrets Act. There is also the point that I'm cant go into specifics of how we investigate cases.

As far as the legislation we use I have to adhere to:

Human Rights Act (HRA)
Criminal Procedure Investigation Act (CPIA)
Data Protection Act (DPA)
Regulation of Investigtory Powers Act (RIPA)

All cases we investigate are dealt with in the same way as a Police investigation which is why we interview people in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

As these cases may end up in Maristrates or Crown Court the evidence has to be beyond reasonable doubt for any conviction to be obtained.

I get into many things believe me. Cases can be anything from Working and Claiming to large scale multiple identity fraud.

As I mentioned earlier we work on evidence not intelligence, the two can get confused ala the whole weapons of mass destruction where you had intelligence presented as being evidence.

And how dare you impune the Mk3 Capri, a fine vehicle. . . just a shame you weren't able to brake in the thing going into corners, or indeed striaghts.

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

AARE: You are indeed correct in one respect in that I am unable to say many things, which you may think its because I'm wanting to avoid answering some of your questions/comments, however its all covered by the Offical Secrets Act. There is also the point that I'm cant go into specifics of how we investigate cases.

Nice try, but I am familiar enough with the Official Secrets act to know what is, and what is not covered by it and not to ask questions with answers likely to be in contravention of it...I am referring more to your risking the final scene in "Braveheart" (still mostly on statute for high treason) by declaring which branch of the Brit Civil Service you work for...on a server, on foreign soil too...quite remarkable that...:D

Maverick88 wrote: »

the evidence has to be beyond reasonable doubt for any conviction to be obtained.

Which is all a bit moot in circumstance where any old (sic) "evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt" is sufficient to suspend benefits, and deny the claimant his means of livelihood while you sort it out.

NOTHING that any court can hand out is a worse penalty than being denied the means of survival.

Maverick88 wrote: »

And how dare you impune the Mk3 Capri, a fine vehicle. . . just a shame you weren't able to brake in the thing going into corners, or indeed striaghts.

Perhaps only when there are four of you?

Maverick88

Not foreign soil to me- one of only a handful of a very large Irish family born out of Ireland, however I get your point.


Never watched Braveheart, in fact refused to watch it so your point is lost there on me.

As for the issue of suspending benefit while we sort it out, you'll find the vast majority of investigators will have all the evidence gathered at the stage that an interview under caution is conducted.

The interview will then be the persons opportunity to give their version of events/explanation whatever you wish to call it. It is usually at this stage that benefit would be suspended if its going to be

A person can appeal a suspension, again this is done independently of the Investigation team.

Think the point I'm trying to make is that everything we do we're accountable for and have to justify to someone independent of us

And again I would make the point that just because a memeber of the public reports something does not mean a claim will just be suspended on the basis of that call/letter. It means the start of an investigation. Which may or indeed may not result in loss of benefit and possible prosecution.

All investigations are done with an open mind not a presumption of guilt.

With that I bid you a good weekend, look forward to seeing any comments on Monday.

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

Not foreign soil to me- one of only a handful of a very large Irish family born out of Ireland, however I get your point.

"Foreign soil" in terms of the provisions of the official secrets act.

Maverick88 wrote: »

Never watched Braveheart, in fact refused to watch it so your point is lost there on me.

Does "hung, drawn and quartered" ring any bells? In relation to "high treason"?

Maverick88 wrote: »

As for the issue of suspending benefit while we sort it out, you'll find the vast majority of investigators will have all the evidence gathered at the stage that an interview under caution is conducted.

The interview will then be the persons opportunity to give their version of events/explanation whatever you wish to call it. It is usually at this stage that benefit would be suspended if its going to be

So it is only, by the luck of the draw, in a MINORITY of cases that an innocent claimant can have benefit suspended without conclusive evidence...how reassuring...for anyone who is NOT caught between those particular stools, anyway...

Maverick88 wrote: »

A person can appeal a suspension, again this is done independently of the Investigation team.

An the appeal procedure takes how long? Without money for food or rent, let alone phone calls, bus fares, even stamps...

That is probably a bit moot, isn't it?

Maverick88 wrote: »

Think the point I'm trying to make is that everything we do we're accountable for and have to justify to someone independent of us.

I should hope so!

Maverick88 wrote: »

And again I would make the point that just because a memeber of the public reports something does not mean a claim will just be suspended on the basis of that call/letter.

Yes but it COULD be, couldn't it? And sometimes is...

Maverick88 wrote: »

With that I bid you a good weekend, look forward to seeing any comments on Monday.

Y'all have a good weekend too...:D

Quartet

Quartet wrote: »

Agree. Where there is definite proof of fraud being committed (where somebody is claimining something they have no entitlement to), what is best for everyone should dictate our actions (the greater good). If there are flaws in the Social Welfare system it does not follow that individuals should take advantage on it and choose to commit fraud. It only takes one person to ignore what is wrong for it to being to be accepted as the norm.

Maverick88 wrote: »

...Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime.

Almost €476 million in Social Welfare payments was saved through fraud control measures in 2008, an increase of €29million on the previous year,

For those whose interest is concerned with the common good and not self interested fraud I include the the following contacts for reporting welfare fraud


Reporting possible fraud
The Central Control Section of the Department of Social and Family Affairs accepts reports of possible fraud offered by members of the public in relation to the Department’s schemes.
Reports are accepted by email, phone or in writing. All reports are dealt with in confidence. A member of the public may give details anonymously.
Contact Details:
By email: central.control@welfare.ie
By phone: (01) 704 3000, ask for Central Control Section,
By Post: Central Control Division, Shannon Lodge, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim.

Ref

old boy

if a person is being investigated are they entitled see the written claim by a member of the public against them,

Quartet

old boy wrote: »

if a person is being investigated are they entitled see the written claim by a member of the public against them,

I presume that is if the investigation is actually activated by a written claim. What happens where the claim is generated by the DSW or Telephone?

BroomBurner

Quartet, don't presume anything, Old Boy didn't provide any links to evidence to support his claim. I'll believe him when he does.

This has to be the weirdest thread I've ever read through. Aare, you really come across as someone with a problem with authority, and a tad petty too.