Benefits cheats, do you know one?

So, if you found it tedious and disheartening when in a work situation, why spend your retirement doing it too?

That's not aimed personally at "you".
Just a generic "you".

Hmmm, I've no idea,because everyone,genuinely, around here needs to rely on benefits for some or other reason.

A woman with terrible burns, a young guy with motor neurone disease, alongside those who are unwell due to drugs, or perhaps take drugs due to being unwell.

Interestingly, the person I know who suspects a lot of her neighbours are on the fiddle, lives in a fairly well-to-do area.

MissAdventure

Why would you?
You'd have to be very, very sure of your "facts".

It would probably take a few weeks of research.
I can't imagine what grim satisfaction anyone would get out of that.

Better to go work in a food bank, and do some real good.

Yes I would report for benefit fraud. I did training on it years ago, and alot of reports came from people who reported gobshites in the pub who had money, called people who worked mugs, and tried to educate people in how to work the system.
On some occasions the work I did meant I come across benefit fraud, yes I did report, with facts only and nothing else. I got got no satisfaction from it in fact it was tedious, and extra work.

I don't understand why people get so annoyed about people who report, the people who report are fed up with the dishonesty, and cheating, especially if like me they did a demanding job and could not afford to retire until they were 66.
Why tell people to work in food banks to do some good, why should they if they don't want too. I am retired now and I helped someone out who is much better of financially now, but I would not want to work in a food bank. Do you work in a food bank?

Also people who claim benefits honestly do not have to worry, it's the dishonest ones that need weeding out. I am aware people are genuinly sick and have health conditions, and I have no problem at all with anything they recieve finsncislly or the help they get.

If you were sure of the facts, why wouldn’t you report someone? They are stealing taxpayers’ money and giving a bad name to genuine claimants. It’s interesting that you speak from the perspective of someone who (rightly) receives and relies on benefits, whereas probably most of us don’t. I am not suggesting for a moment that you would commit benefits fraud, far from it, but I wonder how many people on benefits stick together and wouldn’t report one another?

That’s the point MissA in that I can’t see many people being in full knowledge of the facts.

Why would you?
You'd have to be very, very sure of your "facts".

It would probably take a few weeks of research.
I can't imagine what grim satisfaction anyone would get out of that.

Better to go work in a food bank, and do some real good.

Indigo8

For me, it would depend on the circumstances.

Say for instance a single mother on benefits did a bit of cash in hand, cleaning in order to be able to afford enough for her children to have the odd decent meal that didn't come from the food bank, then I might turn a blind eye.(this is hypothetical)

But if somebody were claiming benefits and running a lucrative online business which enabled them to swank about in designer clothes, wear a Rolex and run an expensive car then, yes, I would have no qualms about reporting them.(again hypothetical)

Personally, I don't think there is a one size fits all answer to the question posed by the OP.

Good answer, I feel the same.
If no real knowledge of say, neighbours and their real circumstances it would be wrong to report them to the authorities.

Kandinsky

I could never grass anyone up for benefit fraud. Just couldn’t do it.

Why?

Barleyfields

It’s not unreasonable to expect flexibility in return for benefits. It sounds as though you were used to what some people would call a cushy number as regards set hours and convenient locations and weren’t willing to settle for anything less.

I agree, I had a short time on benefits in my early 20’s, but I wanted to work, so took a job working shifts until something more suitable came along.

It’s not unreasonable to expect flexibility in return for benefits. It sounds as though you were used to what some people would call a cushy number as regards set hours and convenient locations and weren’t willing to settle for anything less.

Doodledog

Barleyfields

If there are a couple in a household and only one is in employment but their income is sufficient to pay all the bills and support the unemployed partner, why on earth should the taxpayer give the unemployed person money?

Because the unemployed person has paid tax and NI regardless of the fact that they lived with someone else?

CariadAgain I don't think that having qualifications in a particular area should mean that people never need to apply for jobs with conditions they 'aren't used to' . I think there is a grace period (or used to be) when you could try to find work in your previous profession or trade, but if that search fails people can't go on claiming benefits indefinitely whilst refusing to do jobs that others have to do.

MissA the system needs to be overhauled so that work (for those who are able to do it) does pay. It is ridiculous that people should be unable to get out of the benefit trap, but so much of the current system (eg means-testing) works against people trying to do so.

Re "conditions they arent used to" - by and large the office jobs I did were passable conditions (ie only working in "office hours", working indoors and no health hazards involved in them). Things started changing over the years even for office staff and it was harsh enough (after one particular spell of unemployment) to find that a personal secretary like myself was having to work as a typist and hope for promotion to her own grade and pay. So I'd done quite a bit of adapting as it was....

But I was certainly well aware there'd have been every expectation I work during my leisurehours (ie evenings, Saturdays, etc) and life in that era was very much that everyone I knew did their leisure activities in their leisure hours and not working at a job and even down to the health aspect (ie the thought of having to stand all day at work if I'd taken a shop assistant job instead for instance) and I certainly did/do sympathise with how tiring that must be and quite possibly creating health problems from it too. I was also realistic enough to know that trying to make myself a cup of coffee even at appropriate times would equal probably being told I wasn't allowed off to do so and told off about waiting for it to brew and the like. Plus really bad period problems from my 30's until early 50's and that were just about manageable whilst I stuck to my own type of job and so I managed to handle that. Hence all round - I stuck to my own type of job (and at a lower level than my own). I don't think it was unreasonable to expect a city environment to have a noticeable number of office jobs available - though twice I had to "wait it out" for a few months whilst I waited for my next job to hurry up and come along and did a load of office type voluntary work whilst waiting for it to come along.

When I got my final job (after another period of unemployment) I had to fight like a tiger to hang onto it (long story.....)....and I did fight very hard not to have it taken off me and managed that (just about...) until retirement.

The thought of my 7-8 hour workday in convenient location (usually) and carrying on doing my own activities in my own time (ie evenings/weekends/holiday dates I had chosen) was worth fighting for. Hence I did fight very hard not to lose that.

It isn’t the same at all. The sp is not a means tested benefit (yet).

Barleyfields

I fully understand that but thanks for your rude reply. My (rhetorical) question remains the same. NI covers a multitude of things does it not?

Yes, the NIC does cover a multitude of things including our state pensions.
Would you have been happy if the DWP had told you that you were not going to get it because you lived with/ married to a person who was receiving a high rate / private pension to support the two of you.
That scenario is the same as you suggest the married woman who had paid NIC should accept.

petra

Barleyfields

If there are a couple in a household and only one is in employment but their income is sufficient to pay all the bills and support the unemployed partner, why on earth should the taxpayer give the unemployed person money?

You really really don’t have a clue, do you?
If you have paid your full stamp you are entitled to claim unemployment benefits for 6 months. The bill that was brought in many years ago gave everyone that right.
If you haven’t paid NIC you can’t claim unemployment benefit
That’s why it’s called The National insurance contribution.

Thanks for that.

From the periods of unemployment I had back when I was working age - I knew that fact and that I'd get some income of my own before they went "6 months is up - and now you'll get nothing" and that would be followed by being expected to be financially dependant on my husband/partner (if I'd had one). The assumptions that I'd be prepared to be forced into giving up my financial independence on the one hand and that Hubbie would earn enough money to support me as well as himself on the other hand are very odd.

Or, of course, the other way round - ie if Hubbie had become unemployed = an assumption my NMW level income would cover supporting him and paying his share of our mortgage, as well as paying to support myself and cover my own share of mortgage are strange.

Marriage/partnership is an emotional relationship - and not a financial transaction for the State's potential benefit (ie to save itself money). Like friendship - but with sex and love thrown in on top of that and not an arrangement with the State that they can put an unexpected financial burden on the partner still in work and remove the financial independence of the partner who has been kicked out of their job.

MissAdventure

Thank you.
I'm glad you understand, ViceVersa.
It's not even that difficult, once you disavow yourself of the notion that everyone is after some sort of illegal fiddle.

I think some people don't want to understand.

Yes, I think that is the case. They do say that most people are just a couple of pay cheques away from finding themselves in that kind of situation (well, not that we have cheques these days, but you know what I mean). And if you have worked and paid your dues over the years, then that's what the system is there for - to support people in their time of need. You will always get some who cheat the system and even open brag about it, but they are very much in the minority.

ViceVersa

That is very true, MissA. I don't think many people appreciate that. There still seems to be that mentality among some people (including some posters here, it would seem) that being on benefits automatically equates to being a scrounger, and even if you do manage to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, losing access to the type of things you mention can make life very very difficult indeed.

Reading the whole series of the "someone I know" who has cheated the system sadly does give the impression of scroungers,

why not examples (I could give several but won't, its their lives) who need the benefits badly and struggle on the low rates particularly the difficulties of claiming partial benefits when only x hours are worked and its variable - why not think of these?

I fully understand that but thanks for your rude reply. My (rhetorical) question remains the same. NI covers a multitude of things does it not?

Barleyfields

If there are a couple in a household and only one is in employment but their income is sufficient to pay all the bills and support the unemployed partner, why on earth should the taxpayer give the unemployed person money?

Because the unemployed person has paid tax and NI regardless of the fact that they lived with someone else?

CariadAgain I don't think that having qualifications in a particular area should mean that people never need to apply for jobs with conditions they 'aren't used to' . I think there is a grace period (or used to be) when you could try to find work in your previous profession or trade, but if that search fails people can't go on claiming benefits indefinitely whilst refusing to do jobs that others have to do.

MissA the system needs to be overhauled so that work (for those who are able to do it) does pay. It is ridiculous that people should be unable to get out of the benefit trap, but so much of the current system (eg means-testing) works against people trying to do so.

Barleyfields

If there are a couple in a household and only one is in employment but their income is sufficient to pay all the bills and support the unemployed partner, why on earth should the taxpayer give the unemployed person money?

You really really don’t have a clue, do you?
If you have paid your full stamp you are entitled to claim unemployment benefits for 6 months. The bill that was brought in many years ago gave everyone that right.
If you haven’t paid NIC you can’t claim unemployment benefit
That’s why it’s called The National insurance contribution.

Mt61

I know of someone who is a full time teacher but is on DLA because they had MH episode 20 yrs ago & still on DLA to this day.
I know someone else who had a MH episode, ended up in hospital for a few months, they relied on DLA but as soon as they were well enough to get back to work, they came off DLA.
Just find the first case unbelievable- don’t they have to have check up, I asked, they have never had a medical.

Need to correct your information, M61. Both DLA and its successor, PIP, can and are paid to people who are in work as well as those unable to work

It is not a means tested benefit.

One of the very reasons for it is to enable people to work. It may be a mobility car, it may be extra help at home, it may be equipment at work/home, it may pay for a carer/support worker.

It gets a lot more complicated to detail when the disability is wholly or partly a mental illness of course, its not visible, its not as likely to be understood, so it's impossible to comment on your first example and there are so many different conditions.

Previous discussions on Gransnet have made it clear just how hard it is to get DLA/PIP nowadays:

I am surprised at your first example tbh.

When I was young a neighbour's daughter had a baby and was given, as was the norm at the time, a council flat for her and the baby.

She never spent one night there. Sub let it to her friend and continued living in the family home.

All the neighbours knew but no one said a word.

I know a man who lives in a high-rise block of flats, he's on the ....7th floor I think .... I've never been to his flat as I won't go into high-rises but for several years he's been claiming he has a ''serious physical disability'' and ''has severe difficulty in walking'' and has been claiming thousands over the years on PIP and various disability benefits but in reality the only thing wrong with him is his left knee that he broke years ago and it still gives him trouble but he can walk on it unaided, drive, ride a push bike etc. He really knows how to play the system.

I secretly reported him to PIP but as of yet he's still claiming!

Grammaretto
You ask i wonder who does
There are 18 bungalows in our close.
4 bungalows have them.
3 of those bungalows have people working. 1 is retired.

Thank you.
I'm glad you understand, ViceVersa.
It's not even that difficult, once you disavow yourself of the notion that everyone is after some sort of illegal fiddle.

I think some people don't want to understand.

Its also really upsetting to start a job, get to know the ropes,and the people you care for, set up a routine (because there were no online calculators in those days) only to find youself having to hand in your notice yet again.