Benefit Cheats?

What and where was this programme? I missed it

We watched the programme both nights, and it was quite moving, I have to say. It was however so clear that in all the families involved, bar one- the huge problem was due to loan sharks and hige re-payments for debts.

No amount of benefit will cover repayments to loan sharks at the rates shown in the programme. I am not sure what the answer is- much better education to show what happens when such loans are taken- more regulation and making such massive repayments illegal-
but this is clearly what was preventing food from reaching the table. And throwing more moeny at it just will not solve this.

What on earth could be done to ensure benefits are not eaten up by repayments to those dreadful loan companies- and be served for feeding the recipients and their children? I just do not know where the answer is.

One of the couples was told by Theo Paphitis that the only way to get out of the difficulties they were in was to declare themselves bankrupt and start again. That really is the last resort.
My parents nearly had to do that in the 70s. Fortunately my brother in law could lend them some money to bail them out and they repaid him.
They would have lost the house if they had gone bankrupt.
There were grants for school uniform and free school meals in the fifties and sixties, so there was some sort of help. Both my parents worked, and we still never had enough money to live on.
However, unlike some people on here, this is what gives me greater empathy with people in this situation.
Galen says she knows people who fiddle the system, but there are lots more who do not. Less than 1% of benefit claims are fraudulent.
There is more money owed to people who do not claim enough than there is taken in fraud.
This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is also a way of diverting attention from the real problem of tax fiddles.

Not easy, I agree. But it was shocking and sad to see that all the families (bar one) were not actually suffering real hardship due to lack of benefit- but due to having to re-pay relatively small loans with massive (fraudulent I'd say) interests. In each case this is what 'broke the camels back'. It was the same for one of my best friends- who was tempted by a loan (to go to a family wedding abroad)- without truly understanding the conditions for re-payment- it nearly killed them, but in the end they got support in dealing with the loan by the CAB. It was a terrible experience.

As said, no amount of benefit will cover re'payments to loan sharks at massive %.

less than 1% of benefit fraud is known about - the instances that 'some people on here' know about are not in the 1% statistic
and I do have empathy with those who do not have enough money for food I grew up in the 50s when money was tight and no benefits were available to working families.

One of those families were paying a pay day loan company 15 thousand percent on their loan. Surely something can be done to stop this.

All the families featured would have been able to sustain themselves- without trimmings but adequately- if it had not been for having to pay back loans taken without being fully aware of consequences.

How can benefit cover 15000% loans?

There was child benefit in the 50s, and free school meals and clothing grants for school uniform avaiable to anyone who wanted to apply, Mollie65.
What's wrong now is that you can have a working couple who cannot afford to keep a home going with two kids, so they need benefits. If there is a need for inwork benefits, it's because they are not being paid enough.

As far as the loansharks are concerned, one reason that people get caught that way is that the social fund has been cut by this government. People with problems such as needing a new cooker or fridge used to be able to apply to the council for a grant. Now they have to go to loan sharks.

This government has always said that jobcentre staff do not tell people to go to foodbanks. That has been shown to be a complete lie.

durhamjen Please tell me how you know that " Less than 1% of benefit claims are fraudulent."

I can see that- but this is where education and regulation should come in.
People can only take such a loan once, or twice- then have to pay through the nose, and so much more- and then do without essentials, like food.

Which then puts the new cooker or fridge, or holiday, or car, or whatever ... into some perspective. And ensures that none of these things as above will ever be affordable again, ever- and neither will essentials.

This is just so hard- and I can understand the temptation- but the price is just too high.

BTW I know 3 young people, from affluent backgrounds, who got into massive debt and then just 'went bankrupt' and saw this as an easy option. One has since married a wealthy man- and thinks having gone bankrupt is 'funny and clever' (I know, this is not at all that we are talking about here- but the other extreme of the sprectrum).

durhamjen I don't know how much Family Allowance (child benefit) was in the 1950s but it was £90p in the 1970s and not paid for the eldest child.

I tried very hard to write things down, just now, to explain that my daughter is not a benefit cheat despite the threats she permanently receives from housing benefits department. She does not have huge loans, does have her nails done once a month and does own an elderly television, computer and car (which thanks to her badly damaged and yet still technically undiagnosed foot problem has not been driven for five months).

Yes, I tried to explain all this but felt I was going too far so scrapped my first attempt. Reports like the one I read this morning frighten me. I am not over-reacting to people's comments but I am extremely worried that my daughter will be under threat once again and through no fault of her own, merely because she is an easy target.

She may even, thanks to her parents keeping a close eye on things, come out with a reasonable - if extremely tight - credit rating. If I read the report correctly, could count against her.

Just read your post Lilygran and you are right, the family allowance was 90p per week. I managed to buy my daughter a pair of (admittedly small) shoes with this.

I seem to recall my mother saying family allowance was 8 shillings in 1955 but nothing for the first child.
I was impressed by the single father of two boys, he cared for the children and kept the house clean on his limited budget.

This is an interesting thread and one that I am compelled to add to.
My DD who had a reasonably good job, not great pay but above the minimum wage, for 3 full days a week. She received child benefit, working family tax credit plus £4oo p.m. child maintenance for her only child. On top of that she received help with her council tax. So all in all, not a bad level of income. Out of the blue she decided one day recently to just chuck in her job and live on benefits. I was horrified when she told me that she will be better off not working. All her rent, council tax will be paid in full plus she will get JSA and tax credits. When I pointed out that I thought this would be fraud she just shrugged her shoulders and said, everyone is doing it, all you have to do is tell lies to the job centre and say you are actively looking for work and they just shell out money on strength of that.
As a family we have always had a strong work ethic and we find this situation very sad indeed. How is the government handing out all this money to people who have no intention of working and where is the incentive to work when so much is just being handed over for no return.
Since leaving her job she has become lazy and is demotivated in every sense of the word, i.e. not bothering to get DGD to school on time or sometimes not getting her there at all, phoning the school to say she is unwell. I am desparate to discourage this behaviour but I fear this is the big slippery slope, and she will never get back into work.
Would love some feedback on this situation and any advice on the right thing to say to her.

I feel your frustration Thistledoo, If any of mine did that I would be absolutely livid.

Same here! And this is the attitude I see in some claimants

Yes, and those claimants wouldn't be included in the 1% of fraudulent claims durhamjen refers to, which tend to be made up of the large-scale, systematic rip-offs reported in the media.

Quite

My mother in law was caught with a large amount of money stashed away while she was receiving housing and council tax benefit. Apparently it had been left by my father in law, who naturally hadn't left a will - being a fivers under the bed sort of person. He had intended it for my husband and she kept it lying around in the building society rather than passing it on. Obviously all hell broke loose when it was discovered, my husband got Power of Attorney, the money was paid back and she narrowly avoided prosecution. Seven or eight years later she is still complaining about the Council taking the money "because it wasn't mine anyway" and is still unable to understand that without legal proof to the contrary it WAS her money. She is even more unable to grasp that there was anything wrtong in claiming money she wasn't entitled to.

For you, Nonnie.
https://fullfact.org/articles/is_benefit_fraud_at_a_record_high-28723

This is a link to the most up-to-date figures for 2012-13. There is no change from 2012.
https://fullfact.org/finder/economy/welfare_pensions/

Whatever family allowance was in the fifties, it was still there!
It sounds quite a lot to me since my first pay in 1966 was £5 per week.
My first job was working for the DHSS interviewing people for benefits, and jobless families were getting more money than I was for working a full week. However, I did not resent it. At least I had a job. And people were not out of work for long in the sixties.

Sorry Durham I still don't get how you can prove that " Less than 1% of benefit claims are fraudulent.". How on earth can anyone know?

Life was very different in 1966, women were paid significantly less than men and married women were their husbands property for tax purposes! I think it was perfectly reasonable for a jobless family to get more than a single girl, why would anyone resent that? Things are very different today, I doubt that someone in their first job would be interviewing people for benefits, they would surely have to have some experience these days? I don't think these comparisons are particularly helpful.

There was something in the paper yesterday about a woman from Uganda who had 'cheated' to the tune of £2,000,000. She had claimed for 100 fake children and received medication for aids (which she did not suffer from) and then sold it.

But so what? There are cheats in every walk of life. It doesn't mean all people who are claiming benefits should be regarded with suspicion.