Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
People are 23 times more likely to be prosecuted for benefit fraud than tax fraud even though tax crimes cost the public purse 9 times (!) more (2019/20 tax fraud cost £35bn). By shifting the focus of fraud work to the wealthy, think how much more money would be available for significant public sector staff who are earning less now than 10 years ago. There would also be significantly fewer cases in the courts, reduction of prison convictions and fewer families destroyed. When will we recognise the wrong fraud focus costs each and every one of us!
I think it was this unit that got disbanded. Could be wrong.
Will carry on looking.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/774/774.pdf
Or this.
Which isnt quite the same thing.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/774/774.pdf
I think you’re getting confused - the Assets Recovery Agency’s purpose was to assist in recovering proceeds of organised crime.
Not much action trying to recover monies from various friends of various ministers who sold useless PPE or track and trace schemes to the govt.
They were wound up some years ago as not cost-effective. Now the Serious Crime Agency recovers proceeds of crime. Are you saying that these friends committed crimes Dinahmo? Possibly a civil action might lie but not a criminal one.
We don't yet know how many of the contracts were fraudulent.
The following is take from a National Audit Office Report:
Of the 394 contracts awarded through the Parallel Supply Chain and UK Make,
115 were awarded to 51 VIP lane suppliers, referred to as the ‘High-Priority Lane’ by the Department. Some 493 potential suppliers were suggested by government officials, ministers’ offices, members of Parliament, senior NHS staff and other health professionals through a VIP lane.
Contracts agreed through the VIP lane totalled £3.8 billion and were expected to deliver 7.8 billion items of PPE. The Department’s process for checking suppliers evolved over time, and in May 2020 it introduced an eight-stage due diligence process.
The Department told us that before May 2020, it conducted some due diligence such as financial, commercial and legal checks but not all of these were completed before contracts were awarded.
Forty-six out of the 115 contracts awarded to VIP lane suppliers did not go through the eight-stage due diligence process as they were awarded before May 2020. This indicates that the Department was not in a position to fully understand the contract management risks it was exposing itself to with some of these suppliers (paragraph 1.6).
37.9 billion items
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Health & Social Care data
Of the 394 contracts the initial results of the investigations are:
142 - no issues
76 - contracts where issues have been resolved (ie price reductions)
176 - (worth £3.9 billion) where there is some value at risk.
The last is further broken down into:
23 contracts (£0.5 billion) where no recourse is available
74 contracts (£2 billion) where discussions are ongoing but value for money at risk
79 where discussions are ongoing but vfm is expected
This is why people earn cash in hand and don't declare (link to the whole article at the bottom). Say what you like about what is legal and what isn't. When benefits for the unemployed provide half of what is needed to support a family, some parents try to feed their children, pay their bills, keep a room over their heads in other ways. Anyone would do the same in their position.
a family on universal credit is now in receipt of less than half of what a 2022 report from Loughborough University showed is needed for a decent standard of living.
poverty is actually worsening by the day. A record 2.1 million people are using food banks, and that there are 14.4 million living in poverty, including 4.2 million children, the vast majority of whom are in families where the breadwinner is on low pay. As the TUC’s report on the dramatic rise in poverty in working households shows, you can work all hours in Britain today and never make ends meet.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/24/jeremy-hunt-uk-poverty-hygiene-banks-gordon-brown
Germanshepherdsmum
OP seems to be suggesting that benefit fraud should be ignored in favour of prosecuting tax fraud. ‘Fewer cases … fewer families destroyed’. Fraud is fraud, whoever commits it, and all fraudsters should be punished. I suspect that benefit fraud is far easier to detect than tax fraud, which is often very sophisticated.
Just what I was going to say.
Yes, very easy to take that view, sitting in the warmth of your house, with a fully stomach, bills paid up to date.
Germanshepherdsmum
They were wound up some years ago as not cost-effective. Now the Serious Crime Agency recovers proceeds of crime. Are you saying that these friends committed crimes Dinahmo? Possibly a civil action might lie but not a criminal one.
The SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) - if that's what you mean - became part of the National Crime Agency in 2013. The NCA has had its budget slashed since 2010.
Germanshepherdsmum
I think you’re getting confused - the Assets Recovery Agency’s purpose was to assist in recovering proceeds of organised crime.
The ARA became part of the SOCA, which became part of the NCA.
Oreo
Germanshepherdsmum
OP seems to be suggesting that benefit fraud should be ignored in favour of prosecuting tax fraud. ‘Fewer cases … fewer families destroyed’. Fraud is fraud, whoever commits it, and all fraudsters should be punished. I suspect that benefit fraud is far easier to detect than tax fraud, which is often very sophisticated.
Just what I was going to say.
What a very nasty suggestion GSM. I don't think anyone but the far right are suggesting anything but a flawed system that keeps people in poverty, destroys any sense of agency and increases stress which therefore ekes into any ability to lift themselves out of their distressful situation.
But then, the far-right have always felt the need for surfs and supported slavery even if they don't say so out loud these days,
They deal with retrieving proceeds of crime though, that was my point.
GagaJo
Yes, very easy to take that view, sitting in the warmth of your house, with a fully stomach, bills paid up to date.
Nonsense.
My house isn’t actually very warm, it’s an old house and we try and save energy because of the cost.Not all my bills are paid either.
It’s easier to find out benefit fraud than tax fraud, but both should be prosecuted, and are.
Low hanging fruit’s always picked first.
GagaJo
Yes, very easy to take that view, sitting in the warmth of your house, with a fully stomach, bills paid up to date.
What a patronising thing to say. I am in the above position now but it was not always so. I was a single parent, and found things hard. But I did not resort to cash in hand work which is fraud.
I know many people on benefits and they don't either. Your posts are really annoying me. Most low income families, and I was once don't do that, we are honest, and don't like people like you excusing that behaviour,or speaking on our behalf.
Fraud us fraud no matter who commits it.
Well said Oreo and rafichagran.
DaisyAnne, I suggest you read the OP again and consider what is said. It definitely suggests that fewer benefits frauds should be prosecuted. Fraud is fraud. Your final paragraph is disgraceful. Btw it’s serfs, not surfs.
rafichagran
GagaJo
Yes, very easy to take that view, sitting in the warmth of your house, with a fully stomach, bills paid up to date.
What a patronising thing to say. I am in the above position now but it was not always so. I was a single parent, and found things hard. But I did not resort to cash in hand work which is fraud.
I know many people on benefits and they don't either. Your posts are really annoying me. Most low income families, and I was once don't do that, we are honest, and don't like people like you excusing that behaviour,or speaking on our behalf.
Fraud us fraud no matter who commits it.
Most of this is not fraud though. It is recovery of overpayments through error, much of which is government error and much out of the Suggesting it is all "fraud" is just wrong. I presume there is a purpose in the posts from those doing this.
Nobody has suggested that overpayments due to genuine error are fraud. A successful prosecution for fraud requires the alleged fraudster to have knowingly or recklessly made a false claim.
rafichagran
GagaJo
Yes, very easy to take that view, sitting in the warmth of your house, with a fully stomach, bills paid up to date.
What a patronising thing to say. I am in the above position now but it was not always so. I was a single parent, and found things hard. But I did not resort to cash in hand work which is fraud.
I know many people on benefits and they don't either. Your posts are really annoying me. Most low income families, and I was once don't do that, we are honest, and don't like people like you excusing that behaviour,or speaking on our behalf.
Fraud us fraud no matter who commits it.
At no point have I spoken on your behalf. You have a voice.
I've been on a very low income also and as a result have huge empathy. What I know is that the desperate position I was in was still a lot better than a large swathe of the benefit population today, because things are now much, much harder.
I do not begrudge them cash in hand work. If benefits are only paid at half the living rate, how else are they to cope? We may not be living in Dickensian days, but these are indeed 'Hard Times'.
Do not be offended by what I'm saying. This is not an attack on anyone on GN.
I support the vulnerable in our society. Sadly, our government doesn't.
Gagajo it is not about begrudging benefit claimants, cash in hand work is fraud, plain and simple.
I have Empathy for those on benefits, but none for those commiting fraud.
The cash in hand work is also encouraging employers not to pay people minimum wage. Also people who are working cash in hand do not have health and safety protection. Cash in hand work is about more than just a fraudulant claimant.
I don't understand the mindset that some fraud is acceptable and some is not. Fraud is what it says fraud, it does not say it is OK if you are a benefit claimant.
I have been in that position and know it is hard, but I considered it is not my excuse to commit fraud.
rafichagran
Gagajo it is not about begrudging benefit claimants, cash in hand work is fraud, plain and simple.
I have Empathy for those on benefits, but none for those commiting fraud.
The cash in hand work is also encouraging employers not to pay people minimum wage. Also people who are working cash in hand do not have health and safety protection. Cash in hand work is about more than just a fraudulant claimant.
I don't understand the mindset that some fraud is acceptable and some is not. Fraud is what it says fraud, it does not say it is OK if you are a benefit claimant.
I have been in that position and know it is hard, but I considered it is not my excuse to commit fraud.
If someone can't pay their bills...
If they struggle to keep a roof over their head...
If they can't heat their home...
If they can't afford enough food to live...
I don't care if it is fraud or not, they have a moral right to do what they need to, to meet their basic needs.
It isn't cash in hand work that keeps wages low. It is a benefits system that accepts that we have to 'top up' low wages to enable people that work 40+ hours a week to live. That is morally wrong. The British tax payer is subsidising big business by doing this.
We should be ashamed that as one of the most wealthy countries in the world such a huge number of people are in a position where they have to break the law to keep body and soul together.
Cash in hand work does keep wages low, because in many cases the employer is not paying minimum wage.
No people do not have a moral right to commit fraud.
rafichagran Paying someone cash in hand is not illegal if done properly. As far as I know it has never been illegal. Not in the recent past anyway.
www.gov.uk/guidance/paying-employees-cash-in-hand-or-guaranteed-take-home-pay
rafichagran, we hold such diametrically opposite opinions, there is no point us engaging in discussion.
My stance is that it is immoral for a developed country to expect people to live without adequate housing and to be unable to feed themselves. I will not budge from that position.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
