Then ******* fire them, gross negligence no argument, no defence.
If somones not getting fired then it was accepted practice and he shouldn't be punished.
Last edited:
Whats the saving limit for people on benefits?
- Thread starter katy81
- Start date
Then ******* fire them, gross negligence no argument, no defence.
If somones not getting fired then it was accepted practice and he shouldn't be punished.
Yes, because that would be great optics too. Newspaper headline, council spends X million a year on secret disabled snooping police, sometimes you can't win.
It seems everything was done the best way they could, records were kept and reviewed by the caseworker when his requests changed, they weren't mean to him or snitched on him to the Police they just asked him to repay the money. He didn't get his benefits stopped, direct payments ARE NOT benefits seems he didn't want to repay them so they simply stopped his direct payments.
You cannot care about optics in such a critical environment. Outcomes matter not optics.
That's "bad optics" and just incompetence. The issue should have been raised with him years ago.
FOR LITERAL YEARS NOT ONE PERSON NOTICED.
Last edited:
You prove my point in this thread alone, you've got people going from "omfgwtf!!!! the evil council stoled his moneyz sack them all""""" to "omfgwtf the evil council didn't investagez enough, sack them all!!!!"
This really, it actually costs a hell of a lot of money to employ people to go round checking all this stuff on everyone all the time.
Even a low level council worker on a starting salary of £25k (minimum wage is now £22,300) would cost near £50k to employ. This is once tax, pensions, estate, IT, HR, managerial and other costs are factored in.
The manpower needed to check everything would far exceed any ‘savings’ that would be created. The same applies across the welfare system and taxation.
Well one is a criminal offence (fraud) and the other isn't... Apart from that, they are exactly the same thing
Because 50k seems rather high and if he has managed to save that surely they are over paying him.
Thoughts
Man with life-limiting condition 'stunned' council took back short break savings
A man with a life-limiting condition is "stunned" his council "clawed back" money for short break.www.bbc.co.uk
As far as I know its 16k, was those savings properly declared?
Also you get tapered long before 16k, I think it starts at 6k.
There is certain exemptions, what was described in the article might be one of them.
Last edited:
nope, it's still fraud, claiming money for a service you then don't purchase.Well one is a criminal offence (fraud) and the other isn't... Apart from that, they are exactly the same thing
I still don't think people understand what direct payments are, it's not his benefit payment, those would be separate.
The simplest example would be traditionally, the Council would have cleaners that would go to people's house twice a week and tidy up and do the washing. Someone might request one and find they are on a 6-month waiting list, so instead the council will give them £500 a week to find their own.
The £500 would be a direct payment, I'm sure everyone here would be fine if the person really spent it on coke and hookers and say they did nothing wrong.
Last edited:
Not sure its fraud... There has to be an element of dishonesty or failing to disclose information. According to the article he regularly updated the LA with the balance of his bank account and they were aware it was due to those payments and that he wasn't using them to go on cinema trips.
Then again, I'm sure you know better than me... What's your legal/law background again?
It's pretty dishonest to take money and then not use it for its intended purpose.Not sure its fraud... There has to be an element of dishonesty or failing to disclose information. According to the article he regularly updated the LA with the balance of his bank account and they were aware it was due to those payments and that he wasn't using them to go on cinema trips.
Then again, I'm sure you know better than me... What's your legal/law background again?
Luckily the council seem pretty chill so he doesn't need the services of a KC such as yourself, no need to defend him.
Ah ok, as long as you say it is then there we are
Or they dont think its fraud either perhaps?
Ouch... I seem to have hit a nerve there. You simply seemed 100% in your conviction that it is definitely fraud, I was merely asking what allowed you to give such a 100% legal opinion with no wiggle room in there at all.
amazing, another snarky commenter that can't take a bit back, lol.Ah ok, as long as you say it is then there we are
Or they dont think its fraud either perhaps?
Ouch... I seem to have hit a nerve there. You simply seemed 100% in your conviction that it is definitely fraud, I was merely asking what allowed you to give such a 100% legal opinion with no wiggle room in there at all.
OK, KC Richie explain what a Direct payment is, explain the requirements and the commitments.
It's irrelevant really if it's fraud or not, most people who fiddle benefits don't actually get charged with anything as long as the council/ government can recover the money, of course you would know that with all your years of practice so want to make an actual point ?
What has it being a direct payment got to do with it being fraud or not (given it's the "fraud" argument that I was referring to in your post)?
There we go
Good show going back through the thread to put laughing reactions on my posts. Even posts you previously replied to and quoted almost 7 hours ago.... What suddenly makes it funny after 7 hours I wonder
.... Oh well 
1. Knowing what the subject is, would generally be a prerequisite to being 100% sure of your statement, and that I'm so wrong, surely ?What has it being a direct payment got to do with it being fraud or not (given it's the "fraud" argument that I was referring to in your post)?
There we go
Good show going back through the thread to put laughing reactions on my posts. Even posts you previously replied to and quoted almost 7 hours ago.... What suddenly makes it funny after 7 hours I wonder
2.sit down this may shock you lots of "Crimes" aren't worth being reported to the police, it doesn't change the nature of what they are.
3. touched a nerve
you like laughing emojis I gave you some, I was being nice.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,720
- Location
- Welling, London
Put your handbags away lads
Trying to get him killed, save money.
Ahaha
Hold a licence issued by the council and get back to us about how often they really, actually send someone to check up.
In over a decade I've had 2 inspections and the rest of the time they're content to see me email a photocopy of safety documents which someone will spend 0.5s checking that it's for the correct year then rubber stamp it.
Councils have no money to blindly check up on everything. If evidence of a problem is stuffed in their face then maybe manpower will be spent checking on it.