where has the system failed on these people

cm1179 · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:19

watching a programme on bbc 1 called 'saints and scroungers'. there was a case on about 3 sisters from birmingham (surname smith) who all claimed extra child benefit claiming that their children were disabled.
their children weren't disabled (one said that all 4 of her children were disabled-1 couldn't walk) and these claims were all made through the 'change of circumstances' route as in none of them were declared disabled at birth.
it became apparent that to claim this extra money, they simply called the benefits line and gave the change of circumstances situation to the operator and the changes in payments were made. the only way they were found out was because they called from the same phone and their surnames sparked an alarm.
is the system too easy for people like this? but, more importantly, how nasty must a parent be to make such a claim in line with children that are fully abled when there are children out there with disabilities whose parents genuinely need extra financial help?

Abraham · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:21

It's failed by allowing it to happen

Vonhelmet · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:22

The system has failed because it is too easy to make 'extreme' claims like this.

As for how a parent can do something so nasty... They don't see it as nasty. They just want their money.

Sp00n · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:23

How was this not verified with a home visit?

I would imagine that was mandatory. I never realised the system was that flawed.

cm1179 · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:31

i cannot get my head around how a human being can see this as acceptable behaviour and would seriously question the mothers morales and push to have these poor children taken off her, i can only see it being a move for the greater good.

Werewolf · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:32

Sp00n said:
How was this not verified with a home visit?

I would imagine that was mandatory. I never realised the system was that flawed.

Aye, that is truly flawed and it makes me rather angry given the problems people with legitimate conditions and heaps of evidence from consultants have in getting some of these benefits.

Chronictank · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:33

Sp00n said:
How was this not verified with a home visit?

I would imagine that was mandatory. I never realised the system was that flawed.

I would guess they simply fake it on a home visit, i am surprised no doctor's certificate etc.. were needed :confused:

scorza · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:40

Sp00n said:
How was this not verified with a home visit?

I would imagine that was mandatory. I never realised the system was that flawed.

Home visits cost money, and spending money is bad because it means we have to pay more tax.

Sp00n · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:43

scorza said:
Home visits cost money, and spending money is bad because it means we have to pay more tax.

I fear you may be right

cm1179 · 10 Jan 2011 at 11:44

£80k, £50k, £39k that's what they each stole! flaming heck

they pleaded guilty straight away and they got less than a year each, 8-6 months and i'd bet that none of them did over 4

how is this any different to me going and robbing a bank? i'd get way more of a sentence than that!

Vonhelmet · 10 Jan 2011 at 12:14

It's fraud, not theft, and the punishment reflects that.

Mr.Pink · 10 Jan 2011 at 12:20

I amazed, and slighlty sceptical at this.

I have had to claim disability allowance for a child. I had to submit about 40 pages of evidence including doctors notes, hospital reports, and our pediatrician had to write a letter, confirming everything. A phone call is ridiculous.