DWP take woman inheritance over supermarket job
Discussion
Rivenink said:
It's the Tory way.
Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get f
ked.
Wasn't the system set up when Blair was PM?Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get f
ked. 
Previous said:
As a principle, I'm okay with people having to pay back benefits they aren't entitled to.
But the story here is why did DWP continue paying benefits for 5 years?
And as above, I'd love to see those breaking the rules in higher positions of power more readily held to account.
Rich people or companies tend to have expensive lawyers though. The "little people" are an easy target.But the story here is why did DWP continue paying benefits for 5 years?
And as above, I'd love to see those breaking the rules in higher positions of power more readily held to account.
TX.
119 said:
Rivenink said:
It's the Tory way.
Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get fked.
Wasn't the system set up when Blair was PM?Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get f
ked. They don't do spirit of the rules.
I once was overpaid work families tax credit, because the wording on the form, was ambiguous. The civil servant who I negotiated a 3 year re-payment plan admitted the wording had caught many people out and the next version of the form and the guidance booklet removed the ambiguity.
Is child one in full time education, meant, Is child one in full time secondary education....so being a full time university student wasn't within the rules.
Next year the form had the words "primary or secondary" education.
AndyAudi said:
Hmm,
There’s always more to this kind of thing than reported.
Whilst yes it’s unfortunate DWP let her get overpayments, they mucked up. This is not the issue at hand.
The woman agreed she’d been overpaid & had to repay, which was being done at £30/mth as it was likely what she could afford.
The woman sold her mothers house & banked the money (she already had it - was not waiting on it or prevented from receiving it as I understand).
On discovering her affordability to repay had changed she was approached to alter that - however she didn’t want to, the court option seems to have been the only route to speed up recovery. (Her monthly interest would’ve been more than £30ffs!)
“I told them I had an agreement to pay back the money at the rate of £30 a month which I had been doing. Then I was told they were aware that I ‘had money’ and would need to pay it off. I told them about the money I had got from the sale of my mother’s house and asked if I could keep it and stick to the direct debit agreement. I was told no”
You apparently have more information than is in the BBC article, but the things that strike me are that the money isn't hers until mother is actually dead and there's a non-zero chance the council will be after it to pay for care anyway. It's not unfortunate that the DWP overpaid, it's negligent.There’s always more to this kind of thing than reported.
Whilst yes it’s unfortunate DWP let her get overpayments, they mucked up. This is not the issue at hand.
The woman agreed she’d been overpaid & had to repay, which was being done at £30/mth as it was likely what she could afford.
The woman sold her mothers house & banked the money (she already had it - was not waiting on it or prevented from receiving it as I understand).
On discovering her affordability to repay had changed she was approached to alter that - however she didn’t want to, the court option seems to have been the only route to speed up recovery. (Her monthly interest would’ve been more than £30ffs!)
“I told them I had an agreement to pay back the money at the rate of £30 a month which I had been doing. Then I was told they were aware that I ‘had money’ and would need to pay it off. I told them about the money I had got from the sale of my mother’s house and asked if I could keep it and stick to the direct debit agreement. I was told no”
This plays on our emotions but,
She applied for this after she was made redundant (so presumably ticked the box to say she was full time carer ie 35hrs a week ). Subsequently she got a new job & looked in on her mum before & after her work.
There’s a question over whether she informed the DWP of her change in circumstances as she would be required to do (as with anyone in receipt of a benefit)
A she had a new Job
B she had a change in her income
C she was no longer a carer (arguable she would have said she still was but not an eligible carer per DWP)
To me it’s the same as If she had gone for job seekers allowance instead when she was made redundant & then continued to take it for years whilst working at the co-op. we’d have no sympathy then.
It is ridiculous DWP/HMRC is not joined up enough to sort this kind’ve thing near immediately. They are undoubtedly partly responsible for this getting so far out of hand, but she herself has to shoulder a chunk of the blame for continuing to accept the incorrect allowance.
it’s her debt & after her mums death it was her money.
now it’s paid off she’ll be £30mth better off for life!
She applied for this after she was made redundant (so presumably ticked the box to say she was full time carer ie 35hrs a week ). Subsequently she got a new job & looked in on her mum before & after her work.
There’s a question over whether she informed the DWP of her change in circumstances as she would be required to do (as with anyone in receipt of a benefit)
A she had a new Job
B she had a change in her income
C she was no longer a carer (arguable she would have said she still was but not an eligible carer per DWP)
To me it’s the same as If she had gone for job seekers allowance instead when she was made redundant & then continued to take it for years whilst working at the co-op. we’d have no sympathy then.
It is ridiculous DWP/HMRC is not joined up enough to sort this kind’ve thing near immediately. They are undoubtedly partly responsible for this getting so far out of hand, but she herself has to shoulder a chunk of the blame for continuing to accept the incorrect allowance.
it’s her debt & after her mums death it was her money.
now it’s paid off she’ll be £30mth better off for life!
119 said:
Rivenink said:
It's the Tory way.
Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get fked.
Wasn't the system set up when Blair was PM?Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get f
ked. Grrr Tories!
98elise said:
119 said:
Rivenink said:
It's the Tory way.
Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get fked.
Wasn't the system set up when Blair was PM?Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get f
ked. Grrr Tories!
AndyAudi said:
This plays on our emotions but,
She applied for this after she was made redundant (so presumably ticked the box to say she was full time carer ie 35hrs a week ). Subsequently she got a new job & looked in on her mum before & after her work.
There’s a question over whether she informed the DWP of her change in circumstances as she would be required to do (as with anyone in receipt of a benefit)
A she had a new Job
B she had a change in her income
C she was no longer a carer (arguable she would have said she still was but not an eligible carer per DWP)
To me it’s the same as If she had gone for job seekers allowance instead when she was made redundant & then continued to take it for years whilst working at the co-op. we’d have no sympathy then.
It is ridiculous DWP/HMRC is not joined up enough to sort this kind’ve thing near immediately. They are undoubtedly partly responsible for this getting so far out of hand, but she herself has to shoulder a chunk of the blame for continuing to accept the incorrect allowance.
it’s her debt & after her mums death it was her money.
now it’s paid off she’ll be £30mth better off for life!
Agree.She applied for this after she was made redundant (so presumably ticked the box to say she was full time carer ie 35hrs a week ). Subsequently she got a new job & looked in on her mum before & after her work.
There’s a question over whether she informed the DWP of her change in circumstances as she would be required to do (as with anyone in receipt of a benefit)
A she had a new Job
B she had a change in her income
C she was no longer a carer (arguable she would have said she still was but not an eligible carer per DWP)
To me it’s the same as If she had gone for job seekers allowance instead when she was made redundant & then continued to take it for years whilst working at the co-op. we’d have no sympathy then.
It is ridiculous DWP/HMRC is not joined up enough to sort this kind’ve thing near immediately. They are undoubtedly partly responsible for this getting so far out of hand, but she herself has to shoulder a chunk of the blame for continuing to accept the incorrect allowance.
it’s her debt & after her mums death it was her money.
now it’s paid off she’ll be £30mth better off for life!
...and as you say, HMRC and DWP should be joined up enough that this simply can't happen.
Ditto self assessment. It's insane that I have to write my income from my p60 on my tax return when *they* gave me that number. Its just begging me to make a mistake.
Skeptisk said:
98elise said:
119 said:
Rivenink said:
It's the Tory way.
Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get fked.
Wasn't the system set up when Blair was PM?Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get f
ked. Grrr Tories!
As someone has correctly pointed out, rules and process details are created by civil servants, not politicians of any particular party.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 19th April 15:54
98elise said:
Skeptisk said:
98elise said:
119 said:
Rivenink said:
It's the Tory way.
Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get fked.
Wasn't the system set up when Blair was PM?Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.
The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get f
ked. Grrr Tories!
As someone has correctly pointed out, rules and process details are created by civil servants, not politicians of any particular party.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 19th April 15:54
Take today for example
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/19/s...
Of course Rishi won’t be in power to introduce these changes! But the intention is clear.
Not to forget that Universal Credit and PIPs were both created by the Tories since the last Lab government
Edited by Skeptisk on Friday 19th April 16:42
98elise said:
When did the Tories create the maze of complicated rules as the OP was saying?
As someone has correctly pointed out, rules and process details are created by civil servants, not politicians of any particular party.
Benefit regulations are based, generally, on Social Security Acts, the content of which is decided by govt ministers. Eg a change in the age you can receive retirement pension. Civil servants (at local level) merely apply the regulations and rarely, if ever, have any discretion. The exception is in some cases an independent adjudicator would have to decide on something, for example whether a claimant had continuous good cause for the delay in making a claim. As someone has correctly pointed out, rules and process details are created by civil servants, not politicians of any particular party.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 19th April 15:54
Something I'd put down to the Tories, though not reversed by Labour, is the continued reduction in one-to-one intervention with people claiming benefits. Eg it used to be that a claim for sickness/incapacity benefits would require an interview, or home visit is necessary, and regular home visits. Now AIUI it'd be done online or form, and certainly little if any follow up.
And DWP has always been inefficient.
The DWP is not fit for anything and the judicial process is flawed. The judge appears to have been compelled by some statutory requirement to conclude the case, yet the DWP were allowed to ignore directions from 3 different judges to calculate what she actually owed rather than the fabulous number they invented without punishment beyond a brow-beating. The judge should have the power to toss the case out.
Grauniad said:
The judge was scathing about the DWP’s handling of the case. He questioned why it had taken a year to come to court after Groom admitted her failings in an interview with benefits officers in November 2022.The judge ordered the DWP to calculate how much carer’s allowance Groom would have been entitled to had she declared her part-time Co-op job, adding that he was “truly unimpressed” they had not done so.
Yet after a further two court hearings before two different judges, the DWP still refused to calculate the difference – which would have meant Groom would have to repay a lower figure – and insisted it take the full £16,105 inheritance. Last Wednesday, another judge – the fourth in six months – finally confiscated the family bequest. In a hearing that lasted barely five minutes, Judge Berkson said he understood that Groom has a “sentimental attachment” to the inheritance but that it must still be seized.
Yet after a further two court hearings before two different judges, the DWP still refused to calculate the difference – which would have meant Groom would have to repay a lower figure – and insisted it take the full £16,105 inheritance. Last Wednesday, another judge – the fourth in six months – finally confiscated the family bequest. In a hearing that lasted barely five minutes, Judge Berkson said he understood that Groom has a “sentimental attachment” to the inheritance but that it must still be seized.
Mr Penguin said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Meanwhile, Michelle Mone and the £65m scammed out of the taxpayer.......
Which is being investigated by the NCA.Then there's the £4.3bn scammed in fraudulent covid loans, the the PM says is too hard and not cost effective to recover. But they'll sent 3 police cars to South London to deal with a single mum with 3 kids evading her bus fare (which it turns out she hadn't).
The Tories, tough on working class crime, tough on the causes of working class crime.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff