DWP take Cheshire woman's inheritance over supermarket job

Entrapment is the action of engineering someone into committing a crime that they would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. It isn’t being slow to prosecute someone who was happy to commit the crime off their own bat in the first place.
 
Entrapment is the action of engineering someone into committing a crime that they would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. It isn’t being slow to prosecute someone who was happy to commit the crime off their own bat in the first place.
She was advised that she was entitled to continue claiming. Hardly a career criminal. Maybe should have checked directly with DWP but why would you?

An honest mistake that she'd already agreed to refund. It would have cost the state more if she'd just abandoned her mother.
 
I feel she's been poorly advised throughout and would've been better off taking legal advice at the outset.
If she'd been part of union or through legal cover provided by her home insurer, the cost of that advice could've been covered.
 
The Tory red tops and the shy Tories would love for everyone else to be foamign at the mouth about stuff like this.

Yes, this woman should be held accountable, but the sums involved in benefit fraud like this pale into insignificance compared to the industrial levels of tax avoidance and evasion currently masquerading as the "free market" under this government.

Blame the small boats/scroungers/sick/lazy/poor, but dont under any circumstance blame the tax avoiders.
 
It's a classic example of legislation designed for use on serious crimes being misused due to incompetence. I think it's fairly obvious to people claiming carer's allowance that you can't earn a significant wage, but this feels a little different.

I can remember doing a case on the 7th anniversary of the 'bad character' provisions (allowing defendant's previous convictions in evidence) which were brought in to ensure 'serious and organised crime could be effectively prosecuted'.

The charge? Failing to identify the driver who got snapped by a speed camera.....
 
I have a few questions on this.

Why did it take the DWP 5 years to discover she was working and claiming carers allowance? It didn't take them 5 years to discover the inheritance!

Carers allowance is peanuts - about £70 per week in 2014 to 2019 - how come she owes at least £16,000 i.e. £17,500 in carers allowance less the 4 years paid back say around £6,000.

The fairest thing in the case for me, would be to increase her monthly payments but let her keep the inheritance.

General point carers allowance is too small currently £76.75 per week for supposedly 35 hours care i.e. full time care. In a care home it would be at least £400/week for the care element, I stress care not food and board.

Don't believe what a social worker says about rules on benefits - read the rules your self. The social worker also represents social services and their employer has a vested interest in maintaining full care by relatives.
 
She was advised that she was entitled to continue claiming. Hardly a career criminal. Maybe should have checked directly with DWP but why would you?
Who advised her? It’s not clear from the article. If it was the DWP, I would reverse my position almost completely. if it was someone she should have been able to rely on professionally, they should be held responsible. if it was a mate down the pub saying she should be fine, not so much
An honest mistake that she'd already agreed to refund. It would have cost the state more if she'd just abandoned her mother.
If she pleaded guilty to fraud, then at least legally that means at best she has confessed to a dishonest act. You can’t punish her as if it was an honest one.
 
I don’t believe that she was given that advice. Bit even if she was the responsibility on her is to let the DWP know of any changes. Then they will let her know if she needs to pay anything back or not.

She didn’t, it was her fault and at £30 a month she was taking ages to clear it so I think it is reasonable to take the money she was getting for free.

Inheritance is got an entitlement.
 
Why wouldn't you believe her? Seems a strange stance to take given the information provided.

In my experience social workers are reluctant to give out financial advice for reasons exactly such as this. I also would expect that the claimant would have known to advise DWP of any changes - she was claiming for some time - it is on every letter that she would have received.
 
For the general information of the Board - My family were informed by Local Authority to claim Attendance Allowance to pay towards visiting care in the home. AA is not means tested. You can claim it for a relative who needs paid help in the home. Its around £68 per week for the lower payment. In fact the LA built the value of it into their financial support package..

Carers allowance is for a permanent full time carer, usually family member, for someone with substantial needs.
 
I feel she's been poorly advised throughout and would've been better off taking legal advice at the outset.
She says she asked a social worker, this is obv the social worker from the council assigned to her mum! By all means ask opinion but that doesn't hold water at all. I think shes playing it anyway, she obv didn't agree a repayment policy up front , outside of a court scenario which is why she was eventually pulled in , then agrees 30 per month which meant , at outset, a 46 year repayment plan. I had carers allowance for my dad 4 years ago and it lasted about 15 months until he passed. Due to the number of letters about your claim , from the DWP, they don't leave any ambiguity about what the extra income rules are . All you have to do is tell them. that's it. Every year, or on every change of increase in allowance , she would have received further letters detailing the change and reminding about what the top level of extra earnings are before you need to tell them about it. In 5 years , from my exp she would have had the initial knowledge plus the , at least 7 following increases or yearly review letters.
 
She says she asked a social worker, this is obv the social worker from the council assigned to her mum! By all means ask opinion but that doesn't hold water at all. I think shes playing it anyway, she obv didn't agree a repayment policy up front , outside of a court scenario which is why she was eventually pulled in , then agrees 30 per month which meant , at outset, a 46 year repayment plan. I had carers allowance for my dad 4 years ago and it lasted about 15 months until he passed. Due to the number of letters about your claim , from the DWP, they don't leave any ambiguity about what the extra income rules are . All you have to do is tell them. that's it. Every year, or on every change of increase in allowance , she would have received further letters detailing the change and reminding about what the top level of extra earnings are before you need to tell them about it. In 5 years , from my exp she would have had the initial knowledge plus the , at least 7 following increases or yearly review letters.

You are correct - she would have had letter upon letter over that time period telling her to notify of any changes. She either knew what she was doing or just didn’t bother reading the letters. Either way it is her responsibility to advise of any changes to her circumstances and as such she is liable for the overpayment.

And she has received some free money so I also think it reasonable to use that to pay of the money that was incorrectly claimed.
 
But nothing said about Michelle Moane, Dido Harding, Tory ministers, MP's and their friends swanning off with literally billions of pounds of our money. They have received free money so I believe it is reasonable for them to pay off what they have stolen. But nothing is said because It's easier to kick someone at the bottom of the ladder.
The DWP default position is to treat every claimant as thieves, cheats, and fraudsters.
Yes this woman had been overpaid but certain posters on here are looking at the wrong people.
 
But nothing said about Michelle Moane, Dido Harding, Tory ministers, MP's and their friends swanning off with literally billions of pounds of our money. They have received free money so I believe it is reasonable for them to pay off what they have stolen. But nothing is said because It's easier to kick someone at the bottom of the ladder.
The DWP default position is to treat every claimant as thieves, cheats, and fraudsters.
Yes this woman had been overpaid but certain posters on here are looking at the wrong people.
That isn’t DWP default position.
 
Back
Top