Wbs 2001 onwards

Wbs

Here's my basic idea with an example:-

All claims for benefit, be it Housing Benefit or Income Support are subject of review.   So depending on where the fraud is discovered  (during the life of the claim), you can accurately pinpoint the amount of benefit that the client would have received to the point of review.

For example:

Client makes an Housing Benefit claim from the 1 April 2000. This claim has a review date of 1 October 2000 and is paid £100 per week.

I discover the client has fraudulently claimed benefit from 1 August 2000.  Under the current arrangements that £100 per week would be multiplied by 32, making a discovered fraud of £3,200.  But a more realistic saving could be gauged if you multiply the weekly sum by the number of weeks until review.

In this example it would be a saving of £1000.  As the review would be where an officer may pick up the fraud or, where the client declares their true circumstances.

Prosecutions

As one of the very few LAs prosecuting (this is welcomed by me) and I have already made some significant claims.   However, the DSS are again throwing money at a problem without considering that LAs will again see it as a money spinner.   On a successful prosecution between £1,500 and £5,000 you will be able to claim a further 2x weekly sum in payment. Over £5,000, a further 5x the weekly sum.   What about claims that fall below £1,500?

Example case: We investigate a case of working and signing over a period of 5 months.

1.  If this person was a Council tenant whose weekly rent (Average in EBC) of £55 per week their over-payment would be £1,430 - No Subsidy

2.   If the same person was a Private tenant whose weekly rent (Average in EBC) £200 per week £5,200 - Subsidy Income

I would prosecute both, but can you see how some money making Authorities will shy away from the lower level fraud because it doesn't attract any subsidy.

But this does not reflect the true cost of prosecuting Housing Benefit claimants.    I would have preferred to see a grading system to reward LAs for how they prosecute to reflect the true cost of prosecution:-

1.  Prosecution via Police would attract the least amount of subsidy as their is no additional cost to the LA as the resources of the CPS are being utilised.

2.  Prosecution via the DSS Solicitors a medium subsidy return

3. With the highest return for prosecutions via the LAs own legal services, as LAs will need to engage external Barristers etc.