Dizzy Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Absolutely sick to the stomach after reading this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-20311470# How on earth could any person, let alone a mother, do this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 two things here.... firstly, why the bloody hell should she get £85,000+ in benefits in just over two years even if her son did have cancer.... and secondly, the idea of using the wheelchair to jump queues at Disneyland shows she wasn't that daft!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 two things here.... firstly, why the bloody hell should she get £85,000+ in benefits in just over two years even if her son did have cancer.... and secondly, the idea of using the wheelchair to jump queues at Disneyland shows she wasn't that daft!! And they can't name her!, why, yet another example of our wonderful judicial system in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Are there no checks in place in the system? Surely, before paying out, the Benefits Agency should require written evidence from a GP and a Consultant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 And they can't name her!, why, yet another example of our wonderful judicial system in this country. To protect the boy maybe, which may be a bit of a stoopid idea cos friends neighbours schoolkids will all already know who he and she are. But, it seems, the woman also has a record of mental illness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Are there no checks in place in the system? Surely, before paying out, the Benefits Agency should require written evidence from a GP and a Consultant? She forged them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 If the Benefits Agency were doing their job properly, they would have confirmed or otherwise her story, by writing to the GP/Consultants directly; or is this too difficult in this age of e-mails? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 but £85k over two years????? no wonder there is little incentive to work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Who will pay for the extra staff, to do the checking? Also agree with Cleo, the boy should be protected so they should not be named. And 85k does seem very high Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 "Who will pay for the Checking" - well let's start with the £85k saving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 How many staff will that pay for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 At todays rates, enough for this woman to have been spotted and caught in the act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 So for every claimant, 2 or 3 staff to check if its legitimate, what a cracking idea. You have just solved the unemployment in the UK, jobs for everyone. One small problem, theirs no one left to claim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Problem solved then! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Why would it need 2 or 3 to assess each claimant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Why would it need extra staff, to properly vet a claim? All that's required is seperate correspondance with GPs and Consultants to confirm a diagnosis. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Their is a massive back log of cases, that need investigating as their are not enough staff to investigate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 there is never enough staff to listen to these people..... everyone on here can probably state their company doesn't have enough staff when times are busy.... it is what you do with the same staff when there isn't enough work that also gets them moaning.... just do your job and get on with it instead of complaining all the time... Everyone has suffered cuts..... they are not alone.... maybe if there weren't so many hurdles in the way of their staff carrying out quick assessments and quick judgements; we may get somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 We're not talking about backlogs Kije, we're talking about efficient procedures that counter attempted fraud at the point of application. It's not rocket science, but looking at the big picture, the UK institutions appear incapable nowadays of operating with any common sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.