probably the the most serious rightsnet news item...

......which does not warrent one decent mention in any newspaper, whereas the odd person being caught on camera working is hailed as typical of the claimant population.............

I have had a quick look at the originating report. So far as overpayments are concerned (page 13) official error outruns just claimant error in IS, quite significantly in JSA, and is almost double the claimant error rate in PC. Its the other way round in HB.

Page 22 has a table on underpayments. Official error exceeds claimant error as the cause in IS and JSA, and significantly exceeds claimant error in PC and IB (watch out ESA!). Again, its the other way round in HB.

The report suggests that claimant error significantly outruns official error in DLA, and that there is no official error at all in carers allowance.

All data comes from a sample, so there are bound to be extrapolation risks.

Steve

also the figures do not include cases wrongly disallowed...no press release, no action plan...no clue that underpayments are equally serious as overpayments...?

Steve

"..........The report suggests that claimant error significantly outruns official error in DLA, "............

I can understand errors in I/S, HBH etc , but how does claimant error in DLA fit - other than deliberate overstating of their case....?

DLA claimant error, first thoughts?

Hospital over 4 weeks
Care over 4 weeks
Abroad

I wonder if the DLA claimant error overpayment figure includes all those overpayments occuring due to the death of the claimant?

good point, but the closer you look at the report, the less it holds up...
for example, look how 'fraud' is now defined

" Fraud: This includes all cases where:
- the basic conditions for receipt of benefit, or the rate of benefit in payment, are not being met;
- the customer can reasonably be expected to be aware of the effect on entitlement; and
- benefit stops or reduces as a result of the review."

hello.

the estimated fraud figures at fig. 5A appear very estimated indeed, like 4B figures... eg there is no different category for remunerative work and earnings, as might be expected from experts in the field, the high amount attributed to addresses is suspicious, (since addresses aren't a major feature of conditions of entitlement), suggesting much use of administrative 'benefit stops as a result of the review', (and very likely started again shortly afterwards, shhh...)

.....ah yes, irrespective of the fact that they have grossly underpaid those who can least afford it, they have made good progress in combating fraud.....

"DWP has made good progress in tackling benefit fraud"
says New National Audit Office report........

You can't write this sort of stuff can you.....

The DWP today announced its latest initiative aimed at encouraging the great unwashed to get off its collective backside, put down the fags and the cheeseburgers and get a life.

A spokesman said, “for far too long recipients of benefits have been languishing around on sofas while watching Tricia and chain-smoking. This cannot be allowed to continue. We are determined to tackle such fecklessness and make sure that the idle underclass finally gets what’s coming to them.

We aim to put in place schemes whereby the idle rich can frogmarch claimants down to cash point machines, dressed in bright orange jumpsuits and make them shine the shoes of those in the queue. The message needs to go out once and for all that the days of hanging around shopping precincts drinking cheap cans of white lightning are finally over. If claimants want their pittance (sorry I mean benefit) then they are going to have to give something back to society and I don’t mean the things they’ve knocked off from Poundstretcher”.


Lord Snooty is 116.