The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of Benefit Fraud


Would you ever have thought it was possible to go to prison for smiling too much? Well, if the claims made by “Camilla” on the disability blog known as Ron’s Rants are actually true, then it would appear to be quite possible.

In the comment post, Camilla alleges that benefit fraud investigators are conducting a conspiracy against her, fabricating eye-witness testimony that contains numerous factual errors. But what really stands out among the other claims is that the investigators claimed to have seen her smiling.

The obvious inference is that if you can smile, you’re obviously not suffering enough to be genuinely disabled. That anybody would even consider using something like that as evidence just shows how mind-bogglingly low DWP is stooping to scoop up people to work as fraud investigators.

Before you scoff and dismiss such claims as nonsense, consider that this is not the first time we’ve brought up the subject of benefit fraud investigators tampering with evidence and testimony.

So in this article, I’m going to take you on a journey through the good, the bad, and the ugly of benefit fraud. Hopefully by the end, we’ll have a very clear picture of the truth about what is really going on.

The Good
Well, the primary problem is that there are many good, honest people who suffer all kinds of problems as a result of a system that is far from perfect. These problems can range from stress and anxiety, all the way through to damaged reputation. In the worst scenarios, innocent people receive criminal convictions.

There are many people prosecuted for benefit fraud who should not be. It is very easy to make mistakes when claiming, and sometimes people simply don’t understand what they are required to report or when.

None of it is particularly straight-forward, and most importantly there is the issue that people can be led to believe that if they were not supposed to be receiving a sum of money then they would not be receiving it. They also may take the wording of the government’s own information sheets literally and believe that the government will rectify any problems that occur.

For example, there is a document titled “Personal Independence Payment – Additional Information” (PIP1(AI)), which was released in March 2015, stating:

If we pay you too much money
We have the right to take back any money we pay that you’re not entitled to. This may be because of the way the payment systems work. For example, you may give us some information which means you’re entitled to less money. Sometimes we may not be able to change the amount we’ve already paid you. This means we’ll have paid you money that you’re not entitled to. We’ll contact you before we take back any money.

Now, with wording like that, why would you ever imagine that, as long as you haven’t set out to commit fraud, you would ever be accused of fraud. The government, with this wording, is essentially saying “If we pay you too much money, don’t worry, we’ll sort it out and take back what was overpaid”.

Of course that’s not usually what happens when the government “notices” that an overpayment has occurred. Nonetheless, people can easily be lured into a false sense of confidence by wording like that.

There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that even trying to get the simplest information about benefits can be incredibly difficult. Going to the official website of the government and searching for information often takes you round and round in circles without really giving you any straight answers.

The documents and forms can be equally confusing. Imagine somebody with a learning disability or a person who has difficulty reading due to bad eyesight or someone who does not speak English well. If the questions on those documents can confuse people who don’t have those disadvantages, imagine how much worse it must be for those who do have them.

The government wants to be seen as “getting tough on layabouts” which is why they come out with contemptible fascist slogans such as “Every young person should be earning or learning” (Matt Hancock, 17 Aug 2015).

You may think that this shows how completely out of touch the politicians are, but I expect that the sad reality is they know perfectly well they’re being ridiculous, but it wins votes from gullible people.

These are the people they’ve been targeting with their anti-fraud messages. Not, mind you, the people who actually do commit fraud. It’s just the people who read newspapers and enjoy worrying about distant causes.

Could there be anyone out there who still honestly believes that if all the benefit fraud were completely eliminated tomorrow then the cost of bread would fall by 10% or that we’d see more hospital beds become available?

It’s time to stop treating people like criminals because they’ve ticked the wrong box on a form or failed to understand the correct meaning of a “change of circumstances.” These people may have made mistakes, but they’re certainly not fraudsters.

Iain Duncan Smith acknowledged this all the way back in 2011. Here is exactly what he said at that time:

The truth is quite a lot of what we here politically term constantly as ‘fraud’ is often ‘complexity error’, which is very easy for us to then say is fraud and people feel quite stigmatised by that. The truth is quite a lot is nothing to do with them, it’s the system itself. It simply means they didn’t understand what they were meant to be doing and now they are apparently committing fraud and a lot of them didn’t know that was the case.”

So, what could possibly have happened during the past four years to make DWP completely reverse its view on this highly sensitive issue? While the IDS quote is not worded too well, the meaning behind it is clear: people are being accused of fraud when they haven’t committed it, and politicians are exploiting a very vague definition of fraud to suit their own purposes.

The Bad
So we already know about good people being persecuted for simply making mistakes; what could be worse? How about the government persecuting people for its own mistakes?

Incredible as it may seem, they are doing this. In fact the government’s own statistics show very clearly that error contributes far more to lost revenue than it does fraud, but the interesting thing about this is that in the majority of cases the government responds aggressively and makes people feel that they have done wrong, when in fact it is the result of an error.

Government figures show that only about one third of lost revenue is due to fraud, and the vast majority of those fraud cases involve very small sums. A few very high-end fraud cases inflate the figures, and of course those are the ones that get the most media attention. It skews public perception of the fraud problem, which is already exaggerated to begin with.

Then there are cases of those who can be reported anonymously for cash rewards and stand to be held guilty until they can prove their innocence (at least as far as DWP is concerned), as Ron said in his rant that I mentioned at the start of this article.

Once such case involved a disabled man who is legally blind who had organised and participated in a charity dart competition. A certain civic-minded (or just plain greedy) member of the public decided that Robert Boon was just too good at darts to really be as blind as he claimed.

If nothing else, this case serves to highlight the terrible prejudices people make about what disabled people are capable of. It is offensive and wrong to make assumptions about disabled people, because unless you have walked a mile in their shoes (or perhaps rolled a mile in their wheelchair) you really do know nothing about the struggles they face and the many things they can do despite the disability that they have to cope with.

Then there are other cases such as the mother who applied for disability support for her two identical twin sons who are both equally disabled, and was granted support for only one of them. It points out that it’s really a lottery when you apply and often subject to individual discrimination rather than a proper and informed assessment based on the available evidence. This has nothing to do with benefit fraud, but it does show how the system is faulty and prone to error.

The Ugly
Well here I get to share with you some of the more interesting and bizarre cases. While they are exceptionally rare, less than 1% of the genuine frauds that occur, they are just so incredibly blatant and audacious they will astound you if you have not heard about them before.

Our first case study involves the fascinating story of illegal Nigerian immigrant, Saheed Ladega and his British partner Oluwatosin Gbadebo, who pulled off one of the most fascinating benefit frauds we’ve ever seen. From 1997 to 2006, the couple fraudulently claimed approximately £170,000 but that’s not the best part. The money was invested into property, meaning that by the time they were arrested, their asset portfolio was worth somewhere in the vicinity of £4 million. Now that’s enterprising!

Perhaps the really shocking thing is the incredibly lenient punishment that Ladgea received. Instead of getting prison time like his partner, he was merely deported. This does not seem to be an effective deterrent for Ladega because it was the second time he had been deported from the UK. Although he had travelled to the UK using a fake passport, he does not seem to have been required to face criminal charges for immigration fraud. Gbadebo, on the other hand, received an 18-month sentence for benefit fraud, and their five children had to be placed into care.

While it could be argued that the Nigerian was a true expert in the art of scamming, perhaps even a genius at his chosen trade, there is no doubt that our next case is. Whatever she may lack in smarts, Amanda Webber more than made up for by having an interesting hobby…. she is a mother of eight children! Even more interesting, she has eight very special children. Just not special in quite the way she claimed.

This is the story of a fraudster who claimed £350,000 in benefits for five supposedly disabled children who, according to her claim, had all kinds of problems including difficulty walking, unclear speech and fear of crowds. If she applied for DLA when they were newborns, then the claims would all have been true, because most newborn babies have all of those symptoms.

The problem is that if the change in circumstance is as big and obvious as starring in West End stage shows, you are definitely supposed to report that. Those kids were also attending fancy private schools, and their teachers were completely unaware that they had any disabilities.

What makes the case so imprudent is that she should have at the very least told the teachers that the kids did have disabilities, so they’d be impressed by how well the “disabled” kids were doing. She also probably shouldn’t have put up four “disabled” children to audition for Britain’s Got Talent.

Being a fraud investigator must be a lousy way to make a living, but while investigating this one, the Daily Mail reports the investigators sat in the audience and watched the show. If the taxpayers footed the bill for the tickets, it’s probably no big deal, but hopefully they bought their own snacks and drinks.

You want one more case? Fine, how about the Playboy model who received £44,000 in benefits because she was too sick to work? There’s nothing wrong with her doing this kind of job, of course, but if you are claiming any kind of benefit and you have a change of circumstances, especially one so obvious, you must report it! It’s just madness not to.

Of course the funny part about this case was that the perpetrator kept a detailed diary documenting her crimes. Fortunately most people who are claiming benefits don’t get up to these kinds of shenanigans. Even so, many thousands are caught up in the crackdown, either due to error or perhaps a little “creative license” with the truth. It happens, but it doesn’t have to end badly.

Hylton-Potts can help you if you have been accused of benefit fraud. Whatever you do, you should never admit to guilt if you have done nothing wrong. Don’t even say “sorry”… in fact don’t say anything. The worst mistake would be to follow the example of this unfortunate victim.

No matter how much you are being harassed or pressured by investigators, don’t give in. Hold your ground (and your silence) and give us a call on 020 7381 8111 or send an email to [email protected]ore trouble.

We would be interested in your comments, please leave them below.