Benefit Fraud Case

I wonder if I could have some opinions on this, it is a little involved but I think is indicative of how our government conducts itself, in this case, with regard tackling benefit cheats.

Essentially, my Parent's next-door-neighbour has recently been acquitted of benefit fraud.

My Parents are somewhat elderly and I am not well acquainted with their neighbour so I can’t really vouch for the accuracy of all the details. Nevertheless, even if the story as relayed to me is slightly exaggerated it still represents a harrowing account of how a middle aged disabled woman was mistreated at the hands of the Police and the DWP.

The Woman in question is in her 50's and physically disabled due to having lost the lower half of one of her legs. She therefore relies on a prosthetic replacement.

She is also a carer to her severely disabled Son. She has been involved in a relationship with a man and he has recently moved in with her. They plan to get married in the near future. Her benefit arrangements have been adjusted accordingly because her Husband-to-be has a reasonably well paid job.

She was arrested some weeks ago for alleged benefit fraud, escorted out of her home in handcuffs in full view of all her neighbours and taken to the Police Station. At the Station she was scanned for metal objects, a not unwise precaution given the propensity for some to be carrying a blade, but one that would depend on the circumstances and the person arrested, or so I would have thought.

Of course, the metal joint in the prosthetic leg registered with the metal detector. She was asked what it was and when she explained she was mockingly disbelieved in spite of the fact she walks with a profound limp. She was made to remove her jeans and then made to remove the prosthesis in order to prove that there was no weapon. She then had to give the ubiquitous DNA sample and was held in a cell awaiting interview.

At the interview she had been charged with the general crime of benefit fraud but the Police did not present any details of the alleged fraud itself. There was no tangible, documented evidence that could indicate exactly what she was supposed to be guilty of. The Police seemed out of their depths and no one from the DWP was there to explain the case against her. She was nevertheless warned, that if found guilty she could expect a custodial sentence.

On release from the Police Station she and her solicitor had the task of trawling through the pile of various documents that thankfully she had kept in order to build an auditable history of receipts and payments.

Neither she nor the Solicitor could find any evidence that the information she had given the DWP either didn’t reflect her present or past circumstances or didn’t match the benefits she was in receipt of and entitled to.

At her trial the DWP failed to make any coherent case against her alluding instead to some overpayment that they had made in error. The case against her was therefore dropped.

This is the sort of thing that would normally be dealt with by DWP staff by letter or perhaps by interview. I can understand the need to prosecute fraudsters and so can appreciate the need for the Police to be involved when there is clear evidence of wilful wrongdoing.

What I can’t get to grips with is how someone can be arrested and charged and then leave custody without a clear idea of the exact nature of their alleged offence. This seems to me to be a departure from the norms of legal process.

I am also concerned that an obviously disabled woman could be so humiliated by having to remove clothing and her prosthetic leg because of a procedure designed to protect the Police from fit, young, violent men who may be carrying a gun or a knife. Moreover the relevant details of the case would have clearly indicated that she was in receipt of benefit partly because of her disability.

At the time of arrest there were a number of other people arrested for benefit fraud. It would appear that this is part of a concerted and well publicised campaign that the government are mounting at the moment. I think that the DWP allowed this case to proceed to arrest because they had been given a target to meet in terms of numbers arrested for cheating the benefit system. This, I feel is why the DWP didn’t intervene by informing her that there was a possible mismatch between her benefit entitlement and her circumstances.

The Taxpayer has had to foot the bill for a trial that could never have resulted in a successful conviction. The DWP could have saved public money by intervening earlier. It seems to me that the present government tackles every problem with one eye on the need to be seen to be doing something rather than the need to achieve a fair and successful result.