Dwp Refuses To Pay £150 Million Owed From Botched Re-Assessments

[Kromovaracun]

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/anger-over-dwp-refusal-to-repay-claimants-150-million-from-botched-reassessments/

National Audit Office found that the DWP underpaid approximately 70,000 disabled people between 2011 and 2014 because it "failed to realise" that they were eligible for income-related ESA.

The DWP is, however, refusing to pay anyone whose claim was not specifically active on the date the ruling was made in October 2014 - despite the fact that it has a legal responsibility to identify those affected.

Is this a case of incompetence or malice?

[dannyk13]

A little of both I suspect.

[Old_Geezer]

In the circumstances described a bit of not wanting an unexpected financial headache and doing what 'all' organisations do, looking for a loophole to get rid of it and not caring who they disadvantage or treat unfairly as a result.

[Old_Geezer]

Seems to me that a ruling clarifying the legitimacy, or otherwise, of a practice already in place can't be claimed as a cut off point. It merely identifies the error already exists.

[jim360]

It's probably better described as a case of legal ambiguity. Perhaps in a future case this will be resolved, but for the moment the law appears to be (sadly) on the DWP's side.

[youngmafbog]

The law may be on their side jim but it is not a major amount by country standards but a large amount by individuals so surly they have a moral duty?


Is this a case of incompetence or malice?
A bit from column A and a bit from column B would be my take.

[jim360]

Oh yes, I'd agree that morally this money should be paid out -- but the legal advice is trumping such petty concerns as "morality", in any effort to save money. The DWP has, to be fair, been probably the most extensive target of "austerity" measures, and I don't for a second think it's the fault of the officials, or at least not of most of them. The Department's approach is led from the top, so it's to the ministers I'd look for the source of this sort of legal pedantry.

[youngmafbog]

There are plenty of people one the skive using disability. We had a few tenants doing such and other s in the roads (we grassed them up), plus I know that people tried to get their kids labelled with something to claim DLA too(thankfully this is now stopping)

The DWP need to firmly aim at those people but be seen to be whiter than white when it comes to genuine claimants to stop the howls of 'hitting the poor and disabled' from the left.

[jim360]

I'm sure the DWP would be the first in line to beg you to explain how to unequivocally tell the two apart. But that's got very little to do with this case.

[youngmafbog]

It is possible and they do do it.

No nothing to do with this case I was just replying to your post on savings and suggesting that is where saving money should be aimed, not at genuine claimants.

[jim360]

Ah, but now we are getting into the technicalities here. The DWP's case is, in effect, that these weren't genuine claimants at the time (ie, prior to October 2014), so why should they be handing money out to non-genuine claimants? That the guidance subsequently changed doesn't affect that, legally. Or maybe it does.

I suppose the point is that the definition of "genuine" is subjective, both in law and, for that matter, in public opinion. It's pretty obvious that someone who is faking every detail of their claim is not a "genuine" claimant, by definition, but once you move away from blatant dishonesty it gets rather a lot woollier than you are giving it credit for.

It's about your general approach at that point: should the government be looking to help as many people as possible, or should it be looking to give out as little money as possible? At the moment, the current government's approach is essentially the latter. Obviously the former approach is unsustainable also, so you need to seek a balance (and, again, for the record, this decision is IMO on the wrong side of that balance!), but it's not nearly so clear-cut as all that all the same.

[Kromovaracun]

//to stop the howls of 'hitting the poor and disabled' from the left.//

We'll howl all we like considering it is actually happening.

Seeing to genuine claimants must come as a higher priority than rooting out fraudulent ones. The system exists for the benefit of genuine claimants, and if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do then all money spent on it is wasted.

[youngmafbog]

Krom, have you deliberately misread my posts?

[redvanman]

Wish they were as keen on collecting tax from the very rich

[Peter Pedant]

it is "use it or lose it" innit

if they didnt apply - they cant really argue that they have lost by official negligence

[ 20 yr War Loan - you gave the gobmint money and they gave varying interest until repay day in 20y - they didnt tell people their war loan was being repaid 1960. You had to remember and apply and have the bit of paper. - and not be bombed out or lost the paper. They refused to tell people to apply - you had to kinda have a longa memory.

A later commentator said: " the civil servants who had promised the earth during the war, then set about depriving the people of the benefits they had previously promised and to which they were entitled."

1940 - 'twas always thus

[Peter Pedant]

// The system exists for the benefit of genuine claimants, // and not as a punishment system for frauds

agreed - should be said much more often

[Peter Pedant]

// should the government be looking to help as many people as possible, or should it be looking to give out as little money as possible?//

yup Jim - the latter

how much of the fund should the assessment system cost ? - if you feel that the system exists to give civil servants jobs then up to 100% - a huge building whose only output is 'no you cannot have the money you applied for'

( sounds like a good model for NHS financing)