Jump to content

Talk:Benefit fraud in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fair use rationale for Image:Extra hours.jpg

[edit]

Image:Extra hours.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Date needed

[edit]

There's a paragraph beginning "Recently ..." which needs a date, since this is an encyclopedia article and will be read many years from now. Thanks. Softlavender 13:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to 'In the first decade of the 2000s' since this is the decade we're in and it is the time period to which the statement refers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually 21st Century is more accurate. The 2000s are the first decade of the 21st Century. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake: needs amended

[edit]

ref to add for quote http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/dundeecity/uploaded_publications/publication_223.pdf its the only ref I found but is in the guidance for benefit fraud investigation could some one please add it or find a better reference. Away to play in the sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeganumber (talk • contribs) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Rename to Benefit fraud in the United Kingdom. Valid arguments for merging with Welfare fraud but the shortness of that article would end up giving undue weight to this UK material compared to the remainder of the page. However, have inserted a paragraph there with link to this page. Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a brief mention of media attention in Australia, this article seems to focus solely on benefit fraud in the UK. We should expand the article to cover the topic from a broader perspective. I've added a {{globalise}} tag for now. -- Avenue (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it might be better to merge with welfare fraud.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't seen that article. It seems to cover much the same concept, so yes, merging benefit fraud and welfare fraud would make sense to me. Another alternative would be to rename this one "Benefit fraud in the United Kingdom", and work on expanding the other one. From its wording, and the inclusion of a Norwegian example, the other article seems readier to accommodate a wider geographical range than this one. -- Avenue (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming, not merging. Sources seem to be for one country, rather than international, so we would end up with one article heavily biassed towards two countries rather than two articles explicitly about one country each. Abigailgem (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think renaming seems like the smartest option: Benefit Fraud -> Welfare Fraud in the United Kingdom. Then it can be listed as a link on the Welfare Fraud page leading to the example. Similar things exist, for example, with: "Health Care" (general overview), and "Health Care in [Country]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.221.123 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I don't think welfare fraud is unique to the United Kingdom, it just seems to be a popular topic in the British gutter press. The issues involved in welfare fraud are common to other nations - I'd suggest merging it with Welfare fraud.Gymnophoria (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed section

[edit]

I have commented out the following section as it is disputed within the article. Disputed statements should be debated in Talk pages, not within the article itself.

While there has been publicity that the DWP are able to use electronic means (data mining) to identify fraud, there does not appear to be any evidence that they are able to manipulate their own data in such a way as to identify fraud effectively. Such system, were it to be effective, would cost well in excess of total benefit fraud, which is only 0.7% of the welfare budget. *This is incorrect and one of the main methods of identifying fraudsters is actually data matching from other agencies i.e. the tax office. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported claims of Benefit fraud abroad

[edit]

"Between April 2008 and March 2009 it is estimated that £55 million was lost as a result of benefit fraud overpayments to British claimants who did not tell the authorities they were living or travelling abroad."?

Unless some evidence can be presented to back it up, should not this unsupported claim be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.229.127 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bother Is (still) Watching Us!

[edit]

"The most recent campaign makes claims about the likelihood of getting caught and the consequences of committing benefit fraud using ‘And they thought they’d never be caught’ as the leading slogan."

Since this statement reads like some 1984 style dis-information, should not Wikipedia consider whether it is helping the British government to push its' agenda against the poor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.241.116 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benefit fraud in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery from estates

[edit]

I think we some mention of this. There's a section within DWP that monitors published grants of probate and checks whether a deceased benefit claimant had more capital on death than they had declared when alive. They can then pursue the estate for any overpayment of benefit. If you're the executor of the estate then dealing with this can be a right pain (and the effort totally disproportionate to the amount at stake). While this is well known among solicitors and others who deal with estates it's not well publicised, and finding good sources may be tricky. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benefit_fraud_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1256555890"