Should We Congratulate HBC ? - Page 2

Benipete · 14-10-2008, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

The costs of this investigation will be one junior clerk's wages for one day at most.
When I was at DHSS this type of check was regular practice and that is why I say that it should have been made annually as a matter of course, and not wait until some have got away with it for years.

That depends on the standard of education achieved by the junior clerk.Now my experience tells me that an amoeba could do a far better job.

Sorry to say it yet again but the standard of education and experience in this country has fallen to that of America -Yo-My man.It's a disgrace!!

den the menace · 14-10-2008, 15:05

i would think more of these council fraud investigators if they also went after people who are harder to catch, lets face it, a 10 year old could have worked out the discrepancy between the electrol list and community charge payers claiming to be single.

how about having a pop at the self employed who under declare their income both to the inland revenue and to HBC, to my mind this class of people are just as bad as people defrauding the social, but you never hear of them being prosecuted do you?
just a thought

Less · 14-10-2008, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

I wonder if anyone on here will admit to getting caught committing this fraud?

I didn't get done for fiddling, but I did have a very bad few months when they wrongly accused me, but wouldn't accept that their system wasn't infallible,
in the end even the boss of their department said they had been over zealous in their attempts to prosecute and the figure I was accused of was far less than the average these people caught weren't prosecuted for.

Allow me to say the full sordid tale of incompetence in any other business would have meant someone's job for that gross cock up!

Lilly · 14-10-2008, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

I didn't get done for fiddling, but I did have a very bad few months when they wrongly accused me, but wouldn't accept that their system wasn't infallible,
in the end even the boss of their department said they had been over zealous in their attempts to prosecute and the figure I was accused of was far less than the average these people caught weren't prosecuted for.

Allow me to say the full sordid tale of incompetence in any other business would have meant someone's job for that gross cock up!

So should we be congratulating them over this fraud issue?

I think yes we should.

Less · 14-10-2008, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

So should we be congratulating them over this fraud issue?

I think yes we should.

Only if they had gone that step further and passed them onto the courts, I've no objection to the guilty being prosecuted, but the way they also treat the innocent, is beyond the pale!

jaysay · 14-10-2008, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by den the menace

i would think more of these council fraud investigators if they also went after people who are harder to catch, lets face it, a 10 year old could have worked out the discrepancy between the electrol list and community charge payers claiming to be single.

how about having a pop at the self employed who under declare their income both to the inland revenue and to HBC, to my mind this class of people are just as bad as people defrauding the social, but you never hear of them being prosecuted do you?
just a thought

Oh yes you do den, the revenue and customs do prosecute on a regular basis, a fact that I'm think West Ender may agree

garinda · 14-10-2008, 16:32

It's good that this money is to be repaid, but why aren't these fraudsters to be prosecuted, and fined?

Hardly a deterrent to anyone else thinking of making a false claim.

West Ender · 14-10-2008, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Oh yes you do den, the revenue and customs do prosecute on a regular basis, a fact that I'm think West Ender may agree

Yes they do prosecute quite a lot. Others are dealt with by way of fines and penalties, it depends how much they've tried to get away with. It's really what HMRC is about nowadays, Compliance, they're mainly geared up to making sure everybody complies with the Law and they're very thorough about it.

garinda · 14-10-2008, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

Yes they do prosecute quite a lot. Others are dealt with by way of fines and penalties, it depends how much they've tried to get away with. It's really what HMRC is about nowadays, Compliance, they're mainly geared up to making sure everybody complies with the Law and they're very thorough about it.

'The 193 residents were interviewed and ordered to pay back the money, some of which dated back years.'

It might be that you are tougher in Cheshire than we are here in Hyndburn, as there's no mention of any prosecutions in the local press.

West Ender · 14-10-2008, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

'The 193 residents were interviewed and ordered to pay back the money, some of which dated back years.'

It might be that you are tougher in Cheshire than we are here in Hyndburn, as there's no mention of any prosecutions in the local press.

Oh I'm only talking about Income Tax, I don't know anything about what the local Council does with Council Tax fraud.

Eric · 14-10-2008, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Each week we read in the local press the names of those prosecuted, and fined, for not paying their television licence.

Perhaps if the council had the determination to prosecute these fraudsters, the Observer could have produced a full colour suplement for it's readers.

You need a licence to operate a tv!

You gotta be kidding. Is there some sort of test to take on how to operate a remote.

WillowTheWhisp · 14-10-2008, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

You need a licence to operate a tv!

Unfortunately not Eric. For a couple of years Busman was hounded for not having a TV licence despite the fact that he didn't actually have a TV!

katex · 14-10-2008, 21:41

Still suppose is nowt to what they are owed by bad payers ... £1,500,000.

Hope they don't come after me .. kept my son on the electoral register for a few years, even though he has lived in Manchester since he was 18 (8 years ago) .. and paying council tax over there. Being stupid like, always considered Clayton was his home basically, but not legally. When I knocked him into touch ... realising may have problems 'cause was claiming 25% single occupancy, the collector of the electoral form commented that they never compared the two so wouldn't have been a problem anyway. How wrong were they.

Hope they will not see this and investigate ...LOL

cashman · 14-10-2008, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

So should we be congratulating them over this fraud issue?

I think yes we should.

why? they aint prosecuted!! like others said, weres the deterrant in that?

andrewb · 14-10-2008, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Still suppose is nowt to what they are owed by bad payers ... £1,500,000.

Hope they don't come after me .. kept my son on the electoral register for a few years, even though he has lived in Manchester since he was 18 (8 years ago) .. and paying council tax over there. Being stupid like, always considered Clayton was his home basically, but not legally. When I knocked him into touch ... realising may have problems 'cause was claiming 25% single occupancy, the collector of the electoral form commented that they never compared the two so wouldn't have been a problem anyway. How wrong were they.

Hope they will not see this and investigate ...LOL

I find the thread rather interesting. At the student accommodation I lived at last year, the university automatically registered you, people were still registered there after they moved out, as they failed to register elsewhere during that period. Now you can remain registered at several addresses, and in local elections you can vote in more than one area. As for general elections you are obviously only allowed to vote in one location. Could anyone help explain how its checked that you don't vote in two locations for a general election?