Rent allowance Tennants

Editorial Note: Split off from this thread at this point in the discussion to create a new thread to prevent the original discussion from getting sidetracked.

Why would you say that?

Click to expand...

Because in many cases the person claiming single parents allowance is in a relationship and will cohabit with their partner. That partner’s income goes towards paying the rent.
I know of one situation where a couple have one child and the mother is renting his house from him, with rent allowance, and he is living in the house.
So the exchequer is paying his mortgage. Obviously his name is not on his own child’s birth cert in order for his partner to be claiming single parents allowance. She/they have also used the Saint Vincent DePaul to help out with clothes etc for their child and furniture for the house.
I would think that this particular situation is rare (where the partner owns the house), but I would suspect that this sort of fraud is very common. I cannot back my opinion up with hard facts but I have a lot of direct and indirect experience in this area.

I do not think that the help that lone parents get from the state should be cut (if anything it should be increased) but this sort of thing is griss to the mill for those lazy and opinionated people who drone on about “single mothers” screwing the system.
It’s not single mothers who are doing it, it’s couples who are stealing by telling lies.

Apologies for taking this thread off topic but I feel strongly about this and have refused to rent a house to a couple in this situation in the past. I have rented to a single mother who was getting rent allowance and she was a great tenant. So to answer ShaneyMac’s question; take it on a case by case basis but don’t rule out 70% of those calling you..

Purple said:

Because in many cases the person claiming single parents allowance is in a relationship and will cohabit with their partner.

Click to expand...

Many? How many?

I know of one situation ...

Click to expand...

Ah - one. I see.

I would think that this particular situation is rare (where the partner owns the house), but I would suspect that this sort of fraud is very common.

Click to expand...

OK - so it's a hunch rather than something supported by any objective evidence?

I cannot back my opinion up with hard facts but I have a lot of direct and indirect experience in this area.

Click to expand...

OK - so it's based on assumptions and limited anecdotal evidence. Hmmm...

I do not think that the help that lone parents get from the state should be cut (if anything it should be increased) but this sort of thing is griss to the mill for those lazy and opinionated people who drone on about “single mothers” screwing the system.

Click to expand...

Which sort of thing - people jumping to conclusions based on little or no hard evidence perhaps?

I understand where Purple is coming from on this one.

I worked for the DHSS in the North of Ireland and many, I can't quote exact numbers - although it was probably in the region of 75%, cases were similar to the one he experienced.

DHSS Inspectors concentrated on 'Single Mother / Lone Parent' cases and would 'stake out' houses where they were supposedly living alone with their children. Unfortunately, for them, they weren't and benefits were in many cases suspended.

Unfortunately, for the tax payer, the level of surveillance required to ascertain the exact living arrangements of claimants and their 'estranged' partners was colossal and oftentimes impossible to implement due to budget constraints so that the actual level of fraud could have been much higher.

Purple said:

I know of one situation where a couple have one child and the mother is renting his house from him, with rent allowance, and he is living in the house.
So the exchequer is paying his mortgage. Obviously his name is not on his own child’s birth cert in order for his partner to be claiming single parents allowance. She/they have also used the Saint Vincent DePaul to help out with clothes etc for their child and furniture for the house.
I would think that this particular situation is rare (where the partner owns the house), but I would suspect that this sort of fraud is very common.

Click to expand...

So have you reported the fraudsters?

delgirl said:

I can't quote exact numbers - although it was probably in the region of 75%, cases were similar to the one he experienced.

Click to expand...

That's a fairly exact number for somebody who claims that they can't quote them!

DHSS Inspectors concentrated on 'Single Mother / Lone Parent' cases and would 'stake out' houses where they were supposedly living alone with their children. Unfortunately, for them, they weren't and benefits were in many cases suspended.

Click to expand...

That's not unfortuante - it's proper order.

By the way, my issue here is with people jumping to possibly fallacious conclusions from no or only limited anecdotal evidence and I am in no way trying to excuse or protect welfare cheats. I am all for welfare fraud being stamped out as, where it happens, it is a real rip-off on society unlike some of the stuff that people rant about being rip-offs.

If somebody has hard figures and evidence of the level of welfare fraud, in particular in relation to bogus lone parent claims, then by all means post it. However those who draw conclusions without such evidence should expect to be challenged.

If somebody has hard figures and evidence of the level of welfare fraud, in particular in relation to bogus lone parent claims, then by all means post it. However those who draw conclusions without such evidence should expect to be challenged.

Click to expand...

[broken link removed]

€27 million saved by catching people claiming one parent family payments in six months of investigating in 2004

Recent reports put the cost of one parent family payments around €800m p.a

If extrapoltaed that is 6.75% of claims in 2004 were proved to be fraudulunt
That must be considered to be a high percentage of fraudulunt cases
As we are talking about proven cases of fraud and not just suspected

Clubman, not all arguments can be backed up with hard evidence, that's life. As I stated above I have quite a broad experience in this area. I cannot and will not go into details as some people who know me read AAM and they would know whom I am talking about. I have formed my opinions based on my experience and from friends who work full time in this area.
Despite political knowledge of this problem (again all I can offer is first hand experience, not statistics) there had been no attempt to scientifically quantify this problem by the authorities.
Can you accept that benefit fraud exists and that in a world where personal honour is not highly valued by all, the general scenario outlined above is possible or even likely? While I agree that my argument is weakened by the lack of hard facts I find your selective dissection and inability to address the general point both irksome and juvenile.
I am not the only poster who finds this to be so but would qualify this by saying that IMHO you consistently make the biggest and most valuable contribution to AAM.
I am sure that makes you feel a whole lot better! ;-)

Rainyday; yes I have.

stuart said:

[broken link removed]

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link stuart.

€27 million saved by catching people claiming one parent family payments in six months of investigating in 2004

Recent reports put the cost of one parent family payments around €800m p.a

If extrapoltaed that is 6.75% of claims in 2004 were proved to be fraudulunt

Click to expand...

I don't think that this is necessarily a logical conclusion. The €27M saved is not necessarily totally attributable to 2004 alone and may include recovery of fraudulent claims from previous years etc. As such it may not make sense to simply express the savings as a percentage of the 2004 payments for these schemes and the rate of proven fraud is likely to be lower than the extrapolated 6.75%, possibly significantly so.

Purple said:

Clubman, not all arguments can be backed up with hard evidence, that's life. As I stated above I have quite a broad experience in this area. I cannot and will not go into details as some people who know me read AAM and they would know whom I am talking about. I have formed my opinions based on my experience and from friends who work full time in this area.

Click to expand...

Fair enough but you'll have to excuse me when attribute vague, anonymous anecdotal evidence the authority that it deserves.

Despite political knowledge of this problem (again all I can offer is first hand experience, not statistics) there had been no attempt to scientifically quantify this problem by the authorities.

Click to expand...

Even if I disagree with his extrapolations, stuart's link above would contradict you there.

Can you accept that benefit fraud exists and that in a world where personal honour is not highly valued by all, the general scenario outlined above is possible or even likely?

Click to expand...

Of course I recognise that fraud exists. It's the prevalence of it that I'm trying to clarify here. I don't accept anecdotal evidence as proof that it is as widespread as some people make out.

While I agree that my argument is weakened by the lack of hard facts I find your selective dissection and inability to address the general point both irksome and juvenile.

Click to expand...

Here we go yet again...

Where have I engaged in "selective dissection" whatever that means? In my opinion dealing with the general point requires some establishment of the facts rather than jumping to conclusions from vague, anecdotal evidence. On that basis my contributions are quite relevant to the issue in hand. I can't understand why people who dislike being challenged in this way try to dismiss such contributions as some sort of distraction from the main discussion. At least stuart responded with some useful information rather than simply dismissing my comments. Neither can I understand how people can take umbrage at the "quoting and responding" style of posting that I and others sometime use. Sometimes I wonder if some AAM contributors are big softies the way they get offended at mere words and issues of "style/tone"? Often these people are the ones to accuse people like me of dragging the thread off topic whereas it is they, by engaging in criticism of others' posting styles that initiate this, Ultimately if anybody doesn't like my contributions then feel free to ignore them. I'd suggest that they should open a new thread to discuss my or anybody else's "style" if they were so motivated but at this stage I can't be bothered trying to engage on the issue with people who seem to get so easily offended or irritated by mine. And if they want to post rants based on their own anecdotal evidence and/or prejudices without challenge then maybe somewhere like boards.ie might be a better platform?

Oh - and by the way - whatever about describing them as "irksome" I consider your claim that my comments or behaviour are "juvenile" to be offensive and in breach of the . This is another characteristic of some people who engage in criticism of other contributors' posting styles - they accuse the individual in question of breaching the posting guidelines (not in this case though) while hypocritically doing the very same thing themselves.

I am not the only poster who finds this to be so but would qualify this by saying that IMHO you consistently make the biggest and most valuable contribution to AAM.
I am sure that makes you feel a whole lot better! ;-)

Click to expand...

Damned with faint praise?

€27 million saved by catching people claiming one parent family payments in six months of investigating in 2004

Recent reports put the cost of one parent family payments around €800m p.a

If extrapoltaed that is 6.75% of claims in 2004 were proved to be fraudulunt

Click to expand...

The problem with this extrapolation is that there would normally be a significant selection bias in the cases investigated for fraud in any given year - in many of these cases, the authorities would be investigating as a result of tip-offs or otherwise on the basis of suspicions garnered by their own personnel on the ground in handling and processing applications etc.

To take a parallel example, if x number of thousand householders are investigated for suspected TV licence evasion in a given year (presumably on the basis of gaps in An Post's databases), and 90% are eventually found to have no TV licence, this does not mean that 90% of all households are in the same category.

The problem with this extrapolation is that there would normally be a significant selection bias in the cases investigated

Click to expand...

It was only extrapolated to cover a full year as it was for 6 months
That has nothing to do with the amount of cases investigated

And from

[broken link removed]

It looks like it would be normal to have that level of fraud uncovered
(€50m for year ended 2001)

That's a lot of cases each year

Even if I disagree with his extrapolations, stuart's link above would contradict you there.

Click to expand...

As you pointed out to Stuart the information he supplied is not exact.

Fair enough but you'll have to excuse me when attribute vague, anonymous anecdotal evidence the authority that it deserves.

Click to expand...

not sure that you mean there.

It's the prevalence of it that I'm trying to clarify here. I don't accept anecdotal evidence as proof that it is as widespread as some people make out.

Click to expand...

I did not quantify how common I thought the problem was. "Very common" is a subjective term. My post was subjective; I did not claim to be an authority on the subject I just spoke from first and second hand experience.

Oh - and by the way - whatever about describing them as "irksome" I consider your claim that my comments or behaviour are "juvenile" to be offensive and in breach of the posting guidelines. This is another characteristic of some people who engage in criticism of other contributors' posting styles - they accuse the individual in question of breaching the posting guidelines (not in this case though) while hypocritically doing the very same thing themselves.

Click to expand...

I accept you point about my use of the word "juvenile" and apologies. I also agree with your more general (and vague) second point here. I am by no means perfect and so try and stay off the moral high ground. By the way I did not feel in the least bit offended by your post, just irked and em... just irked.

Damned with faint praise?

Click to expand...

Not at all, I meant every bit of it (the nice bit).

Purple said:

As you pointed out to Stuart the information he supplied is not exact.

Click to expand...

No - I disagreed with his extrapolation from the information supplied and not the original figures in question. Note also that what I was actually referring to as being contradicted by the link/information in question was this comment from you:

Purple said:

Despite political knowledge of this problem (again all I can offer is first hand experience, not statistics) there had been no attempt to scientifically quantify this problem by the authorities.

Click to expand...

not sure that you mean there.

Click to expand...

I mean I don't take such vague, anonymous and anecdotal evidence too seriously in terms of arriving at conclusions on issues such as this.

I did not quantify how common I thought the problem was. "Very common" is a subjective term. My post was subjective; I did not claim to be an authority on the subject I just spoke from first and second hand experience.

Click to expand...

This comment suggests that you feel that it is widespread:

Purple said:

Because in many cases the person claiming single parents allowance is in a relationship and will cohabit with their partner. That partner’s income goes towards paying the rent.

Click to expand...

I accept you point about my use of the word "juvenile" and apologies. I also agree with your more general (and vague) second point here. I am by no means perfect and so try and stay off the moral high ground. By the way I did not feel in the least bit offended by your post, just irked and em... just irked.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Apology and the bona fides of your critical response to my comments accepted. I'm just fed up with some people getting their knickers in a twist when it comes to my posting style etc.

Not at all, I meant every bit of it (the nice bit).

Click to expand...

Thanks.

This comment suggests that you feel that it is widespread

Click to expand...

I think that it is widespread, but as I have said repeatedly this is only my opinion. To me widespread would mean 10% plus. I am not saying that the figure is 10%, since I only have my own experience and the opinions of others who are closer to the subject to base my opinions on, but I am not suggesting or intending to imply that most people who claim lone parent allowance are cheats.
The general point I was making is that this sort of fraud by couples is used by some (again no figures!) as a stick to beat the generic "single mother" with. I find this unfair as most of the real lone parents struggle both financially and mentally to cope with their circumstances and in my opinion those who abuse the structures put in place to help vulnerable people are reprehensible scum.

I'm just fed up with some people getting their knickers in a twist when it comes to my posting style etc.

Click to expand...

I just feel that you sometimes don't see the wood for the trees. I accept that a detailed critical response is a good thing but not if it doesn't deal with the thrust of the argument being made. No offence meant and I don’t mean to sound patronising, even though I sound patronising…

Congratulations on the new baby by the way, can you type and do the night feeds at the same time? (I only mastered it on the third one).

Purple said:

I just feel that you sometimes don't see the wood for the trees. I accept that a detailed critical response is a good thing but not if it doesn't deal with the thrust of the argument being made.

Click to expand...

But often the problem is that some people see a wood where there are no trees - i.e. the thurst of the argument cannot be supported by an objective examination of the underlying facts. The fact that some people, when reasonably (in my view) challenged to substantiate the thrust of their argument with some supporting facts, cannot do so and instead paint any detailed examination of the issue as nitpicking, frivolous or distracting is irrelevant. There is no point in allowing people to make sweeping generalisations based on their own prejudices or anecdotal evidence (e.g. Purple: "in many cases the person claiming single parents allowance is in a relationship and will cohabit with their partner", " I would suspect that this sort of fraud is very common"; delgirl: "I can't quote exact numbers - although it was probably in the region of 75%, cases were similar to the one he experienced [i.e. lone parent welfare fraud]"; stuart: " If extrapoltaed that is 6.75% of claims in 2004 were proved to be fraudulunt" etc.). and then dismissing requests for supporting objective evidence as irrelevant. If this was acceptable then imagine how much rubbish would be posted on AAM? As I say, if people want a forum to air mindless rants with no reality check against the facts then I'm sure that there are other bulletin boards that might suit them better than AAM.

There are two issues here (a) welfare fraud, including lone parent fraud, happens but we're not sure of the extent right now and (b) there is no objective evidence to support the assertion that many/most/75% of lone parents engage in welfare fraud or that it is "very common". I don't think it's irrelevant to the matter in hand to clarify these issues and to challenge fallacious statements and analyses of the matters.

Congratulations on the new baby by the way, can you type and do the night feeds at the same time? (I only mastered it on the third one).

Click to expand...

Thanks. Haven't mastered the multi-tasking yet either...

ClubMan said:

Neither can I understand how people can take umbrage at the "quoting and responding" style of posting that I and others sometime use. Sometimes I wonder if some AAM contributors are big softies the way they get offended at mere words and issues of "style/tone"?

Click to expand...

For me, I find threads very hard to read when they are cut up in "quoting and responding" style. I have nothing against being asked for hard facts/data and I understand the importance of quoting (im using it here), but when someones response consists of someone elses post cut up with just one line retorts it becomes very hard to follow the thread and debate, especially if it happens over and over again. This is what I call ping/pong posting which in my mind is different to "quoting and responding" style. When it starts I usually stop following the thread.

By the way, eventhough im quoting you clubman im not just refering to your style, many posters pingpong.

casiopea said:

... but when someones response consists of someone elses post cut up with just one line retorts it becomes very hard to follow the thread and debate, especially if it happens over and over again.

Click to expand...

Well I actually find it easier to follow discussions when this is done so perhaps it's just a subjective thing? Regardless of whether one finds it easier or hard to read I can't for the life of me figure out how some people seem to read into this style of posting some sort of impoliteness, rudeness, aggression etc. as has happened in the past. This has lead me to conclude that some people are simply too soft to deal with the cut and thrust of discussion given that mere words and posting styles seem to upset them so much. I wonder how people like this manage to get through life in the big bad world out there sometimes...

By the way, eventhough im quoting you clubman im not just refering to your style, many posters pingpong.

Click to expand...

No problem. Ping-pong is a good name alright...

(e.g. Purple: "in many cases the person claiming single parents allowance is in a relationship and will cohabit with their partner", " I would suspect that this sort of fraud is very common"; delgirl: "I can't quote exact numbers - although it was probably in the region of 75%, cases were similar to the one he experienced [i.e. lone parent welfare fraud]"; Stuart: " If extrapolated that is 6.75% of claims in 2004 were proved to be fraudulent" etc.).

Click to expand...

Hi ClubMan, delgirl also said;

Unfortunately, for the tax payer, the level of surveillance required to ascertain the exact living arrangements of claimants and their 'estranged' partners was colossal and oftentimes impossible to implement due to budget constraints so that the actual level of fraud could have been much higher.

Click to expand...

So while Stuart's figures show the level of fraud that was detected delgirl, who has direct professional experience in this area, says that it is not investigated so the actual level could, in her professional opinion, be much higher.
The only body that could answer that question is the department of social welfare and then only after they spend a prohibitive amount of money on it. It would be politically and financially counter productive to do so, so it's not going to happen.

My point is that the quotes you took neither back up or discredits the proposition that lone parent welfare fraud is common.
All that has been offered here is the opinion of people who have some experience in the area. The same statistics can be used to back up contrary opinions. The best example of this, in my opinion, is (and again I am going off topic) the way figures are used to show that we are/are not giving our fair share in development aid.

Purple said:

The only body that could answer that question is the department of social welfare and then only after they spend a prohibitive amount of money on it. It would be politically and financially counter productive to do so, so it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Apart from the press release mentioned above by stuart I'm fairly sure that the most recent annual report from the DSFA/Welfare includes some figures on actual or suspected welfare fraud but I was unable to find the report online when I looked yesterday...

My point is that the quotes you took neither back up or discredits the proposition that lone parent welfare fraud is common.

Click to expand...

My point is that the quotes alleging widespread fraud in this context that I mentioned are not backed up with any objective data. If somebody can show data that supports the assertion that "many/most/75%/etc." of lone parent cases are fraudulent then that's fine. However people can't just say things off the top of their head and expect everybody else to accept it as fact.

All that has been offered here is the opinion of people who have some experience in the area.

Click to expand...

Opinions are all well and good but need to be double checked against the facts before they can be accepted as reasonable.

The same statistics can be used to back up contrary opinions.

Click to expand...

As I say - all things being equal, if somebody (e.g. the DSFA) had figures clearly showing that a specific percentage of welfare claims are fraudulent then one would have to accept them.

Again I am not saying that lone parent fraud does not happen or is not widespread. I am just saying that we can't claim that it is widespread without some supporting evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to support the case in my opinion because it cannot be independently and objectively verified.