Why would you say that?
Many? How many?Purple said:Because in many cases the person claiming single parents allowance is in a relationship and will cohabit with their partner.
Ah - one. I see.I know of one situation ...
OK - so it's a hunch rather than something supported by any objective evidence?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.
OK - so it's based on assumptions and limited anecdotal evidence. Hmmm...I cannot back my opinion up with hard facts but I have a lot of direct and indirect experience in this area.
Which sort of thing - people jumping to conclusions based on little or no hard evidence perhaps?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.
So have you reported the fraudsters?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.
That's a fairly exact number for somebody who claims that they can't quote them!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.
That's not unfortuante - it's proper order.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.
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.
Thanks for the link stuart.stuart said:[broken link removed]
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.€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
Fair enough but you'll have to excuse me when attribute vague, anonymous anecdotal evidence the authority that it deserves.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.
Even if I disagree with his extrapolations, stuart's link above would contradict you there.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.
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.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?
Here we go yet again...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.
Damned with faint praise?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! ;-)
€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
The problem with this extrapolation is that there would normally be a significant selection bias in the cases investigated
As you pointed out to Stuart the information he supplied is not exact.Even if I disagree with his extrapolations, stuart's link above would contradict you there.
not sure that you mean there.Fair enough but you'll have to excuse me when attribute vague, anonymous anecdotal evidence the authority that it deserves.
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.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.
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.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.
Not at all, I meant every bit of it (the nice bit).Damned with faint praise?
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:As you pointed out to Stuart the information he supplied is not exact.
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.
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.not sure that you mean there.
This comment suggests that you feel that it is widespread: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.
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.
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.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.
Thanks.Not at all, I meant every bit of it (the nice bit).
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.This comment suggests that you feel that it is widespread
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…I'm just fed up with some people getting their knickers in a twist when it comes to my posting style etc.
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.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.
Thanks. Haven't mastered the multi-tasking yet either...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).
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"?
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...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.
No problem. Ping-pong is a good name alright...By the way, eventhough im quoting you clubman im not just refering to your style, many posters pingpong.
(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.).
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.
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...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.
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.My point is that the quotes you took neither back up or discredits the proposition that lone parent welfare fraud is common.
Opinions are all well and good but need to be double checked against the facts before they can be accepted as reasonable.All that has been offered here is the opinion of people who have some experience in the area.
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.The same statistics can be used to back up contrary opinions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?