It was three weeks after Christmas when the bombshell letter arrived. Guy Shahar and his wife, Oksana, looked at each other in stunned disbelief.

They had followed the Guardian’s investigation into the carer’s allowance scandal that has left thousands of families with crippling debts and criminal records. Not once did they think they would join them.

“Important,” it read in big bold type. “You have been paid more carer’s allowance than you are entitled to. You now need to pay this money back”.

In some weeks, she was paid just 38p more than the threshold – but for that tiny infraction she is being forced to repay £64.60 each time, the rate of carer’s allowance at the time.

  • @Ton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    165 hours ago

    Why are Anglo-Saxon ‘conservative’ governments hell-bent on punishing the poor to the fullest extent. They no longer hide the strategy that cruelty is the point! And the general public seems to like it, and votes for it in ever greater numbers, until it happens to themselves, of course.

    Can someone explain this to a person who grew up in a Rhineland model based society that is now fast adopting the Anglo Saxon model (the Netherlands).

  • @perestroika@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    106
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    a breach of even 1p would trigger a fine of £83.30

    Sounds extremely, extremely stupid. A breach of 1p should trigger repayment of 1p.

    Also, a person should be notified at once, at the latest next month.

    • Pyr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      197 hours ago

      Also, why does the system even allow people to claim more than they are entitled? Is there no maximum set into the payment field or whatever they have for it?

      • JackbyDev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        147 minutes ago

        If it’s anything like unemployment insurance claims, you could possibly be entitled to different amounts every week depending on whether you made income. But it’s odd that it lets you get more than the max.

      • Miles O'Brien
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        In my experience, it’s either total incompetence of the people in charge, or it’s malicious in order to “catch” people doing something bad.

        Like a bait car, but way more malicious since the person getting in the metaphorical car doesn’t even know it’s not their car because the keys worked, and nobody bothers stopping them for a few days so they get extra criminal charges.

    • @nogooduser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -32
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      If the punishment for deliberately claiming more in benefits than you’re entitled to is simply to repay the benefits then there’s no incentive to not do it. If you get caught then you’re no worse off than if you’d not broken the law so why not do it?

      Having said that, if the punishment for accidentally claiming more than you’re entitled to is so harsh then that is unfair.

      I’d imagine that the process for both of the scenarios is the same but it definitely should have some human element in it where intent is taken into account.

      The system should protect people from that by having proper checks before the money is paid out.

      • @dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        489 hours ago

        I’m not a lawyer or barrister, but there are already laws against fraud, which is what you are describing. There’s a huge difference between deliberately over claiming and making a mistake, and what the article is describing is at worst honest mistakes.

      • gonzo-rand19
        link
        fedilink
        45 hours ago

        If the punishment for deliberately claiming more in benefits than you’re entitled to is simply to repay the benefits then there’s no incentive to not do it.

        Uh, what? The incentive is not having to pay anything back by claiming the correct amount. They’re poor, that’s why they’ve applied for the benefit in the first place. They can’t afford to pay stuff back.

        The reason this is punitive is literally because they’ve chosen the amount they’re able to manage and yet are hit with huge fines when they’ve “gotten it wrong” by small margins, some as low as 38p like in the article.

      • @Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Unless your rich and break the law then the fine you a small amount relatively speaking and you made more by breaking the law.

        • Miles O'Brien
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 hours ago

          A 7 million fine for stealing 1 billion in profits.

          Just another day in late stage capitalism.

          Of course someone usually has to go to jail for something so public, so Steve from accounting is getting his “jailbird bonus” and will be admitting to fraud, and spend 4 months in a hotel cushioned cell. He also gets weekends off.

  • @WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    76 hours ago

    Can they do the same with rich people and corporations? Error in subsidies, pay back 100 times the amount for the infraction. Now they often get a relatively small fine.

    • @OwlPaste@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      39
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      The same report released in May found the DWP had known since 2021 that overpayment of Carer’s Allowance has left some people in financial difficulty.

      Remind me when were last general elections again? Another conservative mine they left hanging about by sweeping it under the rug.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20jln81w72o

      Not a fan of labour but please give credit where its due, as to which government did nothing first.

      • @Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 hours ago

        The government currently in power is fully responsible as they could stop it entirely, they choose not to and are complicit.

        • @WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          “Fully responsible” huh? Like on day 1, or is there some sort of grace period? How long does a gov have to review all historic legislation? Is your timeframe based on empiric evidence or hopes and dreams? Why aren’t the individuals who wrote and passed it “fully responsible”? Or does their culpability end the moment they vacate office?

          • @Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 hours ago

            Last I checked the current UK Government have been in for nearly a year.

            They would have been aware of this legislation when it passed as it’s not like the politicians are born on election day.

            A current majority government is always responsible for how the government is running.

        • @Yermaw@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          69 hours ago

          Bureaucracy moves pretty slowly i think. We’ve got another few years to find out for sure.