DWP take woman inheritance over supermarket job

[Oliver Hardy]

Vivienne Groom was prosecuted for failing to declare her minimum wage Co-op job while also caring for her mum.

Mrs Groom said she was told by a social worker she did not have to tell the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about the job.

She said she initially agreed a payment plan with the DWP at £30 per month to cover the overpayments, which she received between 2014 and 2019.

However, when the government discovered she stood to inherit £16,000 following the death of her mum, it decided to seize it. The only way for the DWP to recover the money was to prosecute Mrs Groom, so she was charged with benefit fraud offences.

The DWP has faced criticism for failing to prevent overpayments, despite having the ability to do so,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-6...

[hidetheelephants]

Oliver Hardy said:

Vivienne Groom was prosecuted for failing to declare her minimum wage Co-op job while also caring for her mum.

Mrs Groom said she was told by a social worker she did not have to tell the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about the job.

She said she initially agreed a payment plan with the DWP at £30 per month to cover the overpayments, which she received between 2014 and 2019.

However, when the government discovered she stood to inherit £16,000 following the death of her mum, it decided to seize it. The only way for the DWP to recover the money was to prosecute Mrs Groom, so she was charged with benefit fraud offences.

The DWP has faced criticism for failing to prevent overpayments, despite having the ability to do so,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-6...

On the basis that carers' allowance would pay for about a month or so's care for her mother I think we were getting a bargain. There have to be rules but this has 'hostile environment' written all over it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Meanwhile, Michelle Mone and the £65m scammed out of the taxpayer.......

[JackJarvis]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Meanwhile, Michelle Mone and the £65m scammed out of the taxpayer.......

This. I really struggle to care about these sensationalist, drop in the ocean stories.

[Previous]

As a principle, I'm okay with people having to pay back benefits they aren't entitled to.

But the story here is why did DWP continue paying benefits for 5 years?

And as above, I'd love to see those breaking the rules in higher positions of power more readily held to account.

[Mr Penguin]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Meanwhile, Michelle Mone and the £65m scammed out of the taxpayer.......

Which is being investigated by the NCA.

[Oliver Hardy]

Previous said:

As a principle, I'm okay with people having to pay back benefits they aren't entitled to.

But the story here is why did DWP continue paying benefits for 5 years?

And as above, I'd love to see those breaking the rules in higher positions of power more readily held to account.

They also agreed a repayment plan.

[7mike]

Mrs Groom Vs the DWP, when's the film due out?

[Rufus Stone]

Oliver Hardy said:

They also agreed a repayment plan.

Which would have taken 46 years to conclude!

[andyA700]

Mr Penguin said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Meanwhile, Michelle Mone and the £65m scammed out of the taxpayer.......

Which is being investigated by the NCA.

And where will that so called investigation go?
As Mr Bates said in the TV drama - "we are just the skint little people".

[Mr Penguin]

andyA700 said:

And where will that so called investigation go?
As Mr Bates said in the TV drama - "we are just the skint little people".

I don't know. I'm not in the NCA. They have frozen assets so it sounds like they are taking it seriously https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/26/mi...

[PlywoodPascal]

On the basis that she was told she didn’t need to declare the job, by a social worker (I assume a dwp one?) to whom she must therefore have mentioned it, it’s hard to see how a charge for fraud is substantiated.

Interesting sentence from the article

‘Without legal representation to assist her’.

I knew there had been cuts to p legal assistance or whatever it’s called but would someone working in a supermarket really not be eligible? The tories really have fked the justice system comprehensively, haven’t they?

Edited by PlywoodPascal on Friday 19th April 08:47

[Ian Geary]

PlywoodPascal said:

On the basis that she was told she didn’t need to declare the job, by a social worker (I assume a dwp one?) to whom she must therefore have mentioned it, it’s hard to see how a charge for fraud is substantiated.

Interesting sentence from the article

‘Without legal representation to assist her’.

I knew there had been cuts to p legal assistance or whatever it’s called but would someone working in a supermarket really not be eligible? The tories really have fked the justice system comprehensively, haven’t they?

Edited by PlywoodPascal on Friday 19th April 08:47

The social worker will have been from the council. Councils carry out financial assessments on whether people have to pay towards care.

The social workers themselves don't carry out the check of course, as it's a different skillset. But they will start the ball rolling based on their view.

Councils will have other teams they work closely with around benefits such as council tax, housing benefits etc, and they in turn work closely with the DWP.

We don't know what was actually said or the context it was said in, but many people get unstuck by the very complex rules around benefit eligibility and earnings.

Legal representation does cost of course, once beyond the free generic solicitor provided at interviews.


Many many people have sucked up a small penalty rather than contest their innocence because the legal system is so damn expensive and inaccessible.

For instance, to challenge a council decision requires a judicial review at the high court, which is easily £30k and needs a KC to take it I believe.

Ultimately, if the lady had received advice that was incorrect (and can prove it) she might have a claim, but without the money to contest it it's good money after bad imo.

[DaveTheRave87]

We disincentivise work so much then complain that nothing gets done.

[AndyAudi]

Hmm,

There’s always more to this kind of thing than reported.

Whilst yes it’s unfortunate DWP let her get overpayments, they mucked up. This is not the issue at hand.

The woman agreed she’d been overpaid & had to repay, which was being done at £30/mth as it was likely what she could afford.

The woman sold her mothers house & banked the money (she already had it - was not waiting on it or prevented from receiving it as I understand).

On discovering her affordability to repay had changed she was approached to alter that - however she didn’t want to, the court option seems to have been the only route to speed up recovery. (Her monthly interest would’ve been more than £30ffs!)

“I told them I had an agreement to pay back the money at the rate of £30 a month which I had been doing. Then I was told they were aware that I ‘had money’ and would need to pay it off. I told them about the money I had got from the sale of my mother’s house and asked if I could keep it and stick to the direct debit agreement. I was told no”

[gotoPzero]

I do wonder about these overpayments over long time frames.

I was always under the impression that every so often you had to go through the process for benefits again to make sure you were still eligible?

Is that not the case?

[AndyAudi]

PlywoodPascal said:

Interesting sentence from the article

‘Without legal representation to assist her’.

I knew there had been cuts to p legal assistance or whatever it’s called but would someone working in a supermarket really not be eligible?

If they had a pile of cash in the bank probably not
(That was a bit off as she technically had the cash but couldn’t use it)

Guessing a “no win no fee” type wouldn’t have been interested in trying to defend her for something she’d already agreed & accepted a repayment plan for either…

Anyone feeling shes been hard done to, there is of course a go fund me https://gofund.me/36ebf082

[Dicky Knee]

There was a discussion about the Carers Allowance on Radio 4 a few days ago and it sounds like the overarching issue is the rules around the benefit.

As I recall, if someone is giving 35 (?) hours of care per week they can claim the Carers Allowance which is about £4200 a year (a generous £2.30 per hour). But it is subject to the carer working a maximum of the equivalent of 13 hours per week at the minimum wage. The issue is that if the carer earns more than the maximum there is no taper. For example, if the carer worked 13 hours a week but did 1 hours overtime during the year then they would have to repay the full £4200 to DWP. There is no room for a miscalculation or error.

Just to make it harder this year, the government has put up the carer annual earnings allowance by 8.9% but the minimum wage has gone up by 9.4% (I think). So any carer who isn't following this closely and adjusting their hours by a few minutes a week is going to find themselves having to repay the DWP £4200. If the carer is a bit busy or totally exhausted and misses this for several years the DWP can demand back multiple years of 'over payment'. As a caller to Radio 4 said, she is looking after her husband on £12 000 a year and wouldn't be able to find any spare cash to make such a huge repayment.

As a society we owe these carers a huge vote of thanks for caring for their loved ones and fking them over for an oversight or miscalculation is something that needs to be changed.

I'm not commenting specifically on the case being described by the OP here just making a point about a badly designed benefit.

[98elise]

PlywoodPascal said:

On the basis that she was told she didn’t need to declare the job, by a social worker (I assume a dwp one?) to whom she must therefore have mentioned it, it’s hard to see how a charge for fraud is substantiated.

Interesting sentence from the article

‘Without legal representation to assist her’.

I knew there had been cuts to p legal assistance or whatever it’s called but would someone working in a supermarket really not be eligible? The tories really have fked the justice system comprehensively, haven’t they?

Edited by PlywoodPascal on Friday 19th April 08:47

Social Workers are council employees, not DWP.

[Rivenink]

It's the Tory way.

Create a maze of complicated, highly specific rules, then prosecute the people who don't have enough wealth to consider it worth hiring a lawyer to guide them through the maze.

The wealthy get to play the system, the lawyers get paid to help the wealthy play the system, and those who are not wealthy get fked.