IRO of today's news item regarding the benefit fraud case initiated by Kerrier district council, who prosecuted a claimant in the Crown court for four benefit offences of not reporting a change of circumstances that did NOT affect his benefit.

Unsurprisingly I feel, the verdict was overturned by the Court of Appeal.

I feel that this is an appropriate time to highlight to Kerrier DC (and other benefit authorities that continue to maladminister benefit claims and treat claimants as second class citizens) two of the 'Core Values' listed on Kerrier DC's Mission Statement:

"Learning
We will always learn from what we have done, establishing what we did well as good practice for the future, and looking at what we did not do so well as a basis for improvement."

"Honest
We will perform our duties with integrity, with disregard for all personal interest, and to the highest principles of public service. We will be open and clear about how our decisions have been reached, and are prepared to account for and be transparent about all we do."

See Kerrier DC's Mission Statement here: http://www.kerrier.gov.uk/media/adobe/7/k/Service_Standards_070410_1.pdf


I do hope the claimant in that case has a good adviser and will obtain suitable redress.


Well done for fighting back!!

As a fraud officer I thought this decision was a bit of a no brainer and I was surprised that an LA would waste the money and time pursuing a claimant (where the changes have no effect to benefit) all the way to crown. HOWEVER I hope that this does not set a precedent of claimants deciding that they do not have to inform the council of a change because it won't effect their claims (as happened in the above case). This is very much ill advised. As all people working within the Benefits arena are aware the regulations are long and complicated and do not always follow common sense. The best advise I can give to all the clients I have contact with is tell the benefits section even if the changes you are notifying seem irrelevant. At the end of the day, any mistakes made are then not the clients responsibility.

to avoid any confusion ... the passmore court of appeal judgment cites kerrier, but is not an appeal from that case

Thanks Shawn,

It appears I misread the news item and my post was therefore misdirected and probably a bit hasty... My excuse is that I've been having a bad week - or more specifically, DM's have been having a bad week and I've been picking up the pieces.

Sometimes feelings of anger and injustice triumph and distort ones perception...

Sorry KDC.

Fri 17-Aug-07 09:40 AM by SLloyd

None the less, still a victory for common sense. I will sleep better tonight!

Qouted directly from rightsnet news.

“Instead, and upholding Mr Passmore's appeal, the Court holds that the meaning of the phrase 'a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement to any benefit' advanced by him -

'... that a change of circumstances can only be said ... to affect a person's entitlement to benefit if it would cause a difference in the computation of that person's entitlement to benefit ...'

- is the natural and ordinary meaning of the phrase”.

Did it really take the accumulated wisdom of the court of appeal to reach that conclusion? What a complete waste of public money and court time!!

Speaking as someone who comes from Kerrier land (Helston/Porthleven)its exactly the sort of area in which the powers that be (believe me) where it really would take "the accumulated wisdom of the court appeal" etc etc etc.

Going of at a tangent they (Kerrier DC) built a swimming pool in Helston in the 1970's on marshland and lo behold within months cracks appeared as the pool sunk into the mire and the tax payers got a couple years at most if that of swimming pool, and then it was shut and eventually demolished.

him an embarrassed son of cornwall

Hello embarrassed son of cornwall.

I'm from Helston as well and grew up at the same time as you by the sound of it as i remember the swimming pool being built on the fairground land at the bottom end of town and then sinking.

And i would agree that the legendary stubborness of Kerrier DC could well lead to such a long-winded saga (even if it appears that in this case, it was another local authority who were digging their heels in).

Good to see the Court of Appeal taking a common sense approach to the law and its application.

On a serious note Paul, i'm really glad sanity prevailed too, but i couldn't resist bringing up the pool saga and keeping Cornwall in the equation.

Yeah, should have pointed this out as Kerrier are fellow Cornishmen. Think Passmore was prosecuted by LBC Hillingdon.

King vs Kerrier was to do with the use of a change that 'could' rather than 'would' effect the claimants benefit. I think it's in the interest of Fraud Investigators that case which proceed to prosecution are ones where an issue of impact to the public purse has been highlighted. I do not believe it is in the interest of an authority to spend more money prosecuting claimants where there has been loss.

On this point the new Fraud Act seems to throw the cat among the pigeons in this regard. It seems claimants can be prosecuted under this legislation where there intent in failing to declare a change was to prevent a decrease in benefit regardless of the actual impact. I quote section 3 'Fraud by Failing to disclose information' A person is in breach of this section if he-
a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
b) intends, by failing to disclose the information-
i) to make gain for himself or another, or
ii) to cause loss to another

Therefore actual loss is not required just the intent that there could be...

Yay, Hillingdon- my hood! I am thinking of saying "oopsy daisy" to the DMs when I write to them next. But will they appreciate it? LOL

Just for info (as I happened to be doing a bit of background work):

Passmore: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2053.html
King/Kerrier: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/500.html