Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 12
12
Rejected
We asked the Department whether it had considered explanations for failure to engage other than...
Conclusion
We asked the Department whether it had considered explanations for failure to engage other than deliberate dishonesty, such as concern about the impact on employment or housing if a claimant appeared to under investigation. It stressed that the labelling of claimants who fail to engage as fraudsters was only for the purposes of producing statistics. It told us that it has performed some limited work to understand the reasons for lack of engagement, but admitted it had no statistically significant data yet. It explained that it expected its planned ‘Targeted Case Review’ of two million open Universal Credit claims will provide further detail. We asked the Department whether there was anything attached to a claimant’s record showing that their claim was statistically being treated as fraudulent. It told us there was not, but added that claimants who do not engage with Targeted Case Review will be flagged on the Universal Credit system and be unable to get back on benefits without engaging with the Department’s enquiries.22
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation and asserts there is a well-established and accepted methodology for dealing with customers who do not co-operate with the benefit review process and should not be receiving benefit, classifying them as customer fraud, for fraud and error measurement and reporting purposes.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 2.2 There is a well-established and accepted methodology for dealing with customers who do not co-operate with the benefit review process and should not be receiving benefit. These customer’s claims are classed as customer fraud, for fraud and error measurement and reporting purposes. The department continues to gain further understanding of these customers, their circumstances, their behaviours and how they came to be in receipt of benefits in the first place. The department does not expect to find a different outcome than customer fraud but wants to understand better how it might change benefit policy, process, or service design to prevent this type of customer fraud in the future. 2.3 With regards to communications, the department continually reviews all of its customer letters to ensure they are consistent, understandable, and clear. This work is led by communication professionals. Customer letters relating to the sampling exercise are subject to the same approach and seek to strike the right balance between encouraging compliance with the process but also the ability to deal with customer fraud if it is uncovered.