Up to £3.5bn furlough claims fraudulent or paid in error...

Joined
23 May 2004
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
499
Country
United Kingdom
Link

"HMRC's permanent secretary Jim Harra said: "We have made an assumption for the purposes of our planning that the error and fraud rate in this scheme could be between 5% and 10%."

That's an incredible percentage of taxpayers money to 'assume' will be lost to 'error and fraud'...

Imagine the outcry if such a percentage was as high in an organisation such as for arguments sake the EU...

And what does this 'fraud' consist of?

All I can think of is claims from people or companies for a drop in income that wouldn't occur...

Or 'furloughing' people for monetary gain rather than necessity...

One hopes that a similar 'fraud' rate doesn't occur if some people take advantage of future government schemes for subsidised employment/training!
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
15 Sep 2017
Messages
27,879
Reaction score
2,014
Location
S. Uplands
Country
United Kingdom
When the scheme was set up, they did say it would be difficult to police and it would result in unnecessary payments

I'm not sure its a scandal as such
 
Joined
23 May 2004
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
499
Country
United Kingdom
When the scheme was set up, they did say it would be difficult to police and it would result in unnecessary payments

I'm not sure its a scandal as such
So why set up a scheme that is essentially based on an 'honesty box' mentality?

I reckon that most people will do the right thing, but there are always those who claim when they are not entitled to do so...

Some even brag about it...

It is a sad indictment of the UK that it is necessary to believe that up to 10% are engaged in what is effectively theft of taxpayers money!
 
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
7,634
Reaction score
862
Country
United Kingdom
I think some self employed people were classed as employees for purposes of the scheme.
For example some people have contracted hours for work (employment) but also provide self employed service to the same "client". This is very common in the fitness, beauty and healthcare industry. I may do a gym shift as an employee for contracted hours and also teach pilates as a self employed contractor to the same org. In the beauty industry the concept of "rent a chair" is also vague from a status point of view. You could be a self employed person, but you might also have worker status or employee on zero hours

The scheme was set-up to be a lifeline to people who suddenly had no money coming in. 10% is not unreasonable.
 

JP_

Joined
17 May 2012
Messages
9,339
Reaction score
588
Country
United Kingdom
was always going to happen. Some companies have been busier than ever, but have still needed to furlough staff ... who happen to also be working. Very strange!
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
7,634
Reaction score
862
Country
United Kingdom
And quite right...

So 10% is ok?

It's only taxpayers' money after all...

But then I guess that's a low percentage compared to what corporates and rich individuals get away with each year!

If its any consolation, Rich individuals will be contributing more than poor. The government appears to be planning a raid on capital gains, corporation allowances and pension tax breaks to pay for Covid. I dread to think how it would have been under labour.
 
Joined
22 Dec 2005
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
340
Location
UK
Country
United Kingdom
So why set up a scheme that is essentially based on an 'honesty box' mentality?

I reckon that most people will do the right thing, but there are always those who claim when they are not entitled to do so...

Some even brag about it...

It is a sad indictment of the UK that it is necessary to believe that up to 10% are engaged in what is effectively theft of taxpayers money!
The scheme had to be set up very quickly and therefore there wasn't the time to apply the due diligence that normally applies to these schemes.

I would imagine that the government was aware it was open to abuse, but also took the view that people who claimed furlough money when the weren't entitled would most likely spend most of that money anyway, thus still helping the economy overall.

Plus 10% fraud (whilst still very bad) is a small price to pay compared to what would have happened if no government assistance had been available.
 
Joined
15 Sep 2017
Messages
27,879
Reaction score
2,014
Location
S. Uplands
Country
United Kingdom
The scheme had to be set up very quickly and therefore there wasn't the time to apply the due diligence that normally applies to these schemes.

I would imagine that the government was aware it was open to abuse, but also took the view that people who claimed furlough money when the weren't entitled would most likely spend most of that money anyway, thus still helping the economy overall.

Plus 10% fraud (whilst still very bad) is a small price to pay compared to what would have happened if no government assistance had been available.

I seem to recall Rishi Sunak talking about a percentage of dead weight, it was anticipated, after all it had to be dont through existing IT systems, there was no time for checking.
 
Sponsored Links
Top