|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 15:54:02 GMT
Couple who claimed £84,000-a-year benefits let children live in absolute squalor. A couple who neglected seven children and 36 dogs they kept in a filthy three-bed house while ‘frittering away’ £84,000 a year in benefits have been jailed. Christopher Bennett, 35, and Gemma Brogan, 41, were arrested after officers called to a domestic incident at their property in Eastbourne, Sussex, found the kids living in ‘shocking and repugnant’ conditions. They later told a court how they were met with a ‘stench of faeces and urine’ leaving them ‘unable to breathe normally’ as well as a ‘deafening’ din coming from the dozens of malnourished dogs barking and leaping around. metro.co.uk/2022/11/07/couple-on-84000-a-year-benefits-let-girl-sleep-covered-in-dog-poo-17714033/The fact that a couple can claim £84,000 a year, that's £7,000 a month in benefits is incredible. But the council quite obviously don't do any follow up checks. I would have thought if a council were shelling out so much in benefits, they may have an interest in how it's been spent, but clearly not. Had they been more diligent the children and dogs could have been rescued a damned sight sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 8, 2022 16:10:49 GMT
It would take the average Nurse about three years to earn that amount, and many others in work even longer
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 16:32:49 GMT
It would take the average Nurse about three years to earn that amount, and many others in work even longer I'm amazed that a council or the DWP whoever, can dish out £7,000 a month to a couple, in benefits, and have absolutely no idea where that money is going or how it's been spent. Honestly, I'm staggered. Don't councils or the DWP do any checks, any follow up visits to ensure benefits are being spent properly? Christ almighty no wonder the benefits bill is out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 8, 2022 16:42:20 GMT
Hard to see how this couple qualified for £84k benefits. However they did, surely nothing to do with the council? Unless reported to them, no reason for the council to be aware of an issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 16:49:32 GMT
Hard to see how this couple qualified for £84k benefits. However they did, surely nothing to do with the council? Unless reported to them, no reason for the council to be aware of an issue? Who dishes out benefits? Whichever department it is, seem to have absolutely no idea how benefits are spent. There seems to be no follow up checks whatsoever. If the council or DWP or whoever dishes out benefits did a bit of due diligence and follow up, then perhaps the children in this case would have been rescued earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 8, 2022 16:58:05 GMT
DWP I think.
Not sure what benefits these people were claiming. The amount dies seem extraordinarily high.
Unlikely though that DWP inspectors would ever visit someones home unless there was evidence of a problem. Seems first anyone knew of problem were when police called on an unrelated matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 17:22:56 GMT
DWP I think. Not sure what benefits these people were claiming. The amount dies seem extraordinarily high. Unlikely though that DWP inspectors would ever visit someones home unless there was evidence of a problem. Seems first anyone knew of problem were when police called on an unrelated matter. Why wouldn't DWP inspectors visit a claimant in order to check benefits are being spent correctly? Honestly, I would have thought it was standard practice. The government dish out about £200 billion a year in benefits various, and if this case is anything to go by, it seems they haven't got the foggiest idea where it's been spent! That sounds too stupid to be true, but it appears to be true. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 8, 2022 18:05:00 GMT
This is obviously an extreme case. It is difficult to understand how this family managed to claim so much money.
As far as I know no benefit defines precisely how the benefit should be spent. Not sure I like the sound of inspectors from government knocking on doors controlliing how people live their lives. Can you imagine how you would react if government told you not to spend so much of your pension on alcohol.
Reacting to extreme cases rarely makes good policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 8, 2022 18:09:06 GMT
No the Dwp don't think there call it that these days.
Has for money spent they dont do any checks and why should they its upto the people how they spend there money.
Don't think the children was starving and they might have energy supplies like gas and electric.
What makes you think there money was wasted and I don't know what money got to do with how these poor children was treated
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 8, 2022 18:12:52 GMT
The council pay housing benefit so they were probably suspicious,
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 8, 2022 18:41:23 GMT
DWP I think. Not sure what benefits these people were claiming. The amount dies seem extraordinarily high. Unlikely though that DWP inspectors would ever visit someones home unless there was evidence of a problem. Seems first anyone knew of problem were when police called on an unrelated matter. Why wouldn't DWP inspectors visit a claimant in order to check benefits are being spent correctly? Honestly, I would have thought it was standard practice. The government dish out about £200 billion a year in benefits various, and if this case is anything to go by, it seems they haven't got the foggiest idea where it's been spent! That sounds too stupid to be true, but it appears to be true. The seven neglected children having lived in that hovel will have serious issues to say the least, which will cost the taxpayers even more |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 18:54:34 GMT
This is obviously an extreme case. It is difficult to understand how this family managed to claim so much money. As far as I know no benefit defines precisely how the benefit should be spent. Not sure I like the sound of inspectors from government knocking on doors controlliing how people live their lives. Can you imagine how you would react if government told you not to spend so much of your pension on alcohol. Reacting to extreme cases rarely makes good policy. How do you know it's an extreme case? This case didn't exist last week, and if it was up the council or DWP, it still wouldn't exist. If council/DWP inspectors had visited this residence, a residence that let's not forget is in receipt of £84,000 a year in benefits, they would have instantly seen there was a massive problem and the children would have been rescued. This as far as I'm concerned is gross incompetence/negligence on behalf of the council and or DWP. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 18:58:21 GMT
Why wouldn't DWP inspectors visit a claimant in order to check benefits are being spent correctly? Honestly, I would have thought it was standard practice. The government dish out about £200 billion a year in benefits various, and if this case is anything to go by, it seems they haven't got the foggiest idea where it's been spent! That sounds too stupid to be true, but it appears to be true. The seven neglected children having lived in that hovel will have serious issues to say the least, which will cost the taxpayers even more Indeed, apparently they have got psychological problems, who's surprised. And who knew about this and said nothing, what about the kids school. Kids who were so obviously neglected would not have gone unnoticed. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 8, 2022 19:13:27 GMT
Yea I agree the school should of informed there local Authorities its the school duty of care.
Thats down to the failure of the school not the benefits authority or the local council
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2022 19:24:26 GMT
Yea I agree the school should of informed there local Authorities its the school duty of care. Thats down to the failure of the school not the benefits authority or the local council TTL, do you think the government via DWP or councils or any other agency, have 'any' responsibility to ensure the benefit system is not being abused? |
|
