We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.
Username_removed said: OverlyAnxious said:The problem here is if someone reports him and he gets investigated for benefit fraud. For example, if the PIP decision form says he can't mix with people under any circumstances...and is then seen working in a busy supermarket, that would obviously contradict the claim. I'm not sure where he scored the points, so can't say whether a cleaning job might contradict or not. Nothing to worry about here very much. Anyone can be reported for fraud no matter what they’re doing. The only people who need fear that are... people committing fraud! There is no fraud here. At worst there would be an arguably recoverable overpayment for a failure to disclose or misrepresentation. As has already been semi-accurately states you do not ordinarily need to declare employment to PIP so failure to disclose would be unlikely to be relevant. If the work didn’t have to be declared then there can’t possibly be a misrepresentation as there was no obligation to represent anything in the first place!To clarify, some work must be declared to PIP where, for example, it could reasonably be considered to bring entitlement into question. I don’t see a 2 day cleaning job as being likely to do that at all bevy’s if the 2 things I laid out at the start. Equally, working in a supermarket does not “obviously contradict” points for social engagement. Being able to talk to strangers momentarily in a social situation is absolutely not “socially engaging”. See https://pipinfo.net/activities/engaging-with-other-people-face-to-face. No mention here of whether ESA is in payment. The potential impact on ESA is a far bigger issue but easily addressed with advice re: permitted work etc.
OverlyAnxious said:The problem here is if someone reports him and he gets investigated for benefit fraud. For example, if the PIP decision form says he can't mix with people under any circumstances...and is then seen working in a busy supermarket, that would obviously contradict the claim. I'm not sure where he scored the points, so can't say whether a cleaning job might contradict or not.
Username_removed said: Your supermarket example was borne of ignorance (pardon my being so blunt) about what the PIP descriptor in question actually says. That in turn feeds into your question. I posted a link to some of the case law on social engagement. There’s a great phrase in there which sums up what social engagement is actually about. It’s not about what’s described as a “mere reciprocation of exchanges”. It’s about forming relationships. Being able to go to a supermarket and ask for food at the deli or indulge in a quick chat with the lad on the till is just an exchange, it’s not social engagement because it’s not forming a relationship. That simple really. It’s why there’s great case law about going to the pub not automatically leading to the conclusion someone can socially engage. Asking for a pint and sitting with a group you have known for years is no evidence at all of currently being able to form relationships.So, whilst I’ve no way to say whether your award of 9d is correct, none of what you’re suggesting would automatically cause an issue under 9d.Hope that helps.
The value must be greater than or equal to 1.
Get more out of your online community by signing in or registering