The question that needs to be asked is how do these types of fraudulent documents get clarified?
I can understand people having a busy work load however should there be policies under such circumstances where the documentation gets properly clarified? Or is that classified as unnecessary red tape?
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in some of these council offices, is there any wonder that some people who work for the council might not be that good at their jobs? I don't know the way in wich they recruit their operatives but as I learned long ago "If you pay peanuts you get monkeys." I'm only going by what I already have seen when it comes to council maintenance of property, I would not be at all surprised if the quality was questionable in most departments of these organisations.
Housing Fraud in Lewisham
-
CaptainCarCrash
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: 23 Jun 2009 20:04
- Location: Even further than before
Re: Housing Fraud in Lewisham
Having established that we, like LB Lewisham, are concerned about fraud rather than ethnicity, can I get back to my point that some kind of aggregate statistics which would allow comparison with other local authorities would also be helpful?
Admin is quite right that this is a question for Mr Pickles - in other words the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) - and he (she?) usefully adds some information about the Council’s Anti-Fraud and Corruption Team's actions between April and July 2012. But we don't have any comparative statistics, so are in no position to say if Lewisham is doing well or badly.
But someone at DCLG must know - after all, it's their budget being used to beef up such anti-fraud actions - and it would surely help the democratic process if they were to help Lewisham's electors come to informed views as to our Council's performance.
I'm not sure why they don't. I suspect the original problem is that DCLG civil servants don't really want to stir things up - they will have long established working relationships with most local authorities, and any serious inefficiencies exposed will reflect badly on senior DCLG officials who will have allowed such inefficiencies to develop. This is how organisations behave, by no means only in the public sector.
The bigger puzzle is why Eric Pickles doesn't do anything about it - and in other areas in which comparisons between local authorities will be possible. I suspect it has something to do with being taken up with the idea of 'localism', and imagines an army of 'armchair auditors':
By 'citizen samizdat' I suspect he imagines us, and choses the word samizdat because he wants us as allies in a heroic struggle against evil municipal socialism and the centralised state. But to make sense of this data - which Lewisham have on line here - is a massive task, since it requires - as with information here about housing fraud - comparisons with the rest of the country.
It really would be simpler if government focused on good public service, delivered at the most appropriate level - sometimes the local authority, sometimes City Hall, sometimes Whitehall - and telling us straight what they were doing.
I do realise this is a very idealistic view
Admin is quite right that this is a question for Mr Pickles - in other words the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) - and he (she?) usefully adds some information about the Council’s Anti-Fraud and Corruption Team's actions between April and July 2012. But we don't have any comparative statistics, so are in no position to say if Lewisham is doing well or badly.
But someone at DCLG must know - after all, it's their budget being used to beef up such anti-fraud actions - and it would surely help the democratic process if they were to help Lewisham's electors come to informed views as to our Council's performance.
I'm not sure why they don't. I suspect the original problem is that DCLG civil servants don't really want to stir things up - they will have long established working relationships with most local authorities, and any serious inefficiencies exposed will reflect badly on senior DCLG officials who will have allowed such inefficiencies to develop. This is how organisations behave, by no means only in the public sector.
The bigger puzzle is why Eric Pickles doesn't do anything about it - and in other areas in which comparisons between local authorities will be possible. I suspect it has something to do with being taken up with the idea of 'localism', and imagines an army of 'armchair auditors':
Source hereMr Pickles signalled the next wave of Government transparency would be for councils to publish details of all contracts and tenders over £500 online. This follows the publication of spending over £500 online.
The Secretary of State said a new wave of local scrutiny by citizen journalists, microbloggers and armchair auditors - what he labelled his 'citizen samizdat' - was a triumph and encouraged councils to welcome them into the world of local government finance.
By 'citizen samizdat' I suspect he imagines us, and choses the word samizdat because he wants us as allies in a heroic struggle against evil municipal socialism and the centralised state. But to make sense of this data - which Lewisham have on line here - is a massive task, since it requires - as with information here about housing fraud - comparisons with the rest of the country.
It really would be simpler if government focused on good public service, delivered at the most appropriate level - sometimes the local authority, sometimes City Hall, sometimes Whitehall - and telling us straight what they were doing.
I do realise this is a very idealistic view
Last edited by Tim Lund on 27 Sep 2012 16:21, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Housing Fraud in Lewisham
I agree ethnicity is not relevant. What is relevant is the illegality or otherwise of this person being in the UK.
Surely no one is suggesting she should be allowed to stay in the UK.
Surely no one is suggesting she should be allowed to stay in the UK.
Re: Housing Fraud in Lewisham
Rod
I may have come to wrong conclusion ( would not be the first time ) but how I read it is the documents alleging right to stay in the UK were forgeries.
As someone said Australia evicts criminals ( turnabout from the first fleet ) and of course we should do the same.
I may have come to wrong conclusion ( would not be the first time ) but how I read it is the documents alleging right to stay in the UK were forgeries.
As someone said Australia evicts criminals ( turnabout from the first fleet ) and of course we should do the same.
-
14BradfordRoad
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 8 Oct 2011 23:22
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..
Re: Housing Fraud in Lewisham
I'm with you on this one Eagle. Ethnicity is not the issue here but being in the countryEagle wrote:I agree ethnicity is not relevant. What is relevant is the illegality or
otherwise of this person being in the UK.
Surely no one is suggesting she should be allowed to stay in the UK.
illegally surely is the issue and on top of that committing fraud in this way to me should
surely warrant consideration of deportation.
Like Eagle I understood that any visa, supporting letters, documents, etc were found to be fraudulant.
LBL have done their bit within their remit so certainly not having any kind of dig at them
at all. The Courts have quite rightly been given this case to deal with so suprised that
deportation wouldn't be considered. On the other hand maybe they will deport?
Last edited by 14BradfordRoad on 27 Sep 2012 13:35, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Housing Fraud in Lewisham
Rod
Where is the word Visa mentioned. Cannot see it anywhere.
I can see the bit where she admitted all her documents were false.
In answer to your question if she had a visa ( please clarify ) then by committing a very serious fraud crime , of course she has forfeited a right to stay. Even if there was a right in the first place.
Where is the word Visa mentioned. Cannot see it anywhere.
I can see the bit where she admitted all her documents were false.
In answer to your question if she had a visa ( please clarify ) then by committing a very serious fraud crime , of course she has forfeited a right to stay. Even if there was a right in the first place.