"Benefits cheats to lose driving licences"

[Broucek]

Although not a natural Labour voter, I'd more-or-less believed the "adults are back in charge" narrative. And then they come up with this nonsense.

"Convicted benefits cheats who fail to pay back the taxpayer could be stripped of their driving licences, under government plans to crack down on fraud. Those who repeatedly cheat the system and have debts of £1,000 or more could be punished with a driving ban of up to two years."

Benefit cheats could lose driving licences in anti-fraud drive

A proposed new law will also give ministers greater powers to request bank account information.

www.bbc.co.uk

Surely people should not lose the right to drive because of unrelated misdeads? And if they do, why this specific misdead as opposed to any other? And do we really think that the kind of people who commit these acts would be bothered by driving without a license? I despair...

 

[jp4712]

John Prescott once vetoed a similar proposal in the early noughties, on the basis that you shouldn’t have punishments that apply specifically to the poor. And would taking your licence away help you get a job and get out of benefits?

I’d be much more in favour of something that also did the same for tax avoidance.

Terrible idea - and I say that as someone who is a Labour Party member and who has submitted their self assessment tax return this morning…

 

[Broucek]

John Prescott once vetoed a similar proposal in the early noughties, on the basis that you shouldn’t have punishments that apply specifically to the poor. And would taking your licence away help you get a job and get out of benefits?

I’d be much more in favour of something that also did the same for tax avoidance.

We could do with more like John Prescott in government - i.e. people who've worked outside the political bubble

I assume you mean tax evasion rather than avoidance (which is legal). But I feel we should let punishments fit the crime rather than take away random unrelated rights.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Although not a natural Labour voter, I'd more-or-less believed the "adults are back in charge" narrative. And then they come up with this nonsense.

Benefit cheats could lose driving licences in anti-fraud drive

A proposed new law will also give ministers greater powers to request bank account information.

www.bbc.co.uk

Surely people should not lose the right to drive because of unrelated misdeads? And if they do, why this specific misdead as opposed to any other? And do we really think that the kind of people who commit these acts would be bothered by driving without a license? I despair...

It also means that people without a licence would go unsanctioned.

 

[Broucek]

It also means that people without a licence would go unsanctioned.

Perhaps bus passes could be siezed, walking boots confiscated and bicycles auctioned off? In fact, we could stop people from leaving their houses at all. Better still we could lock them up in a specialist facility somewhere...

(To be clear, this is satire. I don't actually believe benefit frauds should be jailed except in extreme cases.)

 

[Gloster]

And how much of a punishment would it be to serial offenders? Too many people see having a licence as being optional.

We could do with more like John Prescott in government - i.e. people who've worked outside the political bubble

Starmer was a late-comer to active politics: only being selected as a candidate at the age of fifty-two and not having been a councillor before. As a lawyer and DPP he generally kept out of active politics, but he has probably, particularly early in his career, come up against a lot of the less glamorous side things.

 

[najaB]

Surely people should not lose the right to drive because of unrelated misdeads? And if they do, why this specific misdead as opposed to any other? And do we really think that the kind of people who commit these acts would be bothered by driving without a license?

I agree, it does seem odd on first glance. I'd like to see more detail, but I can see how this might be useful in the most extreme of cases where someone is driving around in a commercial vehicle running a business while claiming to be unemployed and then refusing to repay falsely-claimed benefits.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sure we can try this, though I don't think it will do anything positive, but first I'd like to restore more of an even playing field. How about we restore the historic position that a benefit overpayment which is caused either solely or primarily by a failing of the Department for Work and Pensions cannot be recovered from the hapless claimant?

That was the long standing position until the Tory Government decided when introducing Universal Credit that any overpayment, no matter how blameless the claimant might be, would and could be recovered from that same claimant. Of course they talked a good game about how "discretion" would be shown but reality is that if you're overpaid UC, even if there's nothing you could have done to prevent it, even if you had no way of knowing that you were getting too much money, the DWP will be recovering that money back from you.

So sure, lets take away people's driving licences but how about we at least make it so that if the DWP makes a mistake they don't get to punish you for their mistake?

 

[Broucek]

So sure, lets take away people's driving licences but how about we at least make it so that if the DWP makes a mistake they don't get to punish you for their mistake?

I agree with this although there might need to be some kind of cap - i.e. so they can't come after you for an overpayment of £100 but can if it's £50,000

 

[AlterEgo]

What is often overlooked is that there are a huge number of unlicenced drivers anyway. You can just drive a car as long as it's taxed or insured and nobody will stop you specifically for it.

 

[najaB]

What is often overlooked is that there are a huge number of unlicenced drivers anyway. You can just drive a car as long as it's taxed or insured and nobody will stop you specifically for it.

It's not overlooked. However, the people this concerns will already be 'on the radar' since they will have court orders against them, making it more likely that they'll get stopped if an ANPR check brings them (or someone assocuated with them) up as the registered keeper.

 

[brad465]

John Prescott once vetoed a similar proposal in the early noughties, on the basis that you shouldn’t have punishments that apply specifically to the poor. And would taking your licence away help you get a job and get out of benefits?

I’d be much more in favour of something that also did the same for tax avoidance.

Terrible idea - and I say that as someone who is a Labour Party member and who has submitted their self assessment tax return this morning…

Those who do the tax avoidance are more likely to be "donating" to political parties with an aspiration of ensuring their tax avoidance, among other favours, continues unabated. Only a popular uprising is going to stand a chance of changing that.

 

[najaB]

Those who do the tax avoidance are more likely to be "donating" to political parties with an aspiration of ensuring their tax avoidance, among other favours, continues unabated. Only a popular uprising is going to stand a chance of changing that.

I don't thinik that's necessarily the case. Pretty much anyone who has income other than their base salary has the opportunity to reduce their tax burden. For example, in advance of our annual bonus we're given the opportunity to pay part or all of it into our pension pot which would let us avoid paying income tax and NI on the bonus.

 

[LMS 4F]

The removal of a a Driving Licence is to nice law abiding people a serious matter. However to a quite considerable minority it means nothing. Either they have never held a licence or if they are disqualified from holding a licence they simply ignore It. I have seen people disqualified at court and go outside and get in their car to drive it home or elsewhere.
Look at court reports in the local press and see how many people are back in court for driving whilst disqualified.
Not the best idea I have ever heard.

 

[HSTEd]

The government is increasingly desperate to claw back money to keep the bond markets on side, and to maintain the triple lock.

This sort of silliness will become more common as time goes on.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Feels a bit like something they'd come up with in The Thick of It.

 

[Broucek]

This sort of silliness will become more common as time goes on.

I fear you're right which is sad because one normally expects this kind of nonsense much later in the life of a government.

Mind you, even Tony Blair wasn't above this kind of daftness - remember we were going to march those guilty of public order offences to a cashpoint so they could pay their fine in real time? Forum members have 30 seconds to spot the flaws in that jolly idea....

 

[dangie]

John Prescott once vetoed a similar proposal in the early noughties, on the basis that you shouldn’t have punishments that apply specifically to the poor.

I would name & shame. Make offenders do public work in view of the public. Make them visible so everyone knows who they are. This should apply not only to benefit fraudsters but to anyone including the famous & wealthy. Poor & rich treated the same. Embarrassment is a good form of punishment.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I’d be much more in favour of something that also did the same for tax avoidance.

Tax avoiders should have their cars impounded and be provided with a Government-issue bright pink Reliant Robin and be made to drive it for three years

 

[baz962]

Although not a natural Labour voter, I'd more-or-less believed the "adults are back in charge" narrative. And then they come up with this nonsense.

Benefit cheats could lose driving licences in anti-fraud drive

A proposed new law will also give ministers greater powers to request bank account information.

www.bbc.co.uk

Surely people should not lose the right to drive because of unrelated misdeads? And if they do, why this specific misdead as opposed to any other? And do we really think that the kind of people who commit these acts would be bothered by driving without a license? I despair...

I was threatened with the loss of my drivers licence around 15 years ago iirc , when I fell behind with my child support payments.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

Tax avoiders should have their cars impounded and be provided with a Government-issue bright pink Reliant Robin and be made to drive it for three years

I know some people that would enjoy that

 

[Broucek]

I was threatened with the loss of my drivers licence around 15 years ago iirc , when I fell behind with my child support payments.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

That's a bit shocking.... Seems wrong to me

 

[najaB]

Tax avoiders should have their cars impounded and be provided with a Government-issue bright pink Reliant Robin and be made to drive it for three years

Tax evaders, surely?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Tax evaders, surely?

Yeah probably. I always get confused which is which. In our house we avoid confusion by referring to them as “the Jimmy Carr lot”

 

[IanXC]

Sure we can try this, though I don't think it will do anything positive, but first I'd like to restore more of an even playing field. How about we restore the historic position that a benefit overpayment which is caused either solely or primarily by a failing of the Department for Work and Pensions cannot be recovered from the hapless claimant?

That was the long standing position until the Tory Government decided when introducing Universal Credit that any overpayment, no matter how blameless the claimant might be, would and could be recovered from that same claimant. Of course they talked a good game about how "discretion" would be shown but reality is that if you're overpaid UC, even if there's nothing you could have done to prevent it, even if you had no way of knowing that you were getting too much money, the DWP will be recovering that money back from you.

So sure, lets take away people's driving licences but how about we at least make it so that if the DWP makes a mistake they don't get to punish you for their mistake?

Surely the answer is to be equal and opposite.

If a DWP staffer has made an error that results in a claimant unknowingly being overpaid, then the DWP staffer should have their driving licence revoked.

Oh wait, we live in a civilised democracy don't we....

 

[Bikeman78]

It's not overlooked. However, the people this concerns will already be 'on the radar' since they will have court orders against them, making it more likely that they'll get stopped if an ANPR check brings them (or someone assocuated with them) up as the registered keeper.

I like to think that someone on the fiddle would not be stupid enough to drive a vehicle in their name without a licence. Sure, you would catch a few stupid people, but plenty would slip through the net. I have never been stopped by the Police in 15 years. Frankly, it is rare to see a Police vehicle, and I ride or drive past a Police station every day.

 

[Jim the Jim]

It seems to me this is likely to make it harder for these people to get into employment. Which is going to cost the state.

I would rather the government put more resources into taking licences off people who drive badly (the current system is extremely forgiving) than using them as a tool to punish people for other sorts of crimes.

 

[najaB]

Yeah probably. I always get confused which is which. In our house we avoid confusion by referring to them as “the Jimmy Carr lot”

I like it.

I like to think that someone on the fiddle would not be stupid enough to drive a vehicle in their name without a licence.

I dunno. I'd also think that people wouldn't be so stupid as to drive away from court just having had their license suspended, but it happens.

It seems to me this is likely to make it harder for these people to get into employment. Which is going to cost the state.

The kind of person who deliberately over claims large amounts and then refuses to pay it back often works two jobs or runs their own business.

 

[Harpo]

If the target really is ‘cheats who fail to pay back’, and hopefully targets those taking significant amounts, perhaps removal of their passport has a more proportionate logic?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Michelle Mone will have to trade her yacht for a park lake boat that looks like a swan

 

[Broucek]

If the target really is ‘cheats who fail to pay back’, and hopefully targets those taking significant amounts, perhaps removal of their passport has a more proportionate logic?

Perhaps a passport that allows exit but not re-entry???