The right to claim?
I am sitting opposite a customer who claimed asylum five years ago (from Eritrea). Someone with the status of asylum seeker is not allowed to claim benefits, but applies to the local authority for support. After this particular claim for asylum was investigated, the customer was awarded 'exceptional leave to remain.' This means, in effect, that 'we do not believe that you were persecuted in your country of origin, but for humanitarian reasons we will allow you to remain here for a period of time.' ELTR is usually given for a period of four years, after which the customer must apply for 'indefinite leave to remain.' This is very rarely refused. When given ILTR, they are subject to the same conditions of entitlement for the claiming of benefit as the rest of us. Or are they?
This particular customer had been claiming Income Support as a sick person since August 2005. Their ELTR had expired on 23/07/06. So why were they still receiving benefit on 03/01/07? Because they had produced a solicitor's letter stating that they had applied for ILTR. Without wishing to malign solicitors in general (well, it wouldn't bother me that much if I did) is a letter from one of them really enough to convince us that someone is entitled to taxpayer's money? Surely we should always insist on seeing original Home Office documents, to see if a non-EU customer has a right to claim benefits, shouldn't we? After all, how difficult can it be to fake such a letter? And when I did my training, (yes, a long time ago) we were always told, 'No official immigration status, no benefits.
Why don't we check with the Home office in such cases? First of all, the Home Office is always busy, and it's sometimes impossible to phone them, or get them to answer a fax. Secondly, it's up to the customer to prove they're entitled to benefit, or so I always thought. Obviously, I was wrong. How many more cases like this? I dread to think. But however many there are, no one will be brought to account for it. Nobody ever is. It would be a lot easier if our computers were linked with those of the Home Office, to enable us to check on things like that. Unless, of course, they asked EDS to link us up.
This particular customer had been claiming Income Support as a sick person since August 2005. Their ELTR had expired on 23/07/06. So why were they still receiving benefit on 03/01/07? Because they had produced a solicitor's letter stating that they had applied for ILTR. Without wishing to malign solicitors in general (well, it wouldn't bother me that much if I did) is a letter from one of them really enough to convince us that someone is entitled to taxpayer's money? Surely we should always insist on seeing original Home Office documents, to see if a non-EU customer has a right to claim benefits, shouldn't we? After all, how difficult can it be to fake such a letter? And when I did my training, (yes, a long time ago) we were always told, 'No official immigration status, no benefits.
Why don't we check with the Home office in such cases? First of all, the Home Office is always busy, and it's sometimes impossible to phone them, or get them to answer a fax. Secondly, it's up to the customer to prove they're entitled to benefit, or so I always thought. Obviously, I was wrong. How many more cases like this? I dread to think. But however many there are, no one will be brought to account for it. Nobody ever is. It would be a lot easier if our computers were linked with those of the Home Office, to enable us to check on things like that. Unless, of course, they asked EDS to link us up.
posted by annette wilson @ 10:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home