Failing to inform the state about a "change of circumstances", for example, that a claimant is now living with a partner, has moved house, or has inherited money from the death of a relative, may also be fraud by omission.
The bill is scheduled for introduction to Parliament on Wednesday, 22 January 2025, with the DWP projecting that the measures could save taxpayers approximately £1.5 billion over the next five years.
"[5] The State of the Nation report published in 2010 by the Government of David Cameron estimated the total benefit fraud in the United Kingdom in 2009/10 to be approximately £1 billion.
[6] Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that benefit fraud is thought to have cost taxpayers £1.2 billion during 2012–13, up 9 per cent on the year before.
[7] A poll conducted by the Trades Union Congress in 2012 found that perceptions among the British public were that benefit fraud was high – on average people thought that 27% of the British welfare budget is claimed fraudulently;[8] however, official UK Government figures have stated that the proportion of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget in 2011/12.
[9] The political scientist Adam Taylor claimed that the targeting of benefit fraud was disproportionate and was evidence of "government using strong-arm tactics on the weakest members of British society": the disabled and the poor.
"[10] In comparison to the estimated 1.2[12] to 1.3bn lost to benefit fraud per year according to official statistics, the tax "gap" for 2013/2014 stood at the far higher figure of £34bn, or 6.4%.
[14] Officers can contact private and public organisations that hold information on a suspected benefit thief including banks, building societies, utility providers.
Between April 2008 and March 2009 it is estimated that £55 million was lost as a result of benefit fraud overpayments to British claimants who did not tell the authorities they were living or travelling abroad.
Any prosecution brought by the Department for Work and Pensions or a Local Authority should have been subject to the Public Interest Test as set out in the Code of Practice for Crown Prosecutors.