'winning scratchcard' dispute

[Top Cats Hat]

15 minutes ago, Jen17 said:

shouldn't be their choice though - I shouldn't have to work 45 hrs a week to fund someone's/smoking/drinking/gambling habits = especially when I can't afford to have those habits myself !  Benefits should cover essentials - reasonable housing, reasonable costs for  bills and reasonable food. PIP shouldn't be awarded for addictions yet I know for many it is - how is anyone ever going to overcome the addiction and better themselves and society if we continue to fund it ?

Then vote for a government which doesn't believe in the welfare state. 

 

What is needed to live on is calculated every year and is not particularly generous. How somebody chooses to spend that money is nobody's business but theirs, even if they would rather smoke than heat their house.

[Jen17]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Then vote for a government which doesn't believe in the welfare state. 

 

What is needed to live on is calculated every year and is not particularly generous. How somebody chooses to spend that money is nobody's business but theirs, even if they would rather smoke than heat their house.

It's more generous than working in a lot of cases ! Genuine claims for PIP of course I have no problem with but people taking the **** I do - and I know of many - I work in the sector.

People going to food banks because they don't want to buy food but buy fags/booze/drugs instead, people off with 'bad backs' but are out cutting xmas trees down and selling them, people claiming housing benefits and laughing at the system,  people who can and do have an active social life and are busy every day but then 'borrow' a pair of crutches if they are ever called to go for medicals or assessments - I can go on and on and give many examples - see it every day.  

Giving addicts cash is just the same as giving those begging cash if you see that thread. Cash will not help them in the long run - all society is doing is enabling them to carry on with their lifestyle, Yes give them a roof over their head, yes give them reasonable food but not cash to carry on their addictions.

[kaytie]

Answer would seem to be rents etc direct to landlord and food stamps - No cash!

[plans4houses]

“You make your own luck”  Ernest Hemingway.

 

I think this guy took the saying literally.

[longiesta]

On 12/14/2018 at 6:41 AM, Dragon 2 said:

Branson is as bad if not worse by his own admission! Read his book, I never bought off him again after I did. 

The guy who sued the NHS. Never bought into any of the Branson's a great guy hype

[Cyclone]

On 12/14/2018 at 1:46 PM, Top Cats Hat said:

This won't go anywhere near a court.

 

Unless he admits to doctoring the ticket, it will be impossible to prove that he tampered with it especially as he is in possession of any evidence.

 

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how this ended up in The Mail.

 

If the police open an investigation for an allegation of fraud then they can seize the evidence of course.

16 hours ago, Jen17 said:

shouldn't be their choice though - I shouldn't have to work 45 hrs a week to fund someone's/smoking/drinking/gambling habits = especially when I can't afford to have those habits myself !  Benefits should cover essentials - reasonable housing, reasonable costs for  bills and reasonable food. PIP shouldn't be awarded for addictions yet I know for many it is - how is anyone ever going to overcome the addiction and better themselves and society if we continue to fund it ?

It absolutely should be the choice of a benefit recipient how they spend it.

Benefits are set so that they (barely) cover essentials.

[Top Cats Hat]

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

If the police open an investigation for an allegation of fraud then they can seize the evidence of course.

 

It absolutely should be the choice of a benefit recipient how they spend it.

Benefits are set so that they (barely) cover essentials.

They can do but after this length of time it is worthless as evidence,  as all sorts of things may have happened to the scratchcard since it was first presented.

 

If Camelot were serious about it, they would have asked the retailer to withold the card and return it to them as part of the claim process. Even then the bloke could claim that anything could have happened to the card once it left his possession which a court would have to accept unless the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it hadn't.

 

It is not on for certain people on here to conflate spending benefits on whatever the claimant chooses and benefit fraud. It is illegal to make a claim for benefits that you are not entitled to. If you are entitled to those benefits, then it is absolutely up to the claiment what they choose to spend their money on.

[Albert smith]

5 hours ago, plans4houses said:

“You make your own luck”  Ernest Hemingway.

 

I think this guy took the saying literally.

Ernest shot himsen .

[Jen17]

2 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

They can do but after this length of time it is worthless as evidence,  as all sorts of things may have happened to the scratchcard since it was first presented.

 

If Camelot were serious about it, they would have asked the retailer to withold the card and return it to them as part of the claim process. Even then the bloke could claim that anything could have happened to the card once it left his possession which a court would have to accept unless the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it hadn't.

 

It is not on for certain people on here to conflate spending benefits on whatever the claimant chooses and benefit fraud. It is illegal to make a claim for benefits that you are not entitled to. If you are entitled to those benefits, then it is absolutely up to the claiment what they choose to spend their money on.

…… and then expect other people to provide food for them when they have been provided with the money for food !

[RollingJ]

2 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

They can do but after this length of time it is worthless as evidence,  as all sorts of things may have happened to the scratchcard since it was first presented.

 

If Camelot were serious about it, they would have asked the retailer to withold the card and return it to them as part of the claim process. Even then the bloke could claim that anything could have happened to the card once it left his possession which a court would have to accept unless the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it hadn't.

 

It is not on for certain people on here to conflate spending benefits on whatever the claimant chooses and benefit fraud. It is illegal to make a claim for benefits that you are not entitled to. If you are entitled to those benefits, then it is absolutely up to the claiment what they choose to spend their money on.

I think, and I hope @mayfa will back me upon this, irrespective of what is on the face of the card, it is the bar-code and check digits on the face which determine whether a scratch-card is a 'winner', not whatever the holder claims. These can't be altered, so it doesn't matter how long it is before it is seized as evidence.