In conclusion this research will show how to avoid the negativities, such as having to pay back an overpayment by emphasizing the correct steps to follow as well as how to go about notifying the service of any changes in the lifestyle of the person or persons receiving the benefits.
Social Security Schemes to gain funding that one is not entitled to is a pertinent problem in the UK, however some do make innocent mistakes such as in the case that this research is examining. Anytime that DLA increases or decreases the changes have to be noted or otherwise it could be presumed that fraud was being committed. The overpayment of carer services has been an extensive problem for a number of years now, therefore many laws and policies govern it. The main basic program is ran on a Universal Health Care Policy that depicts what benefits families will receive (Zeitzer 1995). The program that this couple falls under would be governed by the laws associated with "disability pension schemes" which can be found to be very strict when in regards to tracking family income and the amount of an allowance that should be allotted (Zeitzer 1995). Withholding information or not reporting changes to the proper association can promote much negativity in the program which this case is a prime example of what can happen.
Furthermore, the assessed DLA defines what types of benefits an individual is entitled too and if they are eligible for carer service as well (Berthoud 1998, p. 224). Due to the past problems, such as those who have had to question whether or not to actually telephone a difference of their DLA change into the service, especially a carer service, such as in the case of Gloria and Steven, many improvisions have been made to correct these various problems and lower the fraud rate of DLA. The main concern of the Government is to gain funds back that were overpaid or falsely claimed period. So it could be that in Gloria's case, regardless of whether her actions were a mistake she is more than likely going to have to be pay back what she was overpaid due to the already outstanding issues in the policies of DLA and Carer benefits and allowances (Berthoud 1998, p.224). The reason for this is logically it can be assumed Gloria was aware of the laws at the review, she had to have known that carer's in a lower rating could not receive more than 40 pounds per week in income and must provide at least 35 hours of service (Zeitzer 1995). In Gloria's case there were hints that the income was above 40 pounds per week and also she was not putting in the service hours to make her eligible to receive the allowance that she was. However Gloria and Steven could possibly claim that they had perceived that the review board would have automatically alerted the other agencies that there were changes in the DLA benefits and therefore the Carer allowance would have been adjusted as well. At the same time this is said it could be stated that as soon as Gloria became aware she was being overpaid she should have called in and ensured that the changes had been received instead of sitting back and