Wildman/Papworth Trust/Douglas Saints and Scroungers

Here in the UK, we're lucky to have transport networks,

legal aid and free healthcare.

I'm incredibly grateful that the NHS exists,

I have personally benefited from it.

It enhances our general wellbeing,

knowing that there is a safety net there.

These services are mostly paid for by us, the taxpayer.

And, on the whole, we don't mind.

But what happens when someone tries to steal from the system?

I think it's shocking that people lie to get benefits.

I get very angry about people cheating,

cos that's what it is, isn't it?

It's outrageous, disgusting, and needs to be dealt with.

With the economy as tough as it is, it's more important than ever

that those who nick from the system don't get away with it...

and those who need help get it.

This is the world of Saints And Scroungers.

Coming up, the scroungers

out to cheat the system...

A man who claims to be

severely disabled,

but still manages to be able

to drive a bus for a living.

There were no crutches,

there was no wheelchair.

And somebody who if you looked at,

generally, you wouldn't think

was a person who would be claiming

the highest rate of disability benefits.

..and those who are in need of a helping hand.

A family determined to do whatever it takes

to continue to care for their grandson at home.

I think it would break his heart if he had to go somewhere,

into residential care.

And I love him, and I wouldn't have seen him go anywhere else.

Ooh! Working when you're under the weather is not much fun.

But back pain is different. If you've got it bad,

it can prevent you from getting out of bed, full stop.

There are some people, though,

who are determined to put their back into cheating the benefits system.

48-year-old Patrick Wildman knows all about back pain.

He's been suffering with it

since the early 1990s and has even undergone operations

to put it right. Unfortunately, it left him with limited mobility,

so he asked for government help to get by.

Wildman lived in Plymouth, Devon's largest city.

Famous for its maritime heritage,

it's home to a quarter of a million people,

and Wildman was just one of the 18,500

who claim Disability Living Allowance.

Steve Cowell has the job of ensuring

that all the claims are legitimate.

There are many different types of benefit

and they change quite regularly. So can you explain to me one of them?

Disability Living Allowance. How does that work?

Disability Living Allowance is financial support

for disabled people. We're looking at, in the main,

severely disabled claimants who would be entitled to it.

It has different components. There's a care component

and there's a mobility component,

to determine if, for example, they're able to cook their own food,

get in and out of the shower, in and out of the bath, that sort of thing.

They then are judged to what criteria they would be placed in.

So what sorts of sums of money are we talking about?

We're looking at the basic rate, which would be around £21 a week,

up to a maximum rate of about £138 a week.

Now, presumably,

the vast majority of people

who claim Disability Living Allowance do so honestly.

-That's not an issue, is it?

-I think, to put it in perspective,

the government supports disabled people to the tune of about £50 billion a year.

But it would be an extremely small number of those claims

that would be fraudulent. Extremely low.

'Even though the number of fraudulent cases is small,

'they can account for

'a disproportionately large sum of money.

'So it's vital for the department to investigate any suspicious claims.

'What caused Patrick Wildman

'to claim benefits in the first place?'

In the early 1990s, Patrick Wildman

was subjected to a car accident

and had real pain to his lower back,

resulting in complications

following surgery, and osteoarthritis.

He'd stated that he was unable to walk

without the aid of crutches and adult support.

He also stated he was unable to get in and out of bed without support,

that he was unable to go to the toilet without support.

So he claimed, and was awarded,

Disability Living Allowance in 2002.

The award then would have been just over £100 per week,

rising with inflation to about £130 per week

when the investigation commenced.

'So when they started looking into his claim,

'Wildman was in the highest mobility rate

'and receiving over £6,500 a year.'

So what was the first inkling that perhaps

all was not as it was being painted?

Mrs Wildman, his ex-wife, was claiming benefits in her own right

whilst living in the same household

as her husband still, Patrick Wildman.

Following an interview to review

her benefit claim,

she let slip in discussion

that Patrick Wildman was working for City Bus.

'Now, Wildman's ex was simply being interviewed

'with regards to her own legitimate benefit claims.

'She wasn't suspected of any wrongdoing.

'But her statement about her ex-husband's potential employment

'was enough to launch an investigation.'

We take various serious steps

to confirm the quality of the information received

and, of course, in this case, we did check with the employer,

who confirmed that Patrick Wildman was working for Plymouth City Bus.

'Now, you are able to work while on Disability Living Allowance,

'but alarm bells were ringing

'as to whether he was, in fact, disabled at all.

'The case was handed over

'to the Department for Work and Pensions' counter-fraud team.

'Due to the nature of his work,

'this investigator has asked to remain anonymous.'

We obtained his...

Disability Living Allowance papers and, on checking those,

the things that he claimed

that were wrong with him

seemed inconsistent with a job as a bus driver.

'The next step for the investigator

'was to contact the bus company directly.'

They confirmed that he was working for them as a bus driver,

and they were... quite happy with his work,

which surprised us a little,

obviously, given the disabilities he'd reported to us.

Erm, and they said that his work was fine

and he was driving the buses on a regular basis.

They gave us copies of his application form

and also a copy of his medical declaration.

And he'd not told them of any disabilities

that would affect his work or anything.

'Wildman started driving buses in 2007,

'five years after his original benefit claim.

'So was this the only job he'd done

'since he'd been on Disability Living Allowance?'

We checked his National Insurance records and were surprised to find

that there were two other jobs listed for Mr Wildman.

The first job was for a window company,

delivering PVC windows.

Erm, he'd mentioned a back problem to them,

even to the extent that, after a while,

their company doctor was concerned that

he wouldn't be able to continue with that job

and he subsequently left it,

but did not inform the department at all about that. Second job

was for the local paper,

delivering their papers to the shops

for sale.

And for them, he'd mentioned no disabilities whatsoever,

and had that job for a couple of years,

before going on to work for the bus company.

'So Wildman had been doing three very physical jobs,

'despite claiming he needed help to walk and even to go to the loo.

'As the evidence against him was building up,

'they now needed to catch him on camera.

'The investigation team

'had a whole range of sophisticated equipment on hand to help them.'

Different cameras will be used depending on where the subject is,

how far away we are.

Obviously, the video cameras are like the workhorse.

They work on long-distance shots, they work out of the cars.

The other type of cameras, the smaller ones,

are used very much for close-up work and they're very good within,

sort of, five feet to about 15 feet from the actual subject themselves,

and obviously well-concealed.

Obviously, the quality of video is quite important to us.

So in the case of Patrick Wildman,

what is it that you were trying to establish

that you couldn't work out any other way?

So, we know with Patrick Wildman,

we know that he was working

for three employers,

two of the employers in the past.

We know that with speaking to the employers,

he hadn't declared any disability at all.

He's telling us that he's unable to leave the house unaided

and he needs help getting dressed and going to the toilet each day.

So we just want to see what capabilities

he's actually displaying while he's out of the house.

'So would the surveillance team

'be able to gather the information they needed? We'll see later.

'For now, though, it's goodbye to the scroungers

'trying to cheat the system

'and hello to those who we call our saints,

'people who do everything to make sure that

'those in need of help get what they need.'

Family. They're the people

that should be there for you, no matter what.

And for many disabled people,

it's family members who provide most of their essential daily care.

Those who dedicate their lives to looking after their loved ones

need all the help and support that they can get.

So it's slightly worrying to hear that

some of that help may be taken away.

'Sue and Paul Rutherford, from Pembrokeshire,

'are full-time carers for their 13-year-old grandson, Warren,

'who has an extremely rare chromosome disorder

'called Potocki-Shaffer syndrome.

'He's the only known case in the UK

'and there are only around 40 cases in the world.'

'He's autistic, to an extent. He has epilepsy.'

He has learning difficulties, communication problems.

He can't... Well, unless you know him very well, he can't communicate.

'Warren's mother had had a straightforward pregnancy,

'so the devastating diagnosis came completely out of the blue.'

They discovered that this is what he had, you know,

this chromosome deletion. He never used to cry like a normal baby.

He'd sleep a lot and he had quite a few soft lumps in his head,

which they thought were pressure bumps, due to the birth.

But it turned out that it was all part of this condition.

My daughter was only young when she had Warren

and she coped with him quite well.

And then she fell pregnant again.

She had a little girl

and she got postnatal depression.

'To help her daughter,

'Sue took over caring for her grandchildren,

'and although her granddaughter went back to live with her mother,

'Sue decided to carry on

'looking after Warren herself, which isn't easy.

'His condition means that he needs care 24 hours a day.'

Warren's lovely to look after, but it is very hard work.

I have to literally do everything for him.

'When Warren was a toddler, it was easier for Sue to cope,

'but as he grew older and heavier, life became harder

'and the home she was living in wasn't ideal.'

It was an old house and it was quite narrow.

And we had a stairlift there.

And when we got to the top, there was a hoist.

And I didn't like getting him off that chair,

right at the top of the stairs like that,

I was a bit worried he was going to fall.

It was quite scary, really.

'Sue was struggling.

'Her council house just wasn't practical for Warren.

'But luckily, there was help out there.'

The Home For Life Scheme came about because

the key worker that used to visit in the old house...

..kept on and on saying, this house just isn't big enough for Warren.

And I think it was the council,

Pembrokeshire Housing, and everybody...

all decided that Warren was the most needy case.

'Pembrokeshire Housing Association provides a small number

'of specially-built bungalows for disabled people,

'paid for, in part, by the Welsh Government.

'Warren's home was built with his needs in mind,

'which included a third bedroom, built primarily for a carer to use.

To just make it easier for everybody, and...

Warren could have a better quality of life.

'Sue moved into the house in 2009

'and, a year later, she met and married Paul.

'Paul has health issues himself,

'so although he wasn't able to help Sue

'as much as he would've liked with Warren,

'he did provide a lot of emotional support,

'and Warren saw Paul as his granddad.'

When he's wanted me, he shouts, "Granddad, Granddad, Granddad!"

It's "Gan-dad," not "Granddad," but who cares?

You know, it's fantastic. One word, worth a million.

'Despite getting on themselves,

'Paul and Sue were determined

'to continue to look after Warren at home.

'They did get respite care each week,

'meaning a carer would look after Warren

'for a few hours so they could get a break.

'And things were working fine.

'That was until the Spare Room Subsidy,

'or Bedroom Tax, came into force.'

From 1st April 2013, the Bedroom Tax has come into force.

And given their situation with Warren, Paul and Sue thought it would never apply to them.

Well, when we first became aware of the Bedroom Tax,

it was about December last year, I think it was.

When the form came through,

she opened it and she said, "You're not going to believe this."

Handed it to me, and I said, "I don't believe that, they've made a mistake."

'The Spare Room Subsidy, or Bedroom Tax,

'means that anyone in social housing who's under-occupying their house

'has to pay for any spare rooms.

'For Sue and Paul, it meant that their third bedroom was about to make their home unaffordable.'

'They had no spare cash

'and were facing the agonising reality of being forced to downsize

'and having to put Warren into care.'

I think it would break his heart if he had to go somewhere, into residential care.

And I love him, and I wouldn't have seen him go anywhere else.

'Sue and Paul heard that the council had the power to award

'a discretionary housing payment to people in their situation,

'so they applied. But the forms were hardly straightforward.'

We just couldn't believe it. The detail we ended up giving them

to sort of show how our weekly shop ended up at...

£100 one week, 150 another, 50 another, perhaps.

'The Rutherfords also had to list

'all the benefits they were receiving,

'but hoped that would be enough

'for them to qualify for the payment they so desperately needed.'

We got this letter back from the council saying,

"You have £99.22p - or something - a week extra income."

We just...couldn't believe it.

Sue looked at me and she said,

"Where is this money supposed to be coming from?"

'The council believed that they had additional income

'because they took into account Warren's Disability Living Allowance.

'But that was being used for his care needs and medical equipment,

'so although it looked like they had spare money, this really wasn't the case.

We thought, well, we just can't afford to pay this

and keep Warren's life going as...

We might have to say we can't take him out or something.

Then he'd start getting fed up. Cut down on meals.

'The Rutherfords didn't know where to turn next,

'so they started looking on the internet.

'And when they saw others online with similar stories,

'they decided to put up a post about their own situation.

'That's how the Papworth Trust became aware of their story.

'Nina Zamo is their Policy and Campaigns Manager.'

We were really surprised that

the Rutherfords had been turned down

for a discretionary housing payment.

They seemed like such a needy case.

They were living in a specially-adapted property

and there wasn't really anywhere for them to downsize to.

'And if they were forced into a smaller, unadapted property,

'then they would no longer be able to look after Warren.'

Warren would need to go into residential care, which would be at a cost of about £5,000 a week.

'That's over a quarter of a million pounds a year.

'It's money the Rutherfords are effectively saving the Government

'by caring for their grandson at home.

'The Trust called Paul and Sue to see what support they could offer.

We were sort of at our wits' end

before the Papworth got in touch with us.

We didn't really know what to do.

'The Trust offered to publicise their case

'by running a media campaign on TV, radio, and in national newspapers.'

We were really keen to get the Rutherfords' story out there publicly

because we knew that they'd reached a dead end and there was nowhere else really for them to go.

We thought that helping them to share their story

would also encourage other disabled people to share how they've been affected by the Spare Room Subsidy.

'In the months following, the council reassessed the Rutherfords' case.'

Finally, the family had the news it had been waiting for.

The discretionary housing payment had been granted,

but only for one year.

Their battle was far from over.

'Apart from gaining them publicity, the Trust advised the couple on how to fight their corner

'and keep abreast on how legislation was being looked at.

'The advice and support has been fantastic for the Rutherfords.'

What difference has getting the discretionary housing payment made to you?

Well, it's taken the pressure off us, for a start,

knowing that we wouldn't have to move,

but that's only for the short-term, really.

We would hate for Warren to have to go into care,

because that's what would happen if we had to move.

It's a purpose-built house, there's nowhere else for us to move to,

at all, it's just... The place doesn't exist.

'Sue and Paul desperately want to be able to afford

'to keep Warren at home with them.

'And the Trust is hoping they can help them do this.'

How did you feel before? Were you very stressed?

Yeah, yeah. I think because Paul knows he's got somebody backing him up now,

he can fight harder. It's given him that extra confidence.

Although it's the scariest thing we've ever had to do in our lives,

we need to do something about it.

And it's our hope that we can get his future sorted out now,

while we're both still around.

'With the support of charities led by Child Poverty Action,

'Paul's now taking his case all the way to the top,

'to challenge the Department for Work and Pensions.

'He's trying to bring about a change to the legislation

'by adding an exemption for everyone who needs a spare room for carers

'who help to look after children.

'There's still a long way to go.

'So what does Sue hope the future holds for Warren?'

I'm just hoping that he'll be able to stay in this house,

with his spare bedroom, and live happily, with no stress.

You know, he deserves that.

It makes your day when you see him smiling.

'Now it's time to return to the world of our devious scroungers.

'48-year-old Patrick Wildman,

'from Plymouth, had claimed to be severely disabled,

'so he'd been receiving Disability Living Allowance since 2002.

'But after his ex-wife

'inadvertently told the Benefit Office

'he was driving a bus for a living, alarm bells started to ring.

'Before they could take the case any further, though, they needed hard evidence.'

Paper evidence is very good,

but surveillance evidence tells its own story.

If people are put under surveillance and they're not aware of it,

you actually get a true picture of their actual mobility positions

and what they can and cannot do,

which is always considered the best evidence you can have.

Seeing somebody do something is worth a thousand bits of paper.

We needed to establish exactly the levels of his ability,

how far he could walk, what sort of care he was taking,

what sort of care

he was being given. Because the actual job

he was doing as a bus driver,

obviously, there is a certain safety aspect to that,

and somebody who has care needs and mobility issues,

certainly, that is a problem.

Luckily, the bus company concerned was able to provide us

with details of his application form,

medicals and the rota he was on,

which enabled us to establish

when he would be at a certain location, at a certain time.

'The surveillance operation was carefully planned.

'They were filming Wildman in a public area

'and needed to be able to move around

'and follow him without detection,

'so they used covert cameras.

'The surveillance began.'

Where the bus would arrive

and he'd get off for his break, we could watch him

during his time in the city centre,

literally across the road from where we are currently.

We also put an officer onto the bus

with a camera that was capable of recording Mr Wildman driving the bus.

MUFFLED SPEECH

'And then we followed him'

literally on foot round the city centre,

and we did that for three days

whilst he took his breaks

from driving the bus.

There were no crutches, there was no wheelchair, no walking aids,

and somebody who if you looked at,

generally, you just wouldn't think

was a person who would be claiming

the highest rate of disability benefits.

That was enough for us

to consider sending the case to the decision-maker.

'After the team had finished filming,

'the evidence was reviewed

'and Wildman was invited for an interview under caution

'to give his side of the story.'

He was called in for interview in January 2010

and was interviewed by a couple of our investigators.

They asked questions about his mobility allowance

and his care allowance,

and went through his claim form

and confirmed that the information he'd given was correct,

and then discussed about the jobs that he had.

He was also asked about

his medical questionnaire

that he completed for the bus company

and he basically said, "Yeah, I lied a bit on that."

When asked what he meant by that, he said,

"Well, I didn't tell them about my back problem."

Asked why he didn't tell them, he said,

"Well, I wouldn't have got the job, would I?"

He was shown the actual DVD, an edited DVD of the footage

that we'd taken whilst on surveillance.

He was asked questions like,

"Can you tell us what you're doing here?"

He said, "Walking." He was asked how briskly he was walking,

to which he said, "I don't know. Well, it varies from day to day.

"I wear patches. I've got pain."

When the officer said to him, "We're talking a distance in this bit,

"that we've just seen of about 110 metres,"

Mr Wildman said, "Which is what I said, I don't know.

"I don't understand distances."

Which, as a bus driver, seemed a little bit strange.

Basically, he was shown the whole of

the edited footage that was taken

of various things, of him walking round the town centre

on three different days,

and obviously, pictures of him driving the bus, as well.

And he said, towards the end,

"As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't doing anything wrong."

'Ah, well, maybe, but the department thought he was,

'as they believed he'd claimed

'£27,000 he wasn't entitled to.

'But it wasn't just the Department for Work and Pensions

'that he'd been squeezing money from.'

When we interviewed Patrick Wildman under caution,

he also told us that he'd represented

to Social Services that he was severely disabled

and had modifications to his house,

including wheelchair access

and modifications to his toilet.

The modifications were a sizeable amount,

in the region of in excess of £20,000.

'It's one way of getting your house made over.

'The evidence stacked up and the case finally went to court in 2013.

'But when Wildman turned up,

'he wasn't as agile as he'd appeared

'in the surveillance footage.'

Patrick Wildman attended court in a wheelchair,

trying to represent the fact that he was severely disabled,

despite evidence to the contrary.

But, I mean, you'd seen him, you'd witnessed him driving a bus,

walking around town. Was it convincing?

It certainly wasn't convincing for us, in lieu of the heavy evidence.

And, in fact, he didn't seem very comfortable

operating the wheelchair in court.

In fact, one of the court officials had to say in open court

that he didn't appear to have used a wheelchair before.

It was quite a different scenario

from the person that had been seen and filmed on the surveillance

to actually seeing him in a wheelchair.

'In his defence, Wildman stated that

'he had informed the DWP

'about his bus-driving work in 2009,

'but this was dismissed as non-voluntary declaration

'as he'd only done so after discovering that the department

was looking into his case. He also stated that

'his condition had since worsened.

'But regardless of his current health,

'how could he defend the agility we saw in the surveillance?'

During the court case, obviously, Mr Wildman had been discovered

to have had two additional jobs,

one as a delivery driver for a window company

and another one as a delivery driver for a newspaper company.

During the court case, he indicated to the court

that with both of those jobs,

his wife had come with him,

hidden round the corner until he had gone in and loaded up

both the windows and the papers,

then joined him in the van

and then unloaded the papers herself when they were out on the job.

Having seen his wife and the fact that she is not a very tall lady

or a very large lady,

it would seem very difficult for her to lift those items in particular.

'Unbelievable. The jury didn't accept his story

'and he was found guilty of one count of failing to declare

'a change in circumstances.'

So what was the result?

He got

36 months' imprisonment,

suspended for two years.

But in terms of the money

that's been overpaid,

what's happened to that? Any chance of seeing that?

We identified a £27,600 overpayment

and the department reserves the right to recover the money

direct from any future benefit entitlement,

or indeed, if there is no benefit claimed,

to recover the money civilly.