Why Benefit Fraud Makes Headlines — and Council Insider Fraud Rarely Does

A familiar story did the rounds in the run-up to Christmas: a benefits claimant exposed by covert video, prosecuted, and written up in a way that leaves little doubt about the intended moral. KentOnline ran it under the kind of headline that travels fast on social media — “Benefit cheat from Folkestone who dishonestly claimed…”, with the hook of undercover footage and a five-figure sum.

Whatever anyone thinks about the offence, there is a bigger question hiding in plain sight: why is this type of fraud treated as a public spectacle, while fraud inside the public sector (Local Authorities) — often involving far bigger sums — so rarely becomes a local-media drumbeat?

A dry, technical document helps answer that question. And it also exposes an awkward truth: the public’s mental picture of “where the money goes” is being shaped less by the scale of fraud than by what gets publicised.

What the fraud totals actually say

The Annual Fraud Indicator 2023 (produced by Crowe, Peters & Peters, and the University of Portsmouth) estimates the UK’s annual fraud loss at almost £219 billion.

On the two pages that matter here, the report draws a sharp contrast:

Benefits and tax credits fraud (page 19) is estimated at £2,923 million (about £2.9bn). The biggest single chunk is Universal Credit (£1,390m), followed by Housing Benefit (£704m), then smaller categories including Employment and Support Allowance, Pension Credit, Council Tax Reduction, Carer’s Allowance and tax credits.

Local government fraud excluding benefits (page 18) is in a different league. The table lists procurement fraud (£5,041m) and payroll fraud (£1,164m) — before you even reach grants, pensions, Blue Badge misuse, and housing tenancy fraud.

The paragraph beneath points readers towards a much bigger figure, stating that local government fraud (excluding benefits) increased from £7.8bn (2017) to £8.8bn (2021–22).

In other words: even the report’s own presentation suggests local government fraud is the larger prize — not benefits.

The report’s warning: publicity distorts perception

The same document also explains why the public conversation often feels upside-down.

One of the report’s expert contributors makes the point bluntly: perceptions of fraud change according to the level of publicity it receives, and it is “not satisfactory” to rely on publicity-driven impressions.

That line matters because benefit fraud does not merely receive publicity — it often receives a particular kind of publicity: a story format built for outrage, complete with “cheat” labels, personal details, and easily shareable humiliation.

The “benefit cheat” publicity pipeline

Local authorities do not just respond to court outcomes. Many actively publish named stories about benefit or council tax fraud as if they are a deterrent campaign.

Havering Council’s own news page provides a near-perfect example, with the headline: “‘Well dodgy’ benefit cheat banged up”, describing a case involving over £30,000 of council tax and housing benefit fraud.

West Suffolk Council’s press release — “resident jailed for fraud” — names the defendant, gives the amount (over £30,000 across Council Tax Support, Housing Benefit and Pension Credit), and reads as a public warning.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council publishes similar pieces naming individuals and listing the benefits involved.

Spelthorne Borough Council does the same, including full names and court details in its own “successfully prosecuted” announcement.

In Northern Ireland, the Department for Communities routinely publishes conviction notices naming defendants and courts, in a steady stream of official “benefit fraud” updates. This is not simply “open justice”. It is a pattern: investigate → prosecute → publicise → repeat, often with language that turns an offence into a social label.

Council officers commit fraud too — but it’s not marketed the same way

None of this is to deny that fraud by employees, contractors, or insiders does surface publicly. It does — especially when it reaches criminal prosecution.

Medway Council, for example, issued a press release about a former employee ordered to repay more than £8,000 after a council investigation, setting out the outcome and the total to be repaid.

Waltham Forest has published a statement about a former council employee found guilty of abuse of position, again naming and detailing the case.

The Crown Prosecution Service has publicised cases involving former council employees convicted of fraud by abuse of position and bribery — serious offences involving trust and public money.

Birmingham City Council has also published a prosecution announcement about a former employee convicted of fraud by abuse of position.

So yes: council insiders can be named, and sometimes are.

But compare the “feel” and frequency. Benefit fraud publicity is a well-worn lane — a conveyor belt of easily packaged stories. Employee and procurement-related fraud is far less routinely pushed into the local spotlight, even though the Annual Fraud Indicator suggests procurement and payroll losses are enormous.

The question is why.

The structural reason: many staff cases never reach court — and confidentiality is built into the exit route

A key difference is that benefit fraud stories generally end in court. Court outcomes are reportable, names are publishable, and councils can wrap the whole thing up as a “we’re protecting taxpayers” narrative.

Employment cases don’t have to go that way. They can end with resignation, dismissal, repayment, or a negotiated departure — and that departure often involves confidentiality.

ACAS is explicit: settlement agreements often include confidentiality clauses, also called NDAs, which can require the parties to keep the fact and details of an agreement confidential.

The National Audit Office has long warned that confidentiality in compromise/settlement agreements reduces transparency and makes prevalence harder to gauge. In the NAO’s June 2013 report, it noted that a member-of-the-public FOI survey found 52 councils refused to disclose information about their use of compromise agreements.

Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee went further in its commentary on “gagging clauses”, stating that NAO sampling found 88% of compromise agreements contained a confidentiality clause — and warning that organisations’ reputational interests can mask the wider public interest.

Government guidance has also cautioned against routine confidentiality in such agreements. A Cabinet Office guidance document states confidentiality clauses should not be included “as a matter of course” and should be used only when necessary.

None of this proves that councils routinely use NDAs specifically to bury fraud. What it does show is simpler and more important: the system provides a ready-made, legally familiar way for organisations to manage departures quietly, whereas benefit fraud cases — once prosecuted — are structurally designed to end up in open court and, often, on a council or newspaper website.

That is how you get an accountability imbalance without anyone needing to hold a secret meeting about it.

Two standards of humiliation

The result is a public narrative that is, at best, lopsided.

On one side, benefit claimants — often poor, often unwell, sometimes simply confused by complex rules — can find their names and personal circumstances turned into a shareable warning poster.

On the other, wrongdoing linked to procurement, payroll, grants and abuse of position can be handled through internal processes or negotiated exits that generate far fewer public facts — even though the estimated losses in these areas are vast.

The Annual Fraud Indicator all but tells us what happens next: the most publicised category becomes the one the public assumes is the biggest, regardless of the underlying figures.

What should change?

If public bodies genuinely believe publicity is a deterrent, then they need to answer a hard question: why is deterrence-by-publicity applied so enthusiastically to benefit fraud, but so inconsistently to fraud inside the institution?

There are only two defensible directions.

Either councils and departments should stop using “named-and-shamed” communications as a tactic for benefit cases, sticking to neutral court reporting and aggregate statistics.

Or they should apply the same transparency instincts to insider wrongdoing: procurement fraud, payroll fraud, abuse of position, contractor fraud — not only when a prosecution is unavoidable, but as a matter of routine public reporting (within the bounds of the law and fairness).

Because the present position looks less like justice and more like power: the powerless become examples, while the institution retains options to minimise embarrassment.

And if a council wants the public to believe it is serious about fraud, it should start by treating all fraudsters — not just the easiest ones to shame — as equally newsworthy.

If you have a story we should be looking at, then please do contact us at: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me – Always Discreet, Always Confidential

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness