I think the most shocking thing in the article you linked, is that the DWP says £10 billion per year is lost to fraud, but this new initiative to monitor bank accounts is only expected to save £1.6 billion over five years, or only 3.2% of losses!

There is nothing wrong in preventing fraud of any amount IMO, but there must surely be some much bigger targets in the other 96.8%.

The £10b "lost" is Fraud and error. Error - contrary to what some may think - is not civil servant bungling although obviously some of it is. It also includes what some might consider to be Fraud but is just the official or diplomatic way stating the cause was the same failure to report something relevant but they don't want to say that "Mrs Jones is a fraudster" so it is classed as error but error on the part of the person claiming.

A typical overpayment is someone with an income either not declaring it or not declaring an increase which is only revealed on a subsequent check. Because the confirmation eventually comes from the person, it doesn't get counted as Fraud.

It makes you wonder what would actually happen to Expats living in Spain who do not declare a death and keep taking the pension. Would the DWP actually be able to get the money back?

A timely reminder - only Bristol UK may criticise the DWP, because he once worked there - A VERY LONG TIME AGO!

Right, I understand that, perhaps because I have significant experience in identifying and reporting "errors", albeit not in the government, (I was talking with little Miss P recently about careers, as she is currently applying for university, and I mentioned that my entire career, to varying degrees, has been spent identifying the mistakes of others, and/ or fixing them) and so my question remains, saving £1.6 billion is all well and good, but what is being done to reduce the other £48.4 billion of losses, however they are described or classified?

Probably nothing. How are the millions of sad, mennal-elf afflicted obese scroungers expected to live an unhealthy life without sufficient money to pay for booze and drugs if they can't defraud the system?

& cigs, don't forget the cigs!

Most likely nothing beyond talk.
That quoted paragraph, for example, includes delays in different organisations, known to be underfunded.
So it would cost money to fund them better to avoid the delays that cost money

No, anyone is free to criticise. This forum is full of it. It's helpful to know something about the subject though, rather than just repeating uninformed stereotypes.
For over 30 years. That's a bit more than once.
But he still keeps himself informed and still knows people currently working there.

It's a strange idea that such an experience and current interest is invalid. Does this happen in other occupations? If you have, say, a former air traffic controller worker with experience of stopping planes crashing in mid-air, would you give more credence to a traffic warden when discussing air safety? I mean planes and cars are the same thing aren't they?

Be assured that, having been out of ATC for 10 years, and despite being in contact with some who are still current, I am very loath to comment on events today.

Well said (IMO)

Once they found out they would indeed pursue the debt.

In Catalonia the copayment level is held on your health account linked to your card, if you wanted some non-standard level due to whatever circumstance the Generalitat aren't aware of you would have to apply for it, otherwise it's taken from things they have on record (last years tax declaration, disability level, if you're claiming benefits, and if you're off work due to sickness). But all the chemist see is a percentage and a limit.

How effectively could they do that?