OK. It would also help to know what 'released from caution' means; does it indicated they were given a caution, but it has been removed, or have they been released from caution in the sense that they were interviewed under caution and could be recalled for further questioning?

I did admit it; indeed, it was I who told the council that it had happened, and supplied the evidence to show what had happened. One of the other two signed, with me, a falsified lodger agreement, so I would have thought that if one us can't be guilty and the other not. Although, I do understand - from what I was told at interview - that it may be deemed different offences for myself and the other two (e.g. lodger and landlords), so it might be something to do with that. Either way, an offence either happened or it didn't, and the investigator has not said which he has found to be the case. So I will be applying for a court order, on the ground of the information being vital to help settle a crucial point in a related court case.

Well, I have just received from one of the other parties - the one who co-sined the falsified lodger agreement - that he has been 'released from caution' and that no further action will be taken against him. So it seems nothing whatsoever has happened to him, and yet I have a caution. After the investigation closed, it had been confirmed that my caution will remain for 5 years. Yet, nothing for the other two. The two positions are totally contradictory, and the investigator won't tell me anything.

That is, unfortunately, what I suspected would be the case. I was given a formal caution before the investigation was complete. Subsequent to that, the other two parties were also interviewed,and the investigation closed several weeks after that. I have asked the investigator if the completed investigation has found that a fraud did occur. I asked because although the caution I got indicates a finding of guilt on my part, it was administered before the investigation had been completed, and so different - and possibly contradictory - conclusions might have been drawn after dealing with other two. Basically, I want to know that I haven't got a caution for an officially non-existent offence. I also need to know the findings of the investigation, because it is important evidence in a related county court case against me (the two other parties are alleging rent arrears based upon the false rent figure, so I could do with showing that their claim is based on an earlier fraud). Perhaps I could try for a court order to get the case file?

I have recently been a subject of a fraud investigation relating to a housing benefit claim for a former lodging. The landlord and his then partner were also investigated (one of them having jointly signed, with myself, a lodging agreement that falsely stated a higher rent than had been agreed, which was used to support the similarly exaggerated benefit claim). Several weeks ago, I was subjected to an interview under caution. I had already volunteered all of the information about the offence, before the council were even aware that one had taken place, and the interview was really just to reaffirm what I had already told them, for the benefit of a tape. Because I had admitted everything, and indue come forward of my own accord, I was given a formal caution. The investigation continued for several weeks after - presumably then focussing on the two other parties; I know that they were interviewed some time after me - and has now been completed. I need to make a DPA request for the case file, and am wondering if the DPA has any provisions that would allow me to see the entire file unedited - i.e. to include whatever information is held about the other two parties in connection to the same offence, given that I have a direct interest in knowing, for example, whether they received any penalties themselves (considering that the nature of the offence is such that I can't have committed it without one or both of them).