tomtom256
-
Posts
408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by tomtom256
-
What are you going on about. IUC teams? They are trained investigators that have to meet the same investigation standards and prosecution threshold as the police. The Crown Prosecution Service deal with the prosecutions and if they are not up to standard they get kicked back. All investigators have to adhere to PACE and CPIA to name a few and breach of this would make any investigation null and void. I am not sure where you get your information from but they are fully trained in benefit rules and legislation and each case will be sent to a decision maker before going any further after an IUC. As for providing them with more evidence, if they haven't already got what they are querying then they should not have interviewed.
-
Basically as you have continued to be linked to that address and have continued to use the address for credit after the split, the DWP are looking at whether it was a fictitious desertion or a genuine separation. Obviously some of the bills you state stayed in your name which you can explain to a degree. In respect to your questions:- 1) Is this legal (my personal rights and family) - Yes it is, the DWP have powers to investigate reports of alleged benefit fraud and where evidence is obtained to show potential fraud an IUC and subsequent action is taken. This is called the Social Security Fraud Act. 2) Is visiting my parents legal - Yes this is legal as CPIA states that an investigator must follow all reasonable lines of inquiry to prove or disprove the alleged fraud, whether your parents want to provide invigoration though is up to them. 3) The issue is with me rather than my x partner why cant they deal with me? - As you are not the benefit claimant they cannot IUC you until they have spoken with the benefit claimant as you are not committing any offense as such. 4) I hold a professional position with a company and I fear that them asking or poking around could somewhat possibly lead me out of a job! - Again they have powers to approach an employer under EQ1 action, it doesn't state why they need the information, but it's not hard to figure out. The investigator should write to you in due course and ask you for your side of the events so that a decision can then be made on any entitlement to benefit.
-
In that case he needs to attend an interview and use the fact he told the DWP i.e. Income Support that he had started work and that he expected them to close all his claims with them and/or notify the other sections within the DWP that he had started work, on a once and done type of approach and that as far as he was aware the that was the end of it as he had notified them correctly that he had started work. Hopefully the investigator dealing has already checked with HB and IS for the reasons they ended so should be aware that he had notified them. Should they decide to take it to court via the CPS, it is highly unlikely they would accept the case based on that reasoning.
-
He needs to attend as failing to do so will probably result in the case being passed through for prosecution, as he has started work and in theory failed to notify the relevant department and they would have obtained his earnings for the relevant period. If as you say, he has stopped his HB and IS claim and given the reason as started work, he could use the fact he told the DWP i.e. the relevant department that he notified them and that they did not fully act on the information and close down his CA claim at the same time as IS. If he ended the claim as he formed a relationship[, then he is on a slightly sticky wicket as he should have told CA about his income, presuming it is over the income threshold of I think £110 or thereabouts a week and would have to explain any reason why he did not notify them of this. He would/should also have gotten an uprating/yearly award letter in March/April time to show what he was getting.
-
The first issue is are they in a Universal Credit Full Service area and if so, was it Full Service when they put in the claim for HB? If they are/where then she should have been told to claim UC in May and closed her ESA claim down. If not, she needs to ask the Local Authority why they have not processed the claim and/or what information they still need to process it? I am surprised the Housing Association have not started eviction, unless her rent has been paid?
-
I think you have fallen foul of the Genuine Prospect of Work rule which kicks in after six months for EEA claimants and have been sent the wrong letter. I would raise a recon and see what happens explaining about family being here etc.
-
No I don't misunderstand it then, the situation is still the same, the rent has been reduced and housing benefit can only be claimed on the actual rent charged and not to repay you for the boiler. I now what people say about a reduction in rent etc, but that is not how housing benefit works. What you should have done is left the rent at the normal amount and then gotten the landlord to make the boiler payment as a separate transaction, this would have been fine, as any checks conducting by the LA would show that the full rent was still being paid. Should they then have asked why the landlord was transferring money back to you, you could then have explained the boiler situation and as the full rent was being paid they would/should not have reduced your housing benefit.
-
But that's not what he has done though is it, unless I misunderstand it. Tenant has paid for new boiler and from the sounds of it on credit and is paying for it monthly with the extra HB he gets as landlord has reduced rent, ergo, landlord has not forked out a penny for the boiler and replacement is being covered by benefit payments. I can guarantee thats how the local authority see it.
-
No, any changes in rent have to be notified to whomever is paying the benefit if it could affect the benefit entitlement. If you read your award letter it will say something along the lines of changes include an increase or decrease in rent. So if you had paid rent in advance for six months and claimed HB and the rent was subsequently reduced during that six months, you would still have an overpayment, as benefit is awarded on the initial contractual rent agreement and not just on what is declared. That's why they do these checks every now and again to make sure benefit is being paid correctly. You would have also signed a claim form declaring that you would notify them of any changes that could affect your entitlement. I am not sure what you aren't getting about how HB works?
-
Housing benefit doesn't work like that and I think you have been paying less rent because you said you have, as the landlord agreed to reduce the rent as you were paying for the boiler. Say you pay 6 months in advance on rent of £850, you will still be entitled to whatever HB pays towards that £850, as long as you had a genuine reason for paying 6 months rent in advance. However if you are paying £850 rent and you then enter into a personal arrangement with the landlord to buy a boiler at say £3,000 and he reduces the rent to £700, your eligible rent for benefit purposes becomes whatever you are entitled to of that £700 rent, regardless of what agreement you have with the landlord, as this now becomes your contractual rent agreement, which is what is used to calculate your housing benefit award. Housing benefit cannot be claimed to cover boiler payments if you are paying it monthly, which it sounds like you could be, as it is the landlords legal requirement to have a fully working boiler, it is not down to the tenant to pay for a replacement boiler, no matter what arrangement you have with the landlord or how well you get on. What would you do if he suddenly decided to evict you? You cannot expect benefits to pay you back for the boiler or to pay any monthly contract you have for the boiler replacement as this is not a contractual obligation under your tenancy agreement.
-
Potentially, what you have done is akin to benefit fraud, as you are expecting the tax payer to purchase the boiler by keeping the extra housing benefit you would have been receiving whilst paying less rent, unless I am missing something. You should have just gotten the landlord to fulfill his legal obligations and have him pay for it.
-
So where you paying less to the landlord and keeping the extra housing benefit? I don't get how you could have paid the boiler value in rent up front, as you wouldn't have known about having to replace the boiler. It is also unclear why the landlord didn't just fund the boiler replacement as they are legally/contractually bound to. What was your initial rent amount, how much was the boiler replacement, how much was the rent reduced to as part of the new agreement, how much housing benefit did you get before the change and how much do you get now? Was a new tenancy agreement created for this change?
-
Why does it leave you out of pocket? You have been getting more housing benefit than you were entitled too, were you expecting that housing benefit would replace what you spent on the boiler or for the reduction in rent to cover the cost?
-
Failure to inform DWP of changed circumstances
tomtom256 replied to NormyNorm's topic in Benefits and HMRC
The overpayment threshold changed over the last few years to £3k from £2k as too many cases were being passed to CPS so they increased it to lessen the burden on the CPS lawyers, as the majority of cases resulted in an amount between £2k to £3k. It also meant that compliance could deal with the more low level/accidental type of fraud, leaving the investigators to look at higher levels. However that being said, if the OP gets in front of this and notifies the issue to the DWP prior to Counter Fraud and Compliance Directorate intervention, the likelihood of any investigation is lowered as they may not refer it to fraud owing to the admission. -
Failure to inform DWP of changed circumstances
tomtom256 replied to NormyNorm's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Let me google that for you https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/penalties-for-social-security-fraud-and-error/penalties-policy-in-respect-of-social-security-fraud-and-error see 4.3.4 -
Failure to inform DWP of changed circumstances
tomtom256 replied to NormyNorm's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Its called the single fraud investigation service, the DWP investigate all benefit fraud including tax credits and housing benefit, been this way for some years now. All local authority fraud investigators were TUPE like transferred into the DWP. The rule of thumb is also the DWP's Prosecution policy. -
As a carer you will fit into the ‘no work related requirements group’ if: you have ‘regular and substantial caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person’ you have caring responsibilities for one or more ‘severely disabled people’ (see above for definition) for at least 35 hours a week, but do not satisfy the qualifying conditions for Carer’s Allowance – however you will need to satisfy your work coach that that it would be unreasonable for you to meet a work search and work availability requirement Note: A person is ‘severely disabled' if they receive the middle or the higher rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the daily living component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), Attendance Allowance, Armed Forces Independence Payment or Constant Attendance Allowance.
-
As long as she gets PIP which entitles you to claim CA, then UC will have to treat you as a carer until such time as the PIP ends or is withdrawn.
-
As secure as sending anything via royal mail to anywhere else in the country. Could go missing in transit or could arrive as normal.
-
Interview under caution Benefit fraud Company Director
tomtom256 replied to ConsumerMark's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Depending what the overpayment is, they could face prosecution in a court of law. It's not just to obtain information, it's to prove or disprove if a potential offence has taken place, so although it is fairly straightforward and will result in an overpayment of benefits, it could also result in a criminal record. -
Student loan and universal credit
tomtom256 replied to ParalysedWithFear's topic in Benefits and HMRC
UC is new to most staff at the DWP and what does and doesn't affect it is a nightmare. Get ahead of your concerns by writing out what happened in word or something similar and then when happy with it post it to your journal for the case manager and/ir work coach to action. Make sure you scan/upload any relevant documents you may have so that an potential overpayment can be calculated. Verbal notification isn't going to work as UC is not setup like that and your work coach may miss something if they try and type it up for you. Yes there may be an overpayment however as you have admitted the error this would go in your favour and it would be very likely that all you would get is the overpayment and maybe a civil penalty for not declaring it. The longer you do nothing the more chance it has of being flagged for fraud intervention, which could result in further action being taken. -
The reason behind wanting a customer to have mobile is so that you can be reached easily and thus improve the chance of obtaining paid employment.
-
If his children are dependents of his ex then the property should be disregarded as capital. Sorry didn't read it rightly, is he still contributing to the mortgage?
-
Universal jobmatch website to be replaced by Find a job service
tomtom256 replied to louise2012's topic in Benefits and HMRC
If you are on Job Seekers Allowance, then you have to be Job Seeking, the clue is in the title of the benefit. -
Universal jobmatch website to be replaced by Find a job service
tomtom256 replied to louise2012's topic in Benefits and HMRC
So again if you are doing it anyway, why be an a**e about it and face a potential doubt? Just seems a pointless exercise to me, but it's you're benefit they might stop, so do what suits.
