DWP Invitation to office interview

[jabba jones]

So poor stig has to get a letter which worries him and go in for an interview every time there is an allegation, because they have to be seen to investigate it even if they have done it before and know it is rubbish?

 

Just because it's been downgraded to Compliance doesn't mean it's rubbish. Moving away from Stigs case, often multiple allegations are made because there is an offence taking place & the person making the allegation is annoyed that their information appears to have been ignored previously. In those cases, when they finally do slip up & enough evidence comes to light to conduct a successful fraud investigation all those signed Compliance statements denying the offence come in pretty handy!

 

It might not be perfect but you can't just decide to ignore an allegation because a similar one has been made before & might be malicious. Some people get called in 3 or 4 times a year & whilst it might not be nice, trust me a Compliance interview is a walk in the park compared to an IUC with FIS.

Edited April 17, 2013 by jabba jones

[antone]

Just because it's been downgraded to Compliance doesn't mean it's rubbish. Moving away from Stigs case, often multiple allegations are made because there is an offence taking place & the person making the allegation is annoyed that their information appears to have been ignored previously. In those cases, when they finally do slip up & enough evidence comes to light to conduct a successful fraud investigation all those signed Compliance statements come in pretty handy!

 

It might not be perfect but you can't just decide to ignore an allegation because a similar one has been made before & might be malicious. Some people get called in 3 or 4 times a year & whilst it might not be nice, trust me a Compliance interview is a walk in the park compared to an IUC with FIS.

 

I think there's a balance that we'd strike, ideally. It's pretty obvious that people do commit fraud, but also there is clear evidence that malicious fraud reports can be (and are) used as a means of harassment.

[Desperate Daniella]

Of course there will be people committing fraud, but surely in stig's case the accusation is very unlikely in view of his personal history. I do think there needs to be a balance and a highly experienced compliance officer should look at each case individually and on the balance of probabilities decide whether someone in stig's situation really needs to have to undergo yet another interview.

 

A further point is that stig is no longer even living with the same landlord, but someone is still trying to cause trouble for him all this time later. Surely that should indicate that it's likely to be a malicious accusation?