Benefit Fraud - Under Investigation

[pottyprincess]

Hi Honeybee13

 

 

Thank you so much, I do really appreciate all the advice from all of you, and it is good to know that there are lovely people on here who try to help everybody in all situations, whether guilty or not.

 

 

I will keep posting and will update after the IUC, another week to go yet. xx

[Shoelover]

Hi Shoelover

 

 

Thank you so much, I have read about the prepared statement, I think in H's case it would be very good idea, we will take advice from the legal adviser, I am unsure about things like adverse inference, I think that means being pre-warned to the questions so as to have a defence ready, anyway I am sure that I do not need to worry about that.

 

 

How many questions roughly will he have to face?

 

 

Would I be able to be the appropriate adult?

 

 

I slept a little better last night, but it is the last thing on my mind before I go to sleep and the first thing on my mind when I wake up.

 

 

I truly wish that we had not gone on believing that it was just a case of they will sort it out.

 

 

I still do not understand why he received letters saying that his benefit would stop in Nov, then another letter saying Dec because he had got to 365 days, very confusing.

 

 

Because you are connected to the claim it's very likely they won't allow you to act as appropriate adult- phone the investigator & ask them. Some investigators would have a partner as an AA, some wouldn't.

 

If your husbands statement covers all the points there may be few questions.

 

Adverse inference means that if you don't give that information when first asked, or maybe say something different in court then a judge or magistrate may be less inclined to believe you and think you have had time to think about it. However, for adverse inference to be drawn, the question has to have been asked in the first place. Given that you appear to be wanting to make a clean breast of it and are being upfront then it's probably something you needn't worry about.

 

I think you need to stop reading other folks horror stories and stop torturing yourself. It will change nothing but it will make you ill.,

[honeybee13]

You're welcome for the help, it's what we do here. We're not here to judge.

 

By all means keep posting, we'll do our best to reassure you.

 

Hugs, HB

[pottyprincess]

I have wondered if every time anybody makes a call to the DWP, does it get recorded automatically?

[antone]

I have wondered if every time anybody makes a call to the DWP, does it get recorded automatically?

 

Some calls to the DWP are recorded and some are not. If you're not specifically told that it's being recorded, it's safest to assume that it's not. I know that a lot of people here on CAG would advocate making your own recording of calls, not just to the DWP but to pretty much any government agency or company, where there might possibly be a dispute in future over what was said. At the very least, always take a note of the date and time of the call, and the important points discussed.

[neword]

Just to let you know I had a IUC 2 years ago and owed them £3400 but with the additional charge they make on top it was £4100

I was not taken to court and have just been paying it off at £100.00 pcm since.

 

In your case I reckon if they are decent interviewers like I got they could see that it is basically a screwup in your case with the normal process

and your claim continuing to be paid because they and not acted upon information that you had sent them.

 

The fact that you still have the money in the bank should (hopefully) persuade them that this is simple a case where you did

the right things initially and through no fault of your own the payments continued.

 

As long as you have the evidence that you did contact them to make them aware of your changes in employment etc then they

should accept what you say and hopefully arrange for the money to either be reclaimed directly from your bank or for you to

be asked to pay it back.

[pottyprincess]

Hi Neword, Thank you for replying and telling me about that, I am sure that the overpayment in my h's case is going to be over £2000, but like I say they can have the money back immediately, no problem.

 

 

I spoke to the legal rep yesterday to ask about the prepared statement, and she said that is an option, but it is better, if possible to answer their questions, otherwise it could appear as if you are hiding behind the prepared statement, I said to her, make your own mind up when you meet h and see if you think he would do well in the interview, he does not do well in that type of environment, dealing with officials.

 

 

The strange thing is that I always deal with the official side of running the home, and when the claim was made in the beginning, it was me on the phone after he had given them permission to speak to me, but yet I am not allowed in the interview or even in the room after the solicitor has had disclosure and is discussing it with h, of course he is mortified about that.

 

 

I hope that they do not look on it unfavourably because of the prepared statement because he has already said to me that is what he will opt to do, not because he is hiding anything, but is afraid that he will get tongue tied and completely freeze under questioning, and this is somebody who is telling the truth.

[ThedaBara]

I know the feeling! I am the same under pressure… I suffer from severe anxiety and have done for most of my life. I am a self litigant in a case which has been going on for several years and when I go to court my brain just shuts down as a reaction to the stress… some people just can't deal with it… I am hard of hearing as well and get very confused. At the Trial, the audio loop was the wrong sort and the judge refused to adjourn… it was an absolute nightmare and I withdrew halfway through the hearing because I was panicking so much… that's why I am still fighting the case today as I am in danger of losing my home due to that nasty judge awarding full costs and 100% success fee to the other side… tens of thousands of pounds! I feel for your OH… I really do know how difficult it will be for him… Ask your GP to prescribe some beta blockers… they help a little bit. TB

[pottyprincess]

Oh ThedaBara

 

That is terrible, what is wrong with some people that they cannot help those in need of it, what was the matter with the judge that day, how could he expect you to be able to hear when the loop was not the correct one, I am sure a barrister would have gone for an adjournment, I am sorry for you that you had to go through that.

 

My h is the same even when he goes to the hospital to see his consultant, I have to attend with him, and also speak up for him, as he would let himself get brow beaten into agreeing with everything the consultant says or wants to do, as in getting him off their list, I have sometimes been told to "be quiet" we have to hear it from him and he just says, you have just heard it from her and I cannot say anymore.

 

I have tried to get him to be more proactive in dealing with stuff, as in saying if anything ever happened to me, what will you do when you don't even know how to pay a bill, you will have to learn, he never does, he does not ever look at the bank account, he hates dealing with anything.

 

Fingers crossed for you that your fight ends in jubilation on your behalf, keep us posted.

[pottyprincess]

I was just having a smile to myself because if he did choose to answer the questions, (very doubtful indeed) they are in a for a very very long interview, he goes off at a tangent about everything, completely losing the thread, and I am sure they will lose the will to live, he does not seem be able to just answer a question with the relevant points, and then shut up.

 

He will ring me and say have you got a minute, I just need to tell you this quickly, 20 mins later he still has not got to the point.

[Shoelover]

Can I suggest that you phone the investigator and explain that he may well struggle. I'd far rather know in advance as I can allow extra time for them and do what I can to make it easier for them

[pottyprincess]

Hi Shoelover

 

 

Thank you for that idea, a very good idea too.

 

 

As it approaches, he is getting more nervous about it, he asked me tonight, if they ask him if he thought he was entitled to the benefit and he says no obviously not, you cannot work full time and be entitled to claim benefit, then he looks guilty of claiming benefit, because he knows it's wrong, but that is not what he did knowingly, but obviously the mitigation circumstances will be brought into force, he is worried that because of his nervousness he will look guilty.

 

 

We know that the benefit system is a great system and is there to help people who are in genuine need of it, it can be a complicated system and it shouldn't be, but in my opinion it should be easier to be able to contact via phone, why on earth on you holding on in a queue for over an hour at a time.

 

 

At the moment my feelings are I never want to hear the words "Claim Benefits" ever again, I am fortunate to work full time and have never been out of work, and hope to be able to work until I retire then claim my pension which I have been working towards all my life, but you never know what the future holds, but this whole experience has put me off, scares the life out of me.

 

 

Can you please tell me what you think when you hear that the claimant has opted to do the prepared statement instead of answering the questions, do you think less of them? would you advise to answer the questions, and what happens after the prepared statement has been read out, can questions still be asked?

 

 

I personally think that h should actually read out an apology at the end, would that be out of order?

 

 

He does have to accept the blame for not doing more to sort it out earlier, I mean to be honest, and looking at it with a fresh approach, how does it look that it went on for a year, yes I did phone, and never got through, but I am not saying that I did that everyday, and of course, we could have sent a letter, so why didn't that happen, because you always have the intention of doing these things and then you get digressed, not a valid defence, I can see that myself.

 

 

So we are so confused, is he guilty, or not guilty, the money went into the bank account, so that .

means guilty, surely, anyway I am sure the legal rep will hopefully advise him correctly.

 

 

I will come back and update after the interview.

[martin2006]

he isnt being charged with anything so cant be adjudged as guilty or otherwise, i think this has become so stressful for you that you are now completely overthinking things and who can blame you for that?

 

I know its easy to say but you have to keep it simple and to fact.

 

your H started work, wrote to cancel the claim, it wasnt actioned and monies were continually paid thus incurring an overpayment. This money still sits in the bank untouched so can be returned to DWP on request.

 

Thats it in a nutshell, if you still have a copy of the letter you sent to notify the change of circumstances i cant see any of this being a problem

[antone]

I agree with Martin2006. It's not particularly complicated, and your husband does have a legal adviser to help. He worked, and informed them of this fact. The change of circumstances wasn't properly recorded so benefit continued to be paid. He's kept the money unspent because he was aware that there was something odd going on.

 

Now, perhaps someone would argue that he should have been more emphatic about this, and made more calls/sent more letters to the DWP. Maybe he should, I guess. But even allowing that, his actions are not those of a premeditated benefit fraudster. He should attend the interview with his solicitor and an appropriate person (as Shoelover has mentioned) and present his case, and you need to stop fretting. I know that's easier said than done, but doing your best to stay calm and deal with this is the best approach.

[pottyprincess]

Thank you Martin2006 and Antone,

 

 

It is me that is fretting as you well know, h is now much more calm, but still says that he thinks he will not be able to go in and answer the questions, preferring to do a prepared statement, many years ago he gave his sister away on her wedding day and even in front of a room full of family and friends, who he obviously knew so well, he could not do the speeches, he just cannot orate, to be honest I truly wish I could take his place because I can remember dates and what happened when etc, and can speak very clearly.

 

 

So we are very nearly there, I will come back and report how it went, I am praying for a good outcome, but I know that we still have to wait quite a few weeks more before we get a decision on what is going to happen.

 

 

Many thanks to you all for your support, it has been this site over the weeks that I have been a member that has helped to put my mind at rest.

[antone]

Comment advocating the commission of fraud removed. Please don't encourage illegal activity on CAG.

[jonaswhale]

Apologies, clearly I misunderstood the previous three pages.

My bad.

[antone]

Apologies, clearly I misunderstood the previous three pages.

My bad.

 

Yes, you did misunderstand them. Apology accepted, I'd hate to think your misunderstanding was willful in any way.

[ThedaBara]

he isnt being charged with anything so cant be adjudged as guilty or otherwise, i think this has become so stressful for you that you are now completely overthinking things and who can blame you for that?

 

I know its easy to say but you have to keep it simple and to fact.

 

your H started work, wrote to cancel the claim, it wasnt actioned and monies were continually paid thus incurring an overpayment. This money still sits in the bank untouched so can be returned to DWP on request.

 

Thats it in a nutshell, if you still have a copy of the letter you sent to notify the change of circumstances i cant see any of this being a problem

 

Agree… why complicate matters by having an IUC? Tell them to take the money back… He is not guilty as h hasn't spent it and has tried to notify them of a change of circumstances… What a waste of taxpayers money for people to be hounded like this! TB

[tomtom256]

Agree… why complicate matters by having an IUC? Tell them to take the money back… He is not guilty as h hasn't spent it and has tried to notify them of a change of circumstances… What a waste of taxpayers money for people to be hounded like this! TB

 

Retaining a wrongful credit is an offence that could be laid, along with several others. The offence is not in the spending of the money it's in the obtaining of it and then failing to notify a change.

 

As an offence is believed to have been committed, it has to be dealt with by way of an IUC. At the end of it the customer could have nothing to answer for, as they believe what he is saying, however they have to be cautioned to be questioned, it's just a procedural thing. I have had many IUC's were the evidence looks overwhelming but then gets explained to a satisfactory standard and no further action is taken.

 

With regards the potential offence, the customer has admitted that they continued to obtain benefit they knew they were not entitled to hoping that at the end of the tax year it would sort itself and that a letter was sent to end the claim. Under social security legislation the customer should have called or written again to stop the payments after they realised they were still getting them, as again they have admitted that they knew they were still getting them.

 

There also does not have to be any dishonesty for some social security offences.

[pottyprincess]

Hi tomtom256

 

When you put it in those words, it looks different, and from a perspective from an investigators point of view, I understand more now.

 

When you really believe that you have done nothing wrong, not set out to defraud anybody, and you know you are innocent, what can I say, I did phone the office on a number of occasions, never got through, again no defence, but my h, should have written a letter to tell them that the money was still coming in, he didn't, he hates dealing with anything, again no defence.

 

He claimed legitimately, after many months, felt that he could return to work after having treatment, he still suffers with the same debilitating illness, but had it under control, so he secured a job, was over the moon as you can imagine, I phoned the office to report a change in circumstances, never got answered, so said that he had to write and tell them, he did, the letter is dated before he began the work.

 

After a few months I noticed the money still coming in, like I say, I phoned and never got through, time went on and that is when we thought that it would get sorted out at the end of the tax year, stupid now I think about it in depth.

 

So I can see that it never got spent, not really being any defence, and now we are here at this point, and I am kicking my own ass as to why I didn't do more, there are lots of reasons why, but I won't bore you with them here, but it was absolutely nothing to do with trying to obtain money by deception.

 

How can you explain this to an investigator with out them not believing you.

[kk3852]

This is exactly why the advice to say no comment isn't always the best thing to do.

 

From an investigators point of view - the only thing they know at the minute is that there are 2 periods of work that haven't been declared. They have no idea that you say a letter was sent to report that work was starting.

The only way to find out is to interview you. The law says that if there is any suspicion at all that the non-declaration may be a criminal offence then that has to be under caution - everyone is treated the same. As TomTom says - the only way to sort this out is to answer the questions - many times there is a perfectly good explanation as to what has happened and the investigation is closed. But until the IUC the investigator does not know this.

 

I get so annoyed by the people on here who say that you shouldn't answer anything at all, that it is for the DWP to prove that an offence has happened and that by answering the questions that you are helping them and I can see that in some cases it helps but if there is an explanation then it might all go away if you just tell them.

 

It is within your rights to answer 'no comment' (and to those who think it winds us up - believe me I love a no comment interview as it makes life much easier). But following the IUC you give the DWP nowhere else to go other than to sanction you for a criminal offence as they only have their side of the story and not yours.

[tomtom256]

Hi tomtom256

 

When you put it in those words, it looks different, and from a perspective from an investigators point of view, I understand more now.

 

When you really believe that you have done nothing wrong, not set out to defraud anybody, and you know you are innocent, what can I say, I did phone the office on a number of occasions, never got through, again no defence, but my h, should have written a letter to tell them that the money was still coming in, he didn't, he hates dealing with anything, again no defence.

 

He claimed legitimately, after many months, felt that he could return to work after having treatment, he still suffers with the same debilitating illness, but had it under control, so he secured a job, was over the moon as you can imagine, I phoned the office to report a change in circumstances, never got answered, so said that he had to write and tell them, he did, the letter is dated before he began the work.

 

After a few months I noticed the money still coming in, like I say, I phoned and never got through, time went on and that is when we thought that it would get sorted out at the end of the tax year, stupid now I think about it in depth.

 

So I can see that it never got spent, not really being any defence, and now we are here at this point, and I am kicking my own ass as to why I didn't do more, there are lots of reasons why, but I won't bore you with them here, but it was absolutely nothing to do with trying to obtain money by deception.

 

How can you explain this to an investigator with out them not believing you.

 

You do not have to make the investigator believe you, the IUC is for the interviewee to tell the fact as they see them and then a DM will decide.

 

I always advocate telling the truth and explaining your actions as potentially from what you say it was an honest mistake for want of better words. Get your husband to explain the action he took and what he understood would happen following that action i.e. he sent in a letter stating x,y,z.

 

Potnetially there is an OP of about 6 months give or take a week, owing to the undeclared work as it will be classed by the DWP, however dependant on what the work was and how much he got paid/hours he worked it may be classed as permitted work by the DM, which could negate some/all of the OP as he has 52 weeks to declare the work for a decison to be made. Can't be certain as this depends on various factors the DM will look at.

 

Any further action/fraud sanction will be dependant on the actual OP which presumably is yet to be calculated. Anything under £4,000 should be an administrative penalty if he is deemed at fault and the OP should be below this looking at the timescale and the fact there is no housing benefit that could be affected.

[pottyprincess]

Hi All

 

Well the IUC is over, but it is far from over, h met with the solicitor beforehand, and it was decided to go in for the prepared statement, then "no "comment" to all the questions.

 

The investigator did not seem to believe the letter, because previously it was phone calls, this time was different because I could not get through at all, waiting on the line for over an hour each time, and as he was starting work imminently decided to inform them via a letter, this is the truth.

 

The upshot of that may not be good, they have now requested more info, bank statements going back a few years, to the very first claim which lasted a year, then stopped because of work, which they were informed about, but they still paid another 2 payments after being notified, which I only just realised that tonight on checking the statement but then at least they did cease, not like this time.

 

For the period of time that they want to see, I had a bank loan of £5k so that is a payment into the bank, should we have notified them of this payment? the rest of the balance is mostly overdrawn over that period, that does not look good does it, but it is the recent period of work and the letter informing them of a change in circumstances that the payments kept coming in and we have the money in the bank to pay them back, but they seem to want to be digging up more.

 

When you are on ESA contribution based should you tell the office of every amount of money deposited into the bank, and then should the payments stop until that money has been used up.

 

Sorry for more questions, but it would appear that if you do not know the rules, you can easily fall foul of them, but I understand that you should make sure that you know the rules.

 

And if you got paid any redundancy pay during the time of a claim, he didn't by the way, but now I am trying to find out the rules and regulations, should the office be notified of that.

 

So another sleepless night for me tonight, and h is very down.

Edited June 9, 2016 by honeybee13
Removing the obv.

[antone]

Well, in the case of the first claim you mention, it seems that your husband informed them of his work and they did stop payments, albeit not before issuing another two of them. They'd have a hard time making a fraud case out of that. Presumably it is the later claims that are of more concern.

 

If his benefit is entirely contribution based then no, you were not required to inform them about a bank loan payment, and redundancy payments would not affect ESA© either. Capital (so things such as savings, stocks and shares, second properties etc) does not affect contribution based benefits.