Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • swiftgan
    • By swiftgan 12th Oct 17, 2:06 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    swiftgan
    undeclared income on universal credit
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:06 PM
    undeclared income on universal credit 12th Oct 17 at 2:06 PM
    Hi, can anyone give some advice here.
    I am currently on universal credit but have had limited capability to work up to 16 hours. I am currently on a 3 month full sick note. I suffer from depression, anxiety with chronic fatigue. I walk a couple of dogs each week that helps me a bit with my condition and receive a small amount of money. I haven't declared this as i thought i could earn it without my benefit being affected. My job coach provider has realised this and said i should be declaring it and will be done for benefit fraud. I am now worrying like mad as i thought it wasn't a problem with my health condition. Can you help with any advice on this?
Page 1
    • IAmWales
    • By IAmWales 12th Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    • 1,483 Posts
    • 3,099 Thanks
    IAmWales
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    I doubt she has said you will be done for benefit fraud, but she will have to declare the issue to compliance. How long has this been going on and how much are you earning?
    • swiftgan
    • By swiftgan 12th Oct 17, 2:34 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    swiftgan
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:34 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:34 PM
    Thanks for your reply, well she said it is benefit fraud and now im worrying. I earn £30 a week, and have just been doing a couple of months. I thought i did not have to declare it as being on limited capability with my health condition although now they say a sick note does not mean you have limited capability.
    • IAmWales
    • By IAmWales 12th Oct 17, 2:48 PM
    • 1,483 Posts
    • 3,099 Thanks
    IAmWales
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:48 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:48 PM
    You should have declared it, but as far as I am aware you are within your personal allowance so you won't have been overpaid. (Someone with better knowledge of UC will confirm or correct that.)

    They may call you in for an interview and ask for proof of income. They may apply a sanction or civil penalty but they won't take it further than that.

    Fraud requires intent. What you describe is a misunderstanding, and one that you were never going to gain from.
    Last edited by IAmWales; 12-10-2017 at 3:04 PM.
    • swiftgan
    • By swiftgan 12th Oct 17, 2:58 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    swiftgan
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:58 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:58 PM
    i have no proof of this income, its just cash in hand?
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 12th Oct 17, 3:01 PM
    • 3,943 Posts
    • 4,023 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 3:01 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 3:01 PM
    If it was cash in hand you will need something in writing from the person who paid to confirming the amount and frequency of payment.
    • IAmWales
    • By IAmWales 12th Oct 17, 3:07 PM
    • 1,483 Posts
    • 3,099 Thanks
    IAmWales
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 3:07 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 3:07 PM
    I've edited my above post, a civil penalty would not be applicable because there is no overpayment.

    A sanction would only apply if you were given an administrative penalty or caution, neither of which are likely.

    If they do make this into something more than a mistake, you should appeal the decision on the basis that there was no intent and you have gained no financial advantage.
    • tomtom256
    • By tomtom256 12th Oct 17, 8:08 PM
    • 870 Posts
    • 1,599 Thanks
    tomtom256
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 8:08 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 8:08 PM
    You should have declared it, but as far as I am aware you are within your personal allowance so you won't have been overpaid. (Someone with better knowledge of UC will confirm or correct that.)

    They may call you in for an interview and ask for proof of income. They may apply a sanction or civil penalty but they won't take it further than that.

    Fraud requires intent. What you describe is a misunderstanding, and one that you were never going to gain from.
    Originally posted by IAmWales
    Benefit fraud does not require intent.

    Forgetting to notify a change of circs can still you get you done for fraud. The only difference in charges is the dishonesty aspect.

    If you were to be charged under the Fraud Act then you would need intent.

    All they need to prove is that a change occurred and it affected benefit and you knew you had to report it or you failed to declare x on the claim form that you knew would affect entitlement.
    • Mersey
    • By Mersey 13th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    • 1,570 Posts
    • 762 Thanks
    Mersey
    • #9
    • 13th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Oct 17, 10:44 PM
    I Am Wales is correct.


    In fact any criminal offence requires mens rea ("the guilty mind"), so tomtom256 is wrong in stating, "benefit fraud does not require intent."


    The only fraud with a lower burden of proof is civil fraud (such as insurance), but that's merely 51% ie balance of probabilities - the alleged fraudster still needs to have knowingly or recklessly committed the fraud (otherwise those with dementia could be prosecuted).
    Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
    • paragon909
    • By paragon909 13th Oct 17, 11:37 PM
    • 1,224 Posts
    • 1,229 Thanks
    paragon909
    Anyone who is paying cash in hand will not be declaring this themselves, Gosh! And especially dog walking. What we talking £50 or to £1 or something....

    Unless DWP send you a letter from compliance asking for an interview, Then don't worry or start assuming things!
    • tomtom256
    • By tomtom256 14th Oct 17, 12:21 PM
    • 870 Posts
    • 1,599 Thanks
    tomtom256
    I Am Wales is correct.


    In fact any criminal offence requires mens rea ("the guilty mind"), so tomtom256 is wrong in stating, "benefit fraud does not require intent."


    The only fraud with a lower burden of proof is civil fraud (such as insurance), but that's merely 51% ie balance of probabilities - the alleged fraudster still needs to have knowingly or recklessly committed the fraud (otherwise those with dementia could be prosecuted).
    Originally posted by Mersey
    I would go and look at the points to prove for a change of circs offence. i.e. a change occurred, it affected benefit, the claimant knew it affected benefit and they failed to declare the change in the prescribed manner.

    Where is the intent in that?

    I do this daily and like I said if it was a fraud act offence then yes you would need intent and dishonesty, but for a change of circs offence I just need to prove that a change occurred that affected entitlement, the customer knew it affected their entitlement and that they failed to declare the change.

    I don't have to prove that it was done on purpose (intent).

    Benefit fraud is done on probability too, I only need reasonable doubt if I want to prosecute.
    • parkrunner
    • By parkrunner 14th Oct 17, 7:27 PM
    • 711 Posts
    • 1,060 Thanks
    parkrunner
    I would go and look at the points to prove for a change of circs offence. i.e. a change occurred, it affected benefit, the claimant knew it affected benefit and they failed to declare the change in the prescribed manner.

    Where is the intent in that?

    I do this daily and like I said if it was a fraud act offence then yes you would need intent and dishonesty, but for a change of circs offence I just need to prove that a change occurred that affected entitlement, the customer knew it affected their entitlement and that they failed to declare the change.

    I don't have to prove that it was done on purpose (intent).

    Benefit fraud is done on probability too, I only need reasonable doubt if I want to prosecute.
    Originally posted by tomtom256
    But in this case the client didn't know that.
    • dippy3103
    • By dippy3103 14th Oct 17, 9:36 PM
    • 1,722 Posts
    • 2,592 Thanks
    dippy3103
    There may be an overpayment, however if it's only a couple of months @ £30 a week you won't be "done" for any fraud. You might get a civil penalty of £50, but that's the likely worst case scenario
    • paddedjohn
    • By paddedjohn 14th Oct 17, 11:12 PM
    • 7,041 Posts
    • 7,717 Thanks
    paddedjohn
    Op, if dog walking helps you with your condition can you increase the amount you do and maybe make a living from it?
    Be Alert..........Britain needs lerts.
    • tomtom256
    • By tomtom256 15th Oct 17, 9:40 AM
    • 870 Posts
    • 1,599 Thanks
    tomtom256
    But in this case the client didn't know that.
    Originally posted by parkrunner
    Have you interviewed them? OP has stated "I thought" yet all the letters etc they get states to notify "any changes to you're income " or words to that effect, as well as listing a few other changes. If it was to be a fraud case this would be used as evidence they knew it would affect, as the letters tells them, and it is their responsibility to read the letters.

    Besides everyone knows that any income affects means tested benefits.
    • parkrunner
    • By parkrunner 15th Oct 17, 10:45 AM
    • 711 Posts
    • 1,060 Thanks
    parkrunner
    Have you interviewed them? OP has stated "I thought" yet all the letters etc they get states to notify "any changes to you're income " or words to that effect, as well as listing a few other changes. If it was to be a fraud case this would be used as evidence they knew it would affect, as the letters tells them, and it is their responsibility to read the letters.

    Besides everyone knows that any income affects means tested benefits.
    Originally posted by tomtom256
    Your statement was very clear the customer knew it affected their entitlement, I happen to believe the OP thought it wouldn't. Plus another poster said the money may be within the allowance anyway so no overpayment, poster wasn't certain though. I do agree that OP should have informed DWP though.
    Last edited by parkrunner; 15-10-2017 at 10:49 AM.
    • patman99
    • By patman99 15th Oct 17, 11:21 AM
    • 8,056 Posts
    • 9,466 Thanks
    patman99
    It all depends on which benefit the op is claiming.

    As they have submitted a sick note I would expect them to be on ESA.
    If that is the case, they can earn up to £120 per week without it affecting their benefit.
    Never Knowingly Understood.

    Member #1 of £1,000 challenge - £494.94/ £1000 (that's 49.49%)

    3-6 month EF £240.61/£3600 (that's 4 days worth)

    Do you/your spouse earn less than £197 p/w ?. Fill-in Form R85 and get your Bank interest Tax free.
    • Mersey
    • By Mersey 15th Oct 17, 3:15 PM
    • 1,570 Posts
    • 762 Thanks
    Mersey
    I would go and look at the points to prove for a change of circs offence. i.e. a change occurred, it affected benefit, the claimant knew it affected benefit and they failed to declare the change in the prescribed manner.

    (1) Where is the intent in that?

    I do this daily and like I said if it was a fraud act offence then yes you would need intent and dishonesty, but for a change of circs offence I just need to prove that a change occurred that affected entitlement, the customer knew it affected their entitlement and that they failed to declare the change.

    I don't have to prove that it was done on purpose (intent).

    (2) Benefit fraud is done on probability too, I only need reasonable doubt if I want to prosecute.
    Originally posted by tomtom256


    I've numbered your main two points for ease of reply.


    1) That would be captured by being reckless, as I said above - although even above you in fact agree by stating, "the customer knew it affected their entitlement" re change of circs. You can't close your mind to illegality; but, intent absolutely is a requirement of all criminal offences. The two elements are the guilty act and the guilty mind. Indeed that's the first thing a first year Law undergraduate or copper is taught. [Otherwise those suffering from dementia or a temporary abnormality of mind could be convicted]


    2) It just isn't. No criminal offence is "done on probability." I have no idea what you mean by, "I only need reasonable doubt if I want to prosecute." That's the test for a Jury during a Trial not for the police, CPS or any prosecuting authority. Reasonable prospect of securing a conviction, having regard to public funds & policy is the test.
    Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
    • annandale
    • By annandale 15th Oct 17, 3:26 PM
    • 878 Posts
    • 1,904 Thanks
    annandale
    If the OP has an in work allowance they can earn a sum of money before any deductions are made. It's not 120 a week on UC I believe.

    Besides everyone knows that any income affects means tested benefits.
    You are wrong. If someone has an in work allowance on UC and their monthly income doesn't exceed this it won't affect the amount of UC they get.
    • teddysmum
    • By teddysmum 15th Oct 17, 3:36 PM
    • 8,350 Posts
    • 4,965 Thanks
    teddysmum
    I hope the OP has insurance, as owners whose pets are harmed while in a pet walker's care can be quite demanding.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

449Posts Today

4,725Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @WhiskyOneIce: @MartinSLewis Changed my fuel from Britush Gas to Sainsburies yesterday via MSE site and saved £230 odd PA...Thanks ????????

  • RT @rbp77: @MartinSLewis Interesting that Facebook facial recognition tech can't be put to use in recognising misuse of people's image in i?

  • And yesterday Facebook put a quote out saying all the SCAM adverts with me in had been dealt with. Balderdash!? https://t.co/OrvsWKIJfJ

  • Follow Martin