Income support and fraud... please help.

dmg24

Hawthorn wrote: »

We both think it's because she defrauded the DWP. The person on the phone may not know the reason - it may be higher up than that, if you know what I mean, but these days they do tend to prosecute for this kind of thing.

If you think about it, it can't be for not paying it back, because she has paid it back, and if they haven't chased her for the money, then they also know she's paying it back - does that make sense?

Do you have experience in this area? Your response implies not, and giving incorrect information to someone who is clearly distressed is not helpful.

outrageous_monkey

dmg24 wrote: »

It will only go to the Crown Court if it is a criminal matter.

It is very rarely that the DWP decide to bring a criminal case. Could I ask how much the total overpayment was? It would need to many thousands, or a repeat offence, for them to take it to criminal court.

The total overpayment is £2345. If she is prosecuted, what is she likely to get... at this point, can I just add she is reading all this and thanks everyone for being so kind and not being judgemental.

dmg24

outrageous_monkey wrote: »

The total overpayment is £2345. If she is prosecuted, what is she likely to get... at this point, can I just add she is reading all this and thanks everyone for being so kind and not being judgemental.

I am helping someone at the mo who was overpaid by slightly more than that. He has had a summons but it is definitely for a liability order, and nothing criminal.

Has she had an interview under caution? Has she cooperated fully? For the payments that should have been made so far, has she complied?

I'm just trying to get a copy of a summons to see if there is anything that will identify what it is for x

outrageous_monkey

dmg24 wrote: »

I am helping someone at the mo who was overpaid by slightly more than that. He has had a summons but it is definitely for a liability order, and nothing criminal.

Has she had an interview under caution? Has she cooperated fully? For the payments that should have been made so far, has she complied?

I'm just trying to get a copy of a summons to see if there is anything that will identify what it is for x

Thanks dmg, you are the life saver, not me:D

Off my friend ......
i have complied completly, I went for the fraud interview an I was cautioned by the woman who carried it out an she worked for the dwp, I can scan my letter if that helps

dmg24

outrageous_monkey wrote: »

Thanks dmg, you are the life saver, not me:D

Off my friend ......
i have complied completly, I went for the fraud interview an I was cautioned by the woman who carried it out an she worked for the dwp, I can scan my letter if that helps

I would be amazed if they launched a criminal prosecution. The cases that tend to be prosecuted are those where the people take the p*ss, or where there are associated criminal offences (drugs, money laundering etc).

Somewhere on the letter it should give a reason for the summons. Does it quote an Act anywhere, or does it say anything under the word Summons?

outrageous_monkey

dmg24 wrote: »

I would be amazed if they launched a criminal prosecution. The cases that tend to be prosecuted are those where the people take the p*ss, or where there are associated criminal offences (drugs, money laundering etc).

Somewhere on the letter it should give a reason for the summons. Does it quote an Act anywhere, or does it say anything under the word Summons?

In answer to your question, its a great big fat no!!

What it does say at the bottom of the letter is,

Alleged offences, 1. Betwee 21.12.06 and 5.12.07 at xxxxxx(should be the name of our town) the defendant failed promptly to notify the DWP of a change in cicumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to income support, namely that she was working, contrary to section 112 (1A) of the social security administration act 1992

Hawthorn

dmg24 wrote: »

Do you have experience in this area? Your response implies not, and giving incorrect information to someone who is clearly distressed is not helpful.

No. I'm just using my common sense.

Also, don't assume because someone has said that they are feeling suicidal, it doesn't mean they won't do it. Do you have experience in THIS area?
YOUR response, implies not.

Anyway, this isn't the thread for this - this is here to help someone out - not have a go at someone else for trying to help.

OP, sorry for the hijack - do let us know how it works out

dmg24

outrageous_monkey wrote: »

In answer to your question, its a great big fat no!!

What it does say at the bottom of the letter is,

Alleged offences, 1. Betwee 21.12.06 and 5.12.07 at xxxxxx(should be the name of our town) the defendant failed promptly to notify the DWP of a change in cicumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to income support, namely that she was working, contrary to section 112 (1A) of the social security administration act 1992

That is concerning, as that relates to the criminal offence. I just can't believe that they would prosecute over such an amount (and can't find my friend, to see what his letter says!).

One question - did the DWP ask you at any time between those dates if your circumstances had changed? This would change things as it would be an active act of fraud, as opposed to a passive act by not notifying of a change.

I know that you can get a fine and/ or a short prison sentence (up to three months, of which you would serve less than half) for the above. I'm not sure how much the fine would be.

I am still at a loss as to why they would take this course of action (if indeed they are). Have you been in any trouble before for this kind of thing? x

outrageous_monkey

dmg24 wrote: »

That is concerning, as that relates to the criminal offence. I just can't believe that they would prosecute over such an amount (and can't find my friend, to see what his letter says!).

One question - did the DWP ask you at any time between those dates if your circumstances had changed? This would change things as it would be an active act of fraud, as opposed to a passive act by not notifying of a change.

I know that you can get a fine and/ or a short prison sentence (up to three months, of which you would serve less than half) for the above. I'm not sure how much the fine would be.

I am still at a loss as to why they would take this course of action (if indeed they are). Have you been in any trouble before for this kind of thing? x

Seriously its not me I've got a WTC overpayment but then so have half the people claiming WTC, so I'm not to worried about that

My friend has now gone off line, so she cant respond, when she does I will post back.

But as far as I am aware her circumstances have never altered during that time frame.

I hope she doesnt get sent to prison as she is a single parent of a small child, this is what we are both worried about. And no, she has never been in trouble for anything like this ever before.

poet123

As a former fraud officer I can say that cases are prosecuted for(relatively) small amounts and it would seem to me that this is the case here. Especially in smaller towns.

This would be particularly relevant if during the dates mentioned she completed a review form stating her circs remained the same,as the opportunity to disclose was given and not taken. As dmg says an active rather than passive fraud.


I would get a solicitor and put a case together giving mittigating circumstances if at all possible,medical evidence if possible......