I have recived a letter asking me to come in and do a interview under caution

mazzybaby33

I think you open yourself up to a lot of negativity when you post on forums such as these.

Good luck at your interview but I must say I would not go

Strength and honour

Maz xx

bestpud

jctski wrote: »

I didnt mention 'bills' till later because it didnt occur to me this could be a reason for the interview, I never ever thought about two bills in his name, one being a joint bill for utillity, as for ebay, I use it, thats all, bit like when you borrowed your ex's car to get to the supermarket and get dropped off, did you think about that before you did it? Not everyone is so perfect to remember to tick evey box and do a deep clean of their ex from their lifes ie bills with names on, jesus if your anything like the people who will inetrview me, then I will be very stressed when I go in, I just want to know what on earth I did for them to come to this conclusion, from what i have read and been reading on website after website, is that if your a lone parent, and have to use HB, IS, etc to just survive, you are NOT entitled to have a life such as a boyfriend, close friends, and family all account for not being able to stay over in your own home, because you claim a benefit for the rent on it, so in theory, you dont have your own home = No Private life, No home of your own. What a crap dilemma lone parents are in in this day and age for what? for dared being separted, divorced or left with a child/children with no father, and the penatly we pay is vey high indeed when we get into the walfare system, sorry but your tone of reply is not very nice, suggesting that I must be lying on here, but "you dont understand yourself".... well I am going in with my head held high, and my ex has been so good about all this, is going to write statement and provide all the documents to prove his onw address.

Thank you to all that have replied, even the bad replies xx

Well, in all liklihood they will be like me - isn't that what they are paid for?

No I didn't think about getting in my ex's car as there is no need.

However, I would think twice about using his ebay account, or leaving bills in his name, or having him stay overnight (actually I wouldn't even think once about them - they just wouldn't happen as we don't have that kind of a relationship any more!)

Do you see the difference?

I'm not perfect, but I rely on benefits to top up my income at the moment, so I realise the need to stick with the rules! It's not rocket science!

That said, I hope it works out for you.

Oldernotwiser

mazzybaby33 wrote: »

Its not a matter of not co operating You are invited to the interview Why waste all your time and effort if you don't have to attend.

You are only claiming what you are entitled to

Finding out whether or not you're entitled to a benefit is surely what an investigation is about; it's not for the claimant to decide on entitlement.

Oldernotwiser

jctski wrote: »

bit like when you borrowed your ex's car to get to the supermarket and get dropped off, did you think about that before you did it? x

But if you're not insured to drive your ex's car you would be prosecuted if stopped. Saying "we're not all perfect" won't get you very far then!

mazzybaby33

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Finding out whether or not you're entitled to a benefit is surely what an investigation is about; it's not for the claimant to decide on entitlement.

My point entirely If I were the OP I would let THEM investigate away, show no fear and certainly NEVER attend a voluntary interview

Oldernotwiser

mazzybaby33 wrote: »

My point entirely If I were the OP I would let THEM investigate away, show no fear and certainly NEVER attend a voluntary interview

But you were the one insisting they were entitled; I was saying they might not be!

ceecee1

Mazzy - you are missing the obvious here ----if the DWP have gathered sufficient 'evidence' to suggest that benefit might be being paid incorrectly they will ask them to come in for an interview.

If they fail to attend, do not contact the office and generally ignore the investigators then they are opening themselves up to a visit from a police officer.

You will not be called in for an IUC when there is not enough information to be put to you. You cannot be asked to go in for a 'fishing trip' - those cases are seen by a compliance officer (not a fraud investigator).

If the information held by the DWP suggests an overpayment for a significant amount or period of time - they will involve the police and an arrest (and search of your property) will follow

mazzybaby33

ceecee1 wrote: »

Mazzy - you are missing the obvious here ----if the DWP have gathered sufficient 'evidence' to suggest that benefit might be being paid incorrectly they will ask them to come in for an interview.

If they fail to attend, do not contact the office and generally ignore the investigators then they are opening themselves up to a visit from a police officer.

You will not be called in for an IUC when there is not enough information to be put to you. You cannot be asked to go in for a 'fishing trip' - those cases are seen by a compliance officer (not a fraud investigator).

If the information held by the DWP suggests an overpayment for a significant amount or period of time - they will involve the police and an arrest (and search of your property) will follow

If that is the case Why do they bother with a voluntary IUC ? Why not go staight to the police? Do not pass go Do not collect £200

Maybees it is because they do not have the evidence but hope you will provide it in an IUC ??

DX2

mazzybaby33 wrote: »

If that is the case Why do they bother with a voluntary IUC ? Why not go staight to the police? Do not pass go Do not collect £200

Maybees it is because they do not have the evidence but hope you will provide it in an IUC ??

If there is no fraud being committed then how can one possibly provide evidence

bestpud

mazzybaby33 wrote: »

If that is the case Why do they bother with a voluntary IUC ? Why not go staight to the police? Do not pass go Do not collect £200

Maybees it is because they do not have the evidence but hope you will provide it in an IUC ??

Because a lot of the time it is not in the public interest to prosecute!

If they can stop the fraud and sort repayments then it is actually cheaper for the taxpayer to keep it that way for all but prolific offenders.

And better for the claimant too!

Some will be innocent and some will have made a mistake and just want to put it right.

Still others will have been caught quite early on and may never commit fraud again.

Other times the DWP may have made an error, or received a malicious call.

Thay have to investigate as it is public funds and the best/cheapest way of doing that is an interview.

Are you really suggesting all these people should be hauled into a police station for questioning? Surely not?

They will, of course take more invasive steps if need be but in the vast majority of cases, it is not necessary.