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

ceecee1

Its because benefit fraud is a criminal offence. The majority of cases are dealt with on a voluntary basis and without the need to tie up police resources.

No-one is called in for an IUC without ample evidence that suggests that a criminal offence is being committed. If an allegation is received and nothing can be found which supports it then nothing happens - no IUC - no 'fishing' - no nothing. If some evidence can be found which supports the allegation but is still insufficient to constitute a criminal offence then that would be passed to compliance for benefit payments to be corrected.

The basis of the criminal justice system in this country is that everyone is asked to give their side of the story - there could be some simple explanation or reason which clears things up quite quickly. All investigations comply with the CPIA (Criminal Proceedures and Investigations Act) and this gives a legal obligation to fully investigate all avenues, including those which lead to confirming that no offence is being committed.

Of course, its is everyones right to not answer any questions but personally I dont see how that helps. If there is a reasonable explanation or reason but that is not given the investigator, then that is not passed onto the decision maker.

You might not be aware but a decision maker only has to reach a decision 'on the balance of probabilities'. That means that if they are 51/49 that fraud is being committed that they will disallow a claim. If they only have the paperwork that points them in that direction, and no other explanation - what can a DM do but take the paperwork that is before them.

mazzybaby33

ceecee1 wrote: »

Mazzy - you are missing the obvious here ---

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.



It was this poster that brought the police into it

It seems to me all of posts 81 -83 are either scaremongers or working for the DWP

If I had done nothing wrong (OP states this) I would tell them where to stick their IUC and go ahead and make my day

BTW Please do not patronise me by say things like I am missing the obvious and perhaps I am not aware

Thanx

Please feel free to pat each other on the back for a job well done

DX2

mazzybaby33 wrote: »

ceecee1 wrote: »

Mazzy - you are missing the obvious here ---

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.



It was this poster that brought the police into it

It seems to me all of posts 81 -83 are either scaremongers or working for the DWP

If I had done nothing wrong (OP states this) I would tell them where to stick their IUC and go ahead and make my day

BTW Please do not patronise me by say things like I am missing the obvious and perhaps I am not aware

Thanx

Please feel free to pat each other on the back for a job well done

Yes OP do as mazzy says tell the DWP to stick their IUC, then see how far you actually get especially when they suspend your benefit. You are missing the bleedin obvious love.

LadyMorticia

If a person refuses to go to the IUC, then that doesn't really seem like it would work in their favour.

It's always better to co-operate in situations like this.
If the claimant has done nothing wrong, then they won't have anything to worry about but refusing to go to the IUC will seem suspicious.

alwaysonthego_2

Board Guide Comment

I am closing this thread temporarily.

To the op if you are thinking of not attending the interview I suggest you seek advice from a welfare rights worker located at your local CAB before you do so, who will be able to advice you accordingly.