Recorded interview under caution help!!!

Jomo

aj2703 wrote: »

Not at all i have seen many rude posts by the other person, half the time they don't realise they are doing it but hey ho......:rolleyes:

As for laughing, yep....who is gonna declare £40 a week rent......

Anymore...?

Well if everybody thought that the total amount would certainly add up to a lot more... :rolleyes:

In regards to rude posts and the fact the OP doesn't like all the questioning, she came on here for advice and sometimes it is hard to give that advice unless all the facts are given. By getting all shirty and defensive gives the impression that there is something not quite right.

Kath13

I would have to be one super thick person to defraud the council while my husband works at the council!..think about it.

I was stupid to think that his mail coming here was an ok thing to do.....but why did I come off of benefits if my intention was to fiddle them!

Dippychick wrote: »

'I'm just unfortunate that his mail came to my address but he didn't live here' :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That old Chestnut



I would have thought it would be interesting to be a Benefit Fraud investigator but it would appear its more monotonous than packing biscuits into containers :rolleyes:

Kath13

I dont mind the questions if they are on a need to know basis, but my health and my husband's personal past issues wont help this questioning here one bit.

Jomo wrote: »

Well if everybody thought that the total amount would certainly add up to a lot more... :rolleyes:

In regards to rude posts and the fact the OP doesn't like all the questioning, she came on here for advice and sometimes it is hard to give that advice unless all the facts are given. By getting all shirty and defensive gives the impression that there is something not quite right.

viktory

Kath13 wrote: »

I would have to be one super thick person to defraud the council while my husband works at the council!

If the caps fits......

Kath13 wrote: »

yes and intenet forums are so true,

I hit a nerve didn't I?

tut tut.
or maybe I didn't, maybe its just appears i hit one.

lol

Trust me, you haven't.

Kath13

Thats a very personal remark....very constructive thanks.

viktory wrote: »

If the caps fits......

GlasweJen

BF moved in, she didn't declare it, BF moved out but they remained a couple, she didn't declare it. Claimed benefits for 2 years that she wasn't entitled to, there's no evidence that BF moved out at all, there's no kids involved. Fraud squad are going to have a field day.

OP I'm sorry, I was a benefits advisor and you've no recourse to this, you should never let anyone use your address if they aren't living there and you should have checked with the LA before letting your other half stay over (especially as you didn't need overnight care). You should do your sums now so that when they give you the bill you wont get too much of a shock.

Macro_3

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

..... and earn £5.5k a year without having to pay tax on it.

So they would not need to declare this extra income for tax purposes.

Yup, they don't need to declare the income and complete a tax return unless the receipts total more than the threshold - but they do have to keep receipts/records of the income for 6 years.

OP - I assume that your husband can at least show the rent being paid - either through direct debits/standing orders, or as regular cash withdrawals from his bank account?

It would be very wise to seek legal advise before the IUC. I really would not attend one without legal representation.

Jomo

Macro wrote: »

Yup, they don't need to declare the income and complete a tax return unless the receipts total more than the threshold - but they do have to keep receipts/records of the income for 6 years.

OP - I assume that your husband can at least show the rent being paid - either through direct debits/standing orders, or as regular cash withdrawals from his bank account?

It would be very wise to seek legal advise before the IUC. I really would not attend one without legal representation.

Seems not, this question is one that has been avoided, too personal apparently.

Oldernotwiser

aj2703 wrote: »

OK point taken, but then maybe you should look at your post again and you might see how you have come across. Very rude.

No not rude at all - just informative.

Most of the people posting on here, myself included, have tried to be helpful and reassuring, particularly in the early part of the thread when the OP seemed to be worried sick about getting a custodial sentence.

Unfortunately she then turned very defensive and at one point it looked as if she was going to march into the investigation and tell them all to mind their own business.At that point it became appropriate to warn her that this attitude would get her nowhere in an investigation.

DX2

viktory wrote: »

Oh stop being so melodramatic! "I should be ashamed..." Simple fact is, you sound/are coming across as/appear...(pick whichever suits) defensive and guilty to me on an Internet forum - and if you sound like that to me, then how are you going to sound to a hardened fraud investigator, that quite frankly has heard it all?

Lady, you need to get a grip.

And I don't need to re-read my signature, I know what it says and I am true to it - perhaps you should read the one underneath?? :rolleyes:

Oh I do love you