Advice please re- fraud interview!!

kaya

but all of the above advice is only relevant IF you have comitted fraud, which i assume you havent, if so stop worrying and simply be honest in the interview :-)

sinstar

I don't really know anything definite about IS or how it works... but something occurred to me and I thought it might help you stop worrying. It might just be that for some reason they think your partner is still working (maybe the company hasn't informed the tax office his employment ended, and his PAYE records still show him as employed? or something like that) and you might just need to confirm when he stopped working etc, they will check this with the company, etc.

sinstar

Oh shut up.

Sallyann58

When you get to the interview, they will tell you exactly what it's about before the interview starts. You will be asked if you want legal advice. If you want to see what they've got to say and later decide to get legal advice, you have only to say so and they will suspend the interview for you to go and do that.
If you are absolutely sure you and your partner have declared everything, I don't think it's worth going to the expense of a solicitor straight away.
Whilst these interviews can be a bit scary, they really are to give you the chance to explain anything that might have happened. In addition, you will be told that you have the right not to answer any questions and you don't actually have to say anything. However, take the information with you about your partner's work, including the letter the DWP sent back to you.
These interviews are carried out where there is a suspicion someone might have done something wrong and, in such circumstances, they are obliged to do a tape recorded interview. They are not there to judge you, so don't worry about it.
Good luck.

tea690

hey hun i was hauled in for an interview under caution for a dispute with my housing benifit...i went explained everything told the truth and they were fine...got a letter a week later stating that everything was fine blah blah

ed123_2

.....you don't have to attend these interviews....I think any solicitor will tell you this.....it is not a friendly chat between equals but an exercise in gaining evidence against you....I would see a solicitor or law centre/CAB......

AnxiousMum

The OP can seek legal advice prior to the interview - as it's criminal, there is no charge is there? I thought everybody in this country was entitled to free legal support for things of a criminal nature. But by the OP checking out lawyers beforehand and arranging for one to be at her interview, she gets to speak to someone beforehand, go with gut feeling as to who she would like to use, and not just end up with someone whose the on call lawyer on the day.

McKneff

sinstar wrote: »

Oh shut up.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bit of frustration creeping in there.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

AnxiousMum

McKneff wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bit of frustration creeping in there.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Wish he'd quoted which post he was referring to - as it looks like he was replying to himself as the previous poster.........hmmmm

real1314

roger196 wrote: »

If the investigating authorities had sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution they do not need to interview the claimant. They only need to interview when they need the claimant to provide the evidence which will convict him/herself. Remember the onus of proof is on the prosecution.
The need for interview will be dressed up as "the opportunity to present their side of the story".
As I said before, OP needs the support of a solicitor who specialises in benefit fraud.

I'll take it you're not qualified then.

Advising someone to say what you suggest on tape would sound great - a magistrate or judge would take it as "I'm prepared to say anything, whether a lie or the truth, to get myself out of trouble".

They would destroy their own evidence.

Your point about only needing to interview when they need extra evidence is also nonsense. It is a basic requirement of PACE that they interview before any commital proceedings. Regardless of the strenght of evidence held.

Your "advice" is incorrect and misleading and could cause severe problems for people who might choose to follow it. Particularly the innocent who would a) Fail to attend interviews - appearing un-co-operative and b) State your "disclaimer" - appearing dishonest and unreliable; if they chose to follow the advice you have given here.

You haven't commented on how you think you are qualified to give this advice; I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions. Deary deary me.