Under investigation for fraud!!!

celticfc

charles_w wrote:

Interesting. Newport City Council were chosen for an inspection by BFI because they had a low level of sanctions (Prosecutions, administrative penalties and FORMAL CAUTIONS)

This may be of use to you

http://www.bfi.gov.uk/reports/2006/bfi/newport/

I would guess they are going all out to 'improve' their figures. However they are going about it in the wrong way. It makes my suggestion of mentioning BFI all the more relevant. They will be mighty surprised you have taken the trouble to find out about their inspection and read the report.

Thanks Charles. Here is an interesting point in the report,

offering administrative penalties in appropriate cases where the overpayment exceeds £1,000, and formal cautions where it is less

My overpayment is considerably less than £1000, but they still see fit to issue me with a caution.

this is interesting,

one case the investigator had not cautioned the customer before carrying out an interview in connection with an allegation of undeclared income. A potential prosecution involving £10,700 was lost


Maybe by issuing a caution to those who have been overpaid £23.11 it will go some way to redeeming them for their mistake in not doing things properly and losing the case of £10,700.


Having had a read through that, it is a lot for me to take in and understand which bits I can use and point out to my benefit. I know this is a big ask after all you've done for me but could you possibly help and point out the bit's I could use. If need be I'll PM you my email address.

sacreddave

1. Although being cautioned carries few consequences, on the information you've posted I don't think you should agree to it because you don't admit guilt.

2. If I remember rightly -I last handled a prosecution a few months ago- the failure to declare information must be DISHONEST and not merely an oversight etc. On the information you've posted I think it shouldn't be too difficult to show that you weren't dishonest.

3. The legal test of honesty is set out in a case called 'R v. Ghosh'. I can't remember the details but if the local authority prove difficult you could politely ask its lawyer to identify what (if any) evidence there is that your failure was dishonest.

4. Also obtain a copy of the authority's enforcement policy- this document, which may be available on the authority's website, should set out how it SHOULD handle potential prosecutions but all too often doesn't. You may find points in the policy which help you persuade the authority that it should drop your case entirely.

Good luck.

celticfc

sacreddave wrote:

1. Although being cautioned carries few consequences, on the information you've posted I don't think you should agree to it because you don't admit guilt.

2. If I remember rightly -I last handled a prosecution a few months ago- the failure to declare information must be DISHONEST and not merely an oversight etc. On the information you've posted I think it shouldn't be too difficult to show that you weren't dishonest.

3. The legal test of honesty is set out in a case called 'R v. Ghosh'. I can't remember the details but if the local authority prove difficult you could politely ask its lawyer to identify what (if any) evidence there is that your failure was dishonest.

4. Also obtain a copy of the authority's enforcement policy- this document, which may be available on the authority's website, should set out how it SHOULD handle potential prosecutions but all too often doesn't. You may find points in the policy which help you persuade the authority that it should drop your case entirely.

Good luck.

Thanks very much.

celticfc

sacreddave wrote:

1. Although being cautioned carries few consequences, on the information you've posted I don't think you should agree to it because you don't admit guilt.

2. If I remember rightly -I last handled a prosecution a few months ago- the failure to declare information must be DISHONEST and not merely an oversight etc. On the information you've posted I think it shouldn't be too difficult to show that you weren't dishonest.

3. The legal test of honesty is set out in a case called 'R v. Ghosh'. I can't remember the details but if the local authority prove difficult you could politely ask its lawyer to identify what (if any) evidence there is that your failure was dishonest.

4. Also obtain a copy of the authority's enforcement policy- this document, which may be available on the authority's website, should set out how it SHOULD handle potential prosecutions but all too often doesn't. You may find points in the policy which help you persuade the authority that it should drop your case entirely.

Good luck.

I've had a look at the councils website and found a copy of the enforcement policy.

9. in appropriate cases, the use of 'Formal' cautions will be considered where they can be used to:-

a. deal quickly and simply with less serious offences;
b. reduce the chances of repeat offences;
c. divert 'non-serious' offences away from the courts;

THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF CLEAR AND RELIABLE ADMISSION OF GUILT BEFORE A 'FORMAL' CAUTION IS CONSIDERED.

'FORMAL' CAUTIONS MUST BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT HOME OFFICE CIRCULARS.

I admitted making a mistake and confusing how the system works. Could that be an admission of guilt? To me it's not. As it's a benefit fraud enquiry surely I have to admit to trying to defraud them before being thought guilty.

I'm confused.

Fran

celticfc wrote:

I admitted making a mistake and confusing how the system works. Could that be an admission of guilt? To me it's not. As it's a benefit fraud enquiry surely I have to admit to trying to defraud them before being thought guilty.

I see it the same way as you.

celticfc

Fran wrote:

I see it the same way as you.

Thanks Fran. I have to go and see someone tomorrow so I'm going to take along what I have found and see where I stand.

[Deleted User]

celticfc wrote:

Thanks Fran. I have to go and see someone tomorrow so I'm going to take along what I have found and see where I stand.

PM me with your email address and if you have any outstanding queries. I'll try to get back to you with a response later tonight.

The most up to date Home Office circular on cautioning can be found at...

http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/ho/circular.nsf/79755433dd36a66980256d4f004d1514/d820bbad9e5edd8680257013004d1ccf?OpenDocument

carlih1

Ross01 wrote:

I work for a local authority and you do have an obligation to report all changes in circumstance no mater how small. However if a data match from the DWP showed such a small change we would have just updated the claim and informed you that you had been overpaid 23.11. We would then would recover £8.70 a week from your ongoing benefit until the overpayment was cleared. Our fraud team would only consider an interview under caution if they beleived it was deliberate, and not just such a minor oversight. Refuse the caution as I do not beleive they could sucessfully prosecute you in court, for such a small amount. If you accept the caution they get a thousand pound reward from the government for preventing fraud. Such a caution will remain on your DWP file without mentioning that its only for 30.00!!! And could cause you problems in future.

Hi

i am going to have attend an interview for the same thing although i work two days and my income hasn't gone up since i started. so i don't know what it is about. What is this caution ll about then, i am worried asv i am a trainee solicitor and if i have something on my record i cannot complete my training nor become a solicitor.

c x

jillie1974

Good Luck tomorrow...i cant believe they are going to so much bother over a small amount of money!!

stiffnuts69

Some really good advice already given. Just to echo whats been said. They can only issue a caution if you admit the offence. If you dont they will need to go for prosecution. For £20 the prosecution will not see the light of day. DO NOT accept the caution.
The LA would be ruined. It would be such a waste of the courts time and the court would be very peed off indeed.