Benefit fraud help needed

wardende

Hi there, I was hoping someone could give me some advice.

My partner has been accused of benefit fraud, however we've both been invited to an IUC. This was in December 08. We declined, as we couldnt afford the solicitor.

Instead of attending, we played a waiting game, and in feb 09 a letter came through saying that they were going to ask my partner to repay housing benefit and income support to the tune of over £20k.

We appealed this decision and some letters went back and forth between us and the council, the DWP didnt really do much at all to be honest, they seem to have taken a back seat. We setup payment plans to pay off the council and the DWP whilst the appeal was being sorted.

Anyway, the appeal was rejected, and it went to the tribunals service. That was also rejected, we couldnt attend due to not being able to afford a solicitor. Anyway, nearly 2 years on from when we first got the invite to IUC, no charge, no notice of prosecution, but we are still repaying this huge sum which is incorrect.

My question is - have they decided not to prosecute? Or is it usual for this to take so long?

I also feel that on the balance of probabilities my partner may look guilty, however proving this beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court the council and DWP will probably struggle, and I'm wondering if they're just happy for us to pay back more than we actually should be, rather than taking us to court and the true amount would probably be proved to be significantly less.

I cant give too much away on the details, as I've been advised that DWP and council fraud staff monitor these forums, but I was wondering if it would seem that this is all finalized or is it likely to still go to court?

I got free legal advice, and they said it would likely be because of your circumstances that they havent prosecuted, we have a disabled son so I was thinking that could be the reason maybe. Also we are on a low income.

We need closure, having been really worried about it from dec 08 through to now, and not knowing what the future holds. I have started to think less and less about it over the last year, but with the PM banging on aboutbenefit fraud recently it's bought it all back to us.

bestpud

I have no idea what is happening but I do know I'd have attended the interviews if I was innocent and would not have started repaying debt I did not owe!

Why on earth have you been repaying the money if you are innocent?

Or are you saying you are guilty but not by as much as they say?

tcr_3

I doubt they'll prosecute now simply due to the passage of time ... and an IUC doesn't mean it was ever their intention to prosecute anyway.

The IUC was an opportunity to explain your side of things, the appeal hearing too. And you folks didn't attend either. I don't buy this "we couldn't afford a solicitor" reasoning, you could've been represented by a law centre, the CAB or Welfare Rights but you chose not to attend instead. By attending you might've been able to persuade them that the overpayment shouldn't have been as high as it is ... but that boat's left harbour now unfortunately.

If the tribunal's gone against you, I don't think you've anywhere else to go tbh ... think the only thing you can do now is keep making payments.

DWP doesn't monitor this forum, although some DWP staff members do help out with advice in a non-official and spare time capacity.

corbyboy

If you are not going to attend the meetings that they arrange and then continue to pay back money that you say they don't owe then they are probably pretty happy with not having to prove their case.

Why do you have to take a solicitor to their appeals? Are you simply not turning up or are you telling them you can't attend? Did they tell you that you must have a solicitor with you at the appeal?

[Deleted User]

Being ignorant or unaware of the law is no defence,appears you were able to get"clued up"after the fraud had taken place,why not before?

bestpud

wardende wrote: »

thanks for the advice.

To be honest I am not receptive to the 'Oh you are bad people you deserve to be hung'.

There are 2 ways to deal with IUC - one is to go there and basically hang yourself out to dry, as effectively you are giving them the rope so they can hang you with it. They're not interested at all with understanding, they have a job to do and its to convict as many people as possible for fraud, even when no fraud has occured.

The other is to play the 'who blinks first' game. Basically if you dont attend then you get to find out what they know sooner or later without having to dig yourself a hole first.

An overpayment in our case has occured, however not fraudulently.

To be convicted of benefit fraud the council / dwp need to be able to prove that fraud took place. This is what we deny, however yes we have received an overpayment through ignorance and lack of knowledge of the benefit system. However after this whole debacle I'm now fully clued up in this area.

The tribunal is a civil hearing, so this was only assessed on the balance of probabilities. A criminal court would need to convict beyond a reasonable doubt and I dont think there would be evidence to suggest fraud.

I am relieved we wouldnt have to go to court (or havent been yet) but I am also a little disgruntled that the overpayment we're paying back is double. However we are paying it back interest free and will take nearly 20 years at the current rate so maybe its swings and roundabouts.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

By playing the waiting game, you are supposedly paying back more than you need so how have you gained exactly?

Unless you know you are guilty and your only motive is to avoid prosecution... :cool:

You aren't making much sense to be perfectly honest with you.

pmduk

Is the DWP legally represented at tribunals now? They never used to be. Most people used to represent themselves.

Oldernotwiser

wardende wrote: »

thanks for the advice.

To be honest I am not receptive to the 'Oh you are bad people you deserve to be hung'.
.

Bloody hell, you are new here aren't you?

Nobody has said that to you (so far) but they very well might if you continue with that attitude!

bestpud

wardende wrote: »

Bestpud - that is the whole point of my post.

my partner is now faced with a debt double what it should be, and im the one repaying it for her.

However I'd take a 20k debt and no prosecution for her over a 10k debt and a prosecution. being convicted of fraud would mean you couldnt obtain a bank account very easily, obtain insurance for car, home etc. get a job!

So it depends on how you look at it, whether or not the waiting game has worked out well or not.

The reason we were giving them a silent treatment is because whatever the moral dilemma is, we have a disabled son to think of first, and the affect of his mum going to prison would have a devastating impact on him, he's autistic and his parents are pretty much the only people he can communicate with.

That was the scariest thing about all this, how he will be affected by it.

If we;d attended the interviews and replied to their questions, all they'd of done is gone away and found a way to rubbish what we'd said, and they'd be more prepared for when it went to a criminal court.

So you are guilty of fraud and were at first happy they didn't take it further, as you know you haven't a hope in hell of wriggling out of a prosecution.

But now, the impact of repaying that level of debt is kicking in and you are wondering if you can wriggle away from that as well as the prosecution?

Is that's what's going on here?

Bamber19

wardende wrote: »

Nope.

One tip for anyone who;s thinking of grassing someone up for benefit fraud anonomously - There;s no such thing. My missus was grassed by a so called friend of hers, but it was purely malicous. She called into the benefit fraud hotline to make a tip off without revealing her identity. They told her they'd only investigate if she submitted her allegation in writing. Then she submitted it in writing, obviously without putting her name on it, and they forwarded the letter to us as part of our appeal process!! Nothing anonomous about that. We've still not let her know that we know she did it yet, we're going to enclose her vicious and spiteful letter in her xmas card this year!

Even though it didnt have her name on it, from what was written, and around the time it was written, it was obvious who wrote it.

Whilst it might not have been fraudulent, she was correct in that you had received money you were not entitled to. Someone reporting suspected benefit fraud is doing just that reporting suspected benefit fraud, it's not that individuals job to launch a full scale investigation to confirm their suspicions. She seen smoke and it's for the fraud investigators to see if there is fire. I don't see how it's malicious when you were in fact, by your own admission receiving money you were not entitled to (or your partner was at least)

I can slightly understand the failure to attend on the grounds that she knows she obtained £10k she wasn't entitled to and the fear was that to attend and admit to this would lead to them prosecuting, but surely doing nothing and agreeing to pay back £20k is just as bad in that respect.

kingfisherblue

I have been invited for interviews under caution before, suspected of benefit fraud. At no time did I think I should get a solicitor. The first time, I was asked about my work and how much I was paid - as a volunteer leader for Brownies! I pointed out that it is a voluntary position that I had informed the DWP about, and that I had provided a letter from my Division Commissioner to explain this (I had been asked to do this when I first claimed IS).

The second time, I was invited in as a result of an anonymous call to the benefit fraud line. The caller had said that I was 'creaming off' payments that i should be making to the person who looks after my disabled child for a couple of hours a week. I informed the DWP officer that the money is provided by the council, under the Direct Payments scheme, and paid into a separate bank account (as required by the council). Every quarter I have to submit paperwork, including bank statements and details about the person to whom I have written cheques. This person then has to sign to say that they have completed the hours and received the cheque for £X. This paperwork is then audited by the council.

In both cases, I was innocent of any wrongdoing and could prove this.

Unfortunately, as you and your partner were both aware, you had a fraudulent claim which resulted in a large overpayment. This appears to be why you did not attend the IUC - if you thought you had nothing to hide, why not attend and expalin your circumstances?

On every benefits letter from the DWP, there is a section at the end telling you that you must inform the DWP of any change in circumstances. There is usually a list of possible changes, including having a partner moving in with you, changes in the condition of the person receiving DLA, etc. It is your responsibility to inform the DWP of any changes and ignorance is no excuse. In post 3, you state that the dates are wrong and that you moved in later than the DWP say.

I have filled in DLA forms before - my son has had complex needs since birth. His first surgery was at nine hours old. Yes, they are long. I know that some people find forms difficult, but there is help from CAB, welfare rights advisors, carer's centre, etc. In post 10, you imply that the DLA form is the reason for the overpayment.

So, to save me further confusion, how did the overpayment occur? Was it a result of your partner failing to inform the DWP that you had moved in, or was it a result of a DLA form filled in incorrectly?

If I have misunderstood, could you explain where the error occured please?