Benefit fraud help needed

Vader123

dave4545454 wrote: »

i wouldn't like to be in your shoes when they find out it's you;)

I'll happily wear big shoes and support MissMoneyPenny.

I think she was brave and did the right thing, I applaud her.

Vader

MissMoneypenny

dave4545454 wrote: »

i wouldn't like to be in your shoes when they find out it's you;)

When? You're kidding yourself if you think people know who reported them, unless that person (or persons) tell them. As the fraud investigator said to me when I phoned him, "most people get caught because they have big mouths".

It's been over a year since the first one got caught and tbh, it really wouldn't bother me if they did know it was me. The point I was trying to get across was that benefit theives don't get to know who reported them. Although I can understand when benefit thieves like to pretend to others that they do know.;)

MissMoneypenny

Vader123 wrote: »

I think she was brave and did the right thing, I applaud her.

Vader

Not brave; just fed up with people stealing from those who do work, and giving genuine benefit claiments a bad name.

The government and councils make it easy to report benefit cheats anonomously.

davsidipp

you have to tell any changes of circumstances to dwp.if you do not it is classed as fraud and you are taken to court especially for the sum you agree you owe.iucs they have already got their evidence by then.you agree you did not tell them(only liable for half) so you are guilty of fraud.

cit_k

wardende wrote: »

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.

At least your appeal papers got to the right address.

They sent mine to a strangers address by mistake, full copies of my medical reports/assessments etc.

They do have to send you any paper work that they will be using at your tribunal, so I guess that will include fraud report letters.

However, they should blank out any identifiable stuff, names/addresses etc in theory.

How do you know its that person, if its not named or addressed etc?
You are surely guessing, as you cannot prove it conclusively, its only your opinion the letter came from them?

Benefits_Bod

cit_k wrote: »

However, they should blank out any identifiable stuff, names/addresses etc in theory.

There is nothing in law that requires the hiding of the details of third party correspondence. This matter has been considered by the "Upper Tribunal" (the one above the normal appeal Tribunal) and it will depend on the facts of each case. In short, the refusal to provide such information by the DWP/LA *could* result in a hearing not being regarded as "fair or impartial". A claimant / LL at Tribunal has every right to ask for the info and it will then be a matter for the Tribunal Judge to decide whether the info should be revealed. In my experience, Tribunals don't like anonymised or redacted documents and will usually require the full, uncensored, document to be given.

real1314

Benefits_Bod wrote: »

There is nothing in law that requires the hiding of the details of third party correspondence. This matter has been considered by the "Upper Tribunal" (the one above the normal appeal Tribunal) and it will depend on the facts of each case. In short, the refusal to provide such information by the DWP/LA *could* result in a hearing not being regarded as "fair or impartial". A claimant / LL at Tribunal has every right to ask for the info and it will then be a matter for the Tribunal Judge to decide whether the info should be revealed. In my experience, Tribunals don't like anonymised or redacted documents and will usually require the full, uncensored, document to be given.

What really counts here is the Data Protection Act.

A tip off re benefit fraud would be subject to protection for the person making the allegation. Furthermore, the release of such data to the claimant would not be made on the grounds that it could affect the economic well being (or words to that effect) of the nation, which is one of the DPA exemptions.

Do you know a lot about the way Benefit Fraud teams work Benefits Bod?

Benefits_Bod

real1314 wrote: »

What really counts here is the Data Protection Act.

A tip off re benefit fraud would be subject to protection for the person making the allegation. Furthermore, the release of such data to the claimant would not be made on the grounds that it could affect the economic well being (or words to that effect) of the nation, which is one of the DPA exemptions.

Do you know a lot about the way Benefit Fraud teams work Benefits Bod?

Hi real1314: The DPA does not normally offer any protection in the exercising of legal rights, nor in legal proceedings - section 35 of the Data Protection Act. Tribunal hearings are "legal proceedings". In addition, there are legal authorities (decisions of the "Upper Tribunal" and formerly Social Security Commissioners) which make it clear that evidence must be normally provided in full. Hiding / redacting details on documents will be the exception.

In the real world, anyone giving their details when providing tip-offs about benefit fraud (or any other criminal offence for that matter) runs the risk of having those details revealed in subsequent proceedings. I have personally, against my wishes, had my details revealed in Court. And nope, I was not the defendant...:D.

In reply to your question about Fraud Teams, um, "a lot" is a bit like "expert" - a dangerous term . But, I'm happy that the info being provided by me in this thread is accurate. Er, at least so far....

sunnyone

wardende wrote: »

thanks benefit bod for confirming that im not lying, that I do indeed have the anonomous letter that was sent to the council about my partner.

What sort of a coward does it anonomously anyway? Why hide your identity. From seeing this letter we have completely identified the person involved, like I say she can have her letter back on xmas day in her card. the best bit is that she has confided in my partner and told my partner that her dad is having an affair behind her mums back, we're looking forward to grassing her dad up to her mum on xmas day to get even.

The whole point of my post has been completely lost, I asked if it is likely that my partner will still be prosecuted, nearly 2 years after not turning up to IUC, no caution, admin penalty or prosecution has ever been talked about since.

I have even been re-reported for benefit fraud by some joker on this very thread! even though the DWP are fully aware of this hence the whole point of my post, what a fool.


It was my belief that I would find a few people with the compassion or decency to be sympathetic and try to offer some guidance or advice, however I;ve been treated like the witch in the village!!

I thank the odd one or two people that have been constructive in their advice, and I will draw a line under this one.

Thanks very much

over and out.

You admit your partner was claiming benefits fraudulently and you are far from sorry about your role in it and you have advised on this thread and on others that you have posted on that its ok to do that, what do you want?

Approval?

Never going to get it here, you were part of a £20k fraud and in a just world both you and your partner wouldnt be paying it back over 20 years but would be doing time and paying it back much quicker alongside a massive fine to deter others from doing the same.

Benefits_Bod

wardende wrote: »

thanks benefit bod for confirming that im not lying,

Please, don't take this the wrong way wardende, but I have no way of knowing what the facts are of your case. When I respond properly, it will be on the basis of the information stated by you as, obviously, I don't have access to the documentation held by either yourself, or the DWP/LA. In other words, if you are being entirely honest, my response will be the same as if you are not - simply because the information in this thread is what is available to work with.