not guilty of benefit fraud but they still want the money

divastrop

Misunderstanding? Did you think your partner was living elsewhere while all the time she was hiding in the wardrobe?

Mips

healy wrote: »

I just thought it might be a good idea to quote this in full.

'I was proved not guilty, so that means no fraud took place'

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

AsknAnswer2

They can pursue you for the full £30,000.

As others have explained, the standard of proof in criminal law is "beyond all reasonable doubt". The standard of proof in civil law is "on the balance of probability". They can still pursue you for the period that the criminal court found you not guilty for. You may be able to appeal the decision to recover provided it is within 1 month from the date of the decision to recover, or 13 months if there are special reasons why your appeal is late. However the Appeal will concentrate whether you and your partner were partners for the period in question "on the balance of probability", not "beyond all reasonable doubt".

If you refuse to pay the remainder, the DWP can commence legal proceedings in the civil court for recovery, which again will be determined on "the balance of probability" whether the money is actually owed, or not.

In criminal law, there is no room for reasonable doubt. In civil law, there is plenty of room; it's simply a case of whether the court believe it is more likely than not for civil cases, not whether there is any reasonable doubt.

An example: I get into an argument with someone during the course of which I punch them, breaking their nose resulting in the person having to have time off work to have surgery to their nose. I know I punched them, the person I hit knows I punched them, and a witness who saw me do it knows I punched the person. I admit there was an altercation when interviewed by the police and I do not admit to punching the victim causing their nose to break, though I know damn fine I did - all I admit to is a slap which barely skimmed the victim's face. I go to court, on the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim's Dr gives evidence in which he states that the type of injury his patient had is consistent with a forceful strike to the nose, and "almost certainly" consistent with a punch. The person who got hit is not a very credible witness on the stand through nerves and my defence solicitor pokes so many holes in their statement that the statement could be used to strain tea. The other witness was blind stinking drunk the night before the court hearing, and in his hungover state is which is not evident to the court, he is unable to sufficiently recall with what level of force I hit the victim, whether the strike was a soft slap or a full force punch, and states he isn't even sure that the person in the defence box (me) was the offender. Although the Dr's statement is good and shows the victims injury is consistent with a punch, that's not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I punched the victim. The witness can't identify me in court and can't recall the incident and the victim's testimoney was patchy. Because there is a "reasonable doubt" that I am guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the court must find me innocent, and does so. Doesn't mean I didn't do it.

The victim then decides to pursue me by raising proceedings in the civil court to get compensated for loss of earnings for the time he had to take off work for surgery on his nose. The civil court look at the original police statements made at the time of the incident, they look at the claimant's doctors report, and more importantly the statement made by the other witness at the time of the incident in which he identified me to police officers. They have sufficent evidence to decide that on the balance of probabilities, that I did indeed punch the victim and as a result of that punch the victim required surgery which cost him lost earnings for time off work. The court awards costs in the victim's favour which I must pay for his loss of earnings.

That's how it works. You can be found innocent in a criminal court, but be found liable in a civil court because the standards of proof are entirely different.

Disclaimer: For the purposes of clarity, I have never raised my hand to anyone so the example I gave is entirely fictional, just invented for the purpose of demonstration.

gordikin

teflon_pete wrote: »

I dont want to go into specific details of the case on this website as it could identify me and have a negative impact on my case, as I still have an appeal outstanding I'd rather share my full experiences once that is finalized.

If you are a good and honest person I'm sure you sharing on MSE wouldn't be a problem...if your not, I agree with you and you should keep all your details secret in case the Court finds out!

woozywendy

teflon_pete wrote: »

The purpose was that I was asking how they can still pursue you after court ruled in my favour.

The irony is that if they just let me pay the £2000 odd back, then I'd do it straight away, and go look for a job and get off benefits.

If they want the full £30,000 I'll be forced to stay on benefits forever so I can avoid paying anymore than £5 a week back, and they'll be paying my rent for me forever.

Crazy system.

Good luck with that. With all the cuts planned for benefits and rent payments in the next few months sounds like £5 will be too much to pay. Unless you have savings from what you have received of course.

Sambucus_Nigra

teflon_pete wrote: »

Velvetybubbles thanks for your kind words.

I think that was irony

alwaysonthego_2

Thread now closed!