under caution interviews by the csa

nautilus3a

The CSA has asked me to attend an "under caution interview", which would be recorded and conducted in accordance with the codes of practices of "Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984". Furthermore, they claim that CSA investigators are legally authorised to conduct these under caution interviews as they have received accredited training as prescibed under this act.

However, I note, under these codes of practice for this act, the interviewer would need to be an authorised "Designated Person" under the codes of practice as indicated in part 4 - chapter 1 of The Police Reform Act 2002 to legally carry out "under caution interviews", in accordance with Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This Police Reform act indicates "Designated Persons" to be duly authorised Police officers who would conduct these interviews inside a Police staion.

However, I cannot locate any legal precdure available to CSA inspectors in the CS1, CS2 rules or the Child Support act 1991 to legally support this proposal by the Agency within these current laws.

I have requested detailed/reference confirmation to the Agencies claim under these acts where it authorises Agency inspectors to legally carry out these interrviews. Historically, my many requests has not received any replies.

As I have made several unsuccessful requests for a face-to-face meeting with Agency, I feel this proposed under caution interview is an unacceptable and ilegal attempt to frighten me and intimidate me. I would be most obliged for any advice/comments on this issue.

regards nautilus 3a

kelloggs36

if the CSA believe you have committed an offence, they are obliged to interview you under caution - they have specifically trained people who can conduct those interviews - I was one of them until I left! I can assure you that they are acting within the law - the DSS also carry out such interviews - again, i used to do those aswell. Provided that they have had the PINS training then they are able to conduct interviews under caution. If you attend, they will tell you your rights, caution you and give you the opportunity to seek legal advice and if you choose to seek legal advice, they will suspend the interview and re-book for you to reattend at a later date. You will be given a copy of the recording of the interview and their copy will be sealed and locked away until it is needed (if it is needed) in court. If you fail to attend, then the case will be sent to the solicitors and you will probably be prosecuted anyway as you refused to provide your evidence or explanation to their evidence which they will have otherwise provided you with at interview. They will refuse you a face to face interview as it would jeapordise their case if they do not caution you before hand, and a bog-standard face to face officer won't have that training, and so cannot discuss the case with you. Why not attend the interview and ask to seek legal advise and have the interview suspended whilst you get advice if you have any queries?

gratefulforhelp_2

I think TV licensing also caution people?

Lucky_Luciano

Hi there,
I'm not sure if we (my partner) is getting one of these or not, we're waiting for a phone call today (he only told me the latest on this at the weekend - hence my panic to get some answers fast).

Apparently they're chasing for an old debt from 1999 which I know they can't do under an LO, nor on a DEO as he's selft employed, so the latest threat is to put him in prison & take away his passport and driving license.

Can they do this and what will the procedure be ?
We've appealed each and every assessment getting the debt to a Nil balance, then receiving a "case closed" notification, until the phone calls started again a couple of months ago - is there anyway for us to finally appeal this to someone that will listen ??

Many thanks a very frustrated partern.
P.s..........Kelloggs36 - I've tried to PM you but mailbox is full

bdt1

I would maybe suggest you get in touch with NACSA, they are really helpful and the only people who seem to understand the CSA - better than CSA staff understand it themselves.

Also may be worth getting your Data Protection File, it holds all of your contacts and assessments, phonecalls etc CSA hold on you - or it should anyway!!! Again, NACSA have a template letter on their website to apply for such a file from CSA, it will cost you a tenner, but very often worth it as it holds information that may help you

Good luck.

If all else fails maybe Stephen Lawson is worth a go, but he is very expensive

kelloggs36

It depends on when the money became due as opposed to when it built up.

nautilus3a

kelloggs36 wrote: »

if the CSA believe you have committed an offence, they are obliged to interview you under caution - they have specifically trained people who can conduct those interviews - I was one of them until I left! I can assure you that they are acting within the law - the DSS also carry out such interviews - again, i used to do those aswell. Provided that they have had the PINS training then they are able to conduct interviews under caution. If you attend, they will tell you your rights, caution you and give you the opportunity to seek legal advice and if you choose to seek legal advice, they will suspend the interview and re-book for you to reattend at a later date. You will be given a copy of the recording of the interview and their copy will be sealed and locked away until it is needed (if it is needed) in court. If you fail to attend, then the case will be sent to the solicitors and you will probably be prosecuted anyway as you refused to provide your evidence or explanation to their evidence which they will have otherwise provided you with at interview. They will refuse you a face to face interview as it would jeapordise their case if they do not caution you before hand, and a bog-standard face to face officer won't have that training, and so cannot discuss the case with you. Why not attend the interview and ask to seek legal advise and have the interview suspended whilst you get advice if you have any queries?

This is what the CSA claim. However, they continue to ignorge my requests to substantiate their claim with any reference to the current Codes of Practice for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which would allow them (CSA staff) to legally conduct these interviews outside a Police Station

This Act of Parliment is legal legislative procedures for only authorised Police Officers to conduct "under caution interviews" inside a police station.

As the CSA indicate their in house training allows them to legally to carry out these interviews, which is not covered under under the above Act, is PINS training "in house" CSA training procedures?

For the Agency to claim they legally authorised under the above current statuatory laws, I feel it is appropriate for them to indicate at which point in this Act legally justifies their claim.

Many thanks for your help and I would be obliged for your thoughts regarding the Agencies statutory legal responsbilities under the above Act to carry out there proposed interview.

Again many thanks, especially for your time taken with you reply.

PS. My requests for face-to-face meetings were many months before their prposed under caution interview.

nautilus3a

kelloggs36

They don't have to tell you under what legislation they can interview under caution - they certainly DO have the power to do so and you arguing the point is just a delaying tactic which will fail. Why not put the question to them at the interview?

Kimitatsu

Nautilus3a - I have to agree with Kellogs, GO to the interview, take a solicitor or Mackenzie friend with you if you feel the need, but if you dont comply the CSA will just prosecute you anyway.

By procrastinating and arguing over every minor point of law you are just dragging the process out until the CSA will hit the go to jail (or court in this case) rule,

nautilus3a

kelloggs36 wrote: »

They don't have to tell you under what legislation they can interview under caution - they certainly DO have the power to do so and you arguing the point is just a delaying tactic which will fail. Why not put the question to them at the interview?

The Agency said they would not accept any questions on this issue, only questions on the single issue agenda of their choice for their proposed "under caution interview" would be accepted.

With respect, I am not arguing the point as you suggest. I am trying to find out for myself and I'm sure for many other fathers in similar position to me who, unlike the PRC, cannot afford a solictor to establish if the Agency is acting legally as they claim and are importantly compliant with current statutory laws to conduct threatening "under caution interviews", especially when they have previously ignored my requests for face-to-face meetings.

Whether they have to tell me or not what statutory legislation enables them to carry out "under caution interviews", the important issue is that the Agency did in fact tell me it would be conducted under The Codes of Practice of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under these circumstances, I felt the Agency have a legal responsibilty to indicate their legal compliance under this Act. As they would not, I made a complaint.

As the Agency did not comply with stage 1 & 2 complaints procedures, my complaint was forwarded to the ICE office under stage 3, who have accepted it and are now investigating this issue under maladministration.

Bearing in mind your claim that the Agency does not have to tell me regarding their legal compliance to current legisation for "under caution interviews", I will keep you informed regarding the ICE office's decision on this issue. Unfortunately, this may take some time. I would reiterate my request for confirmation regards PINS. Is this only "in house" CSA training, which is not covered under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?

Furthermore, in contrast to your claim, the CSA Commissioner's submission to my First tier tribunal hearing stated, "it was totally unacceptable for the Agency not to reply to my correspondence to a current case was totally unacceptable." However, due to administartive errors this submission was not submitted to the tribunal hearing hence the reason it has now been referred to Upper Tier Tribunal Service.

As my ex wife has denied my contact with my daughter for 12 years by breaching my several court contact orders with the services of a publicly funded solicitor and refusing to discuss child maintence issues with me, she has pursued maintenance from me via the CSA.
Therefore, without knowing the full distressing circumstances of my ongoing 12 year dealings with the CSA and my legal costs for my unsuccessful attempts for contact with my daughter, I am saddened and disappointed at your inference that I am "arguing the point is just a delaying tactic which will fail".

The intention of my post was hopefully to receive appropriate legal advice in order to be treated in accordance with my legal civil rights also experiences from other NRP facing threats of under caution interviews.

nautilus3a

dizzydusty

Nautilus3a,

The interview will be conducted as stated in PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) which means that the Interview under caution will be dealt with in exactly the same way as it would if the police were conducting it. This is the only way that evidence will be admissable in court, as evidence gathered without a caution being issued could be seen to be circumstantial or entrapment. It will either be tape recorded or contemperanious notes will be constructed and you will be asked to sign to say these are an accurate representation of the interview.

I was an investigator for DWP, my powers of investigation were granted to me via a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, I would suggest that this is the same as the CSA investigators. My warrant however did not mean that I could arrest people etc, but it did mean that when it came to investigations relating to the Social Security act, and in this case the Child Support Act, then I had the power to Interview and issue a caution.

I am also PINS trained (1-7), this is a widely recognised external qualification issued by Portsmouth University. I am sure that you would find information on it if you did a google search.

To be honest, the CSA has been doing IUC's since the CSA came in to being. I am sure that this legislation has been gone over many times! You wont be the first or the last to question this.

However, an IUC is not a threat. It is conducted because the Investigation team have reason to believe that there has been an offence under the CS legislation. The IUC will be conducted to gather information that will either confirm or deny this. I would suspect that in order to get to an IUC situation then the investigation team must have evidence to suggest an offence has been committed. They should present you with the evidence at the interview for you to look at and confirm or deny that said evidence is true or not. They should not ask deliberately leading questions or target non corroborated evidence. Evidence must be corroborated for it to stand up in court. The ex stating that you had won the pools is not corroborated evidence, them producing a copy of a bank statement showing the win or a statment from the 'pools' people confiming you winning and receiving the cash would corroborate this. Third party evidence is hearsay, e.g. your ex saying that she was told by her next door neighbour blah, blah is hearsay, the next door neighbour would have to corroborate this.

You have the right to silence, however it can be viewed very dimly by the court if you then decide to say something you refused to say at the interview. You can take a third party with you such as a solicitor or someone reliable. They will not be able to answer questions on your behalf though.

Seriously, if you are sure you have done nothing wrong (and I make no assumptions here) and have not done anything deliberate to withhold information from the CSA then let them interview you as you will see exactly what they may or may not 'have' on you. Keep calm, think carefully about your answers and it should be OK. You may be able to give them evidence that they did not know about before hand that means that there is no alleged offence!

I agree with Kellogs, they may not have agreed to a face to face as this could have impacted on the ongoing investigation. They still should have had the decency to reply to you though!

Hope this answers some of your questions!