Recovering solicitors fees from the CSA

speedster

how can it not be conducive to charge them? what kind of !!!!!! thinking promotes a public servant to commit fraud???? :mad:

Roy_G_Biv

That was the thinking of a Detective Inspector. No sexism intended, but a female one, as was the caseworker. I found male detectives much more forward thinking when completing the investigation and interviewing suspects.

speedster

Roy_G_Biv wrote: »

That was the thinking of a Detective Inspector. No sexism intended, but a female one, as was the caseworker. I found male detectives much more forward thinking when completing the investigation and interviewing suspects.

much the same with female SW who think "mum knows best".

even when mum is a crack wh0re.

Sensemaya

Roy_G_Biv wrote: »

Going to the top wont achieve much either, its handed down the heirachy until someone decides theres no police resources to launch an investigation or invents another excuse.

A person to person contact is more effective.

There is currently no action with the IPCC because the police investigated the complaint and obtained the necessary documents proving the CSA committed fraud with intent to obtain a money transfer. The Police view it "its not conducive to public good to charge a caseworker under the Fraud Act". This leaves it up to me to decide whether to make the official complaint and have the caseworker charged under the Fraud Act.

If memory serves me right Mr GG got the same bull response too.

The usual case of closing ranks:cool:

Roy_G_Biv

I would call it a result, It got me the evidence I needed and the name and address of the suspect caseworker. The investigation and interview are exempt from data protection so the CSA could not hide behind it. Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I now have all thats needed to bring charges, and the caseworker waits nervously (and without PI cover) on whether the CSA pays my costs.

After that, I can publish the case so other NRPs can follow it. Its a neat way to police cooperation after when they are defrauded by a CSA caseworker.

Roy_G_Biv

speedster wrote: »

much the same with female SW who think "mum knows best".

even when mum is a crack wh0re.

I think its more to do with women having a subconsious vindictive nature. They are probably unaware of it, but its a characteristic men dont have.

This is why I quietly got a male investigator on the case. It makes me sound sexist, but its not intended. I knew a man would be more objedctive in investigating an agency dominated by females that are pessimistic towards male NRPs without them actually realising it.

dizzydusty

Hmm, bit of a 'flaming' statement there Roy!

Slightly confused by some of the things you say in your last post....

I don't understand how you managed to 'quietly get a male investigator on the case'. The police are governed by DPA and PACE (in England), therefore cannot just go sniffing as they like round investigations and decide to get involved. To access information that they do not have a legitimate reason to do so would be a breach of DPA. I assume you mean the police when you talk about an investigator. If the investigator was DWP/CSA then they would most definately be in breach of DPA if they were not officially assigned to the investigation by an authorising officer.

If the police have already received the necessary paperwork and evidence as you state and have already decided that its not in the public interest to proceed in prosecuting the individual concerned then I don't see how you can choose to have that person charged under the Fraud Act. A breach of this act is a criminal offence and would be prosecuted by the police, not DWP or the CSA. The best you could do with this is to make an official complaint against the said individual, and present the evidence you have and if it is strong enough then an internal investigation should take place by the necessary DWP internal investigaton team.

Section 29 of the DPA is usualy quoted when trying to obtain evidence or information from a third party as it states evidence can be released 'for the detection and prevention of a crime' to the requesting authority. The DPA also allows non disclosure of evidence if it relates to a criminal offence or ongoing investigation.

I am curious as to how you managed to receive all the evidence you now have? If you are just another member of the public then you would not have the authority to request information from a third party under Section 29 of the DPA as you are not an investigating body. Did the police pass you all that you have??

Dizzy,
female,
knows several very vindictive men!

Roy_G_Biv

Its not the purpose of this thread to educate you on Police procedure.

Section 29 is nothing about making a 'request'. It is exempt information.

Roy_G_Biv

Dizzydusty wrote: »

if it is strong enough then an internal investigation should take place by the necessary DWP internal investigaton team.

It was, but the CSA that chose to shift the blame to someone else, but were unable disclose their evidence, so the enquiry shifted to Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 and Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

The more excuses, the bigger the hole.

dizzydusty

Roy, I am fully aware of section 29 of the DPA.

The information and interview would not be exempt from the DPA as as you say, but it does allow DWP, for example, to legaly release that information to them as they are covered by that section of the act and would not be in breach of it.

To say that information is exempt from the DPA is slightly misleading as joe bloggs off the street could ask for that info, but would not get it - bearing in mind that not everyone who reads these forums has knowledge of the DPA or under what circumstances information can be withheld or released under the Act.

If I understand what you have said, the caseworker has already been investigated by DWP/CSA and the police have chosen not to proceed with prosecution, then I am at a loss as to how you would be able to press charges on the individual unless you chose to go down the civil action route or had additional evidence that would convince the police to re open the case. Did you go to the police with an allegation or was it as a result of the DWP investigation?

Going back to your original post, I think you have every right to request compensation for your legal costs, as clearly the CSA were at fault. I would try raising a civil action against the CSA if all other avenues have failed.

Still curious as to how you got all the information you say you have though??

Dizzy