Suspected of Benefit Fraud

ska_lover

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I wouldn't normally agree with him but that's a perfectly likely outcome. I don't think that you can falsely claim more than £10,000 over a period of two years and expect not to be prosecuted.

and quite rightly too. My how proud of herself the OP must be, and what a role model for her son, having a nest egg of thousands whilst the tax payer puts food in your sons mouth. urgh..

Incyder

moonbeam2007 wrote: »

Oh I see. My son has an account but it's a child trust fund so maybe not the same. I can't touch this and can put in a certain amount a year and he has no where near that but he is only 3

MrsE_2

airheadm wrote: »

Yes it was left to me in a will, so I am sure there should be paperwork somewhere, I put it straight into an account which I have not touched.

airheadm wrote: »

Thanks, yes it was left to me by my uncle when he died, I put it in a separate account and have not touched it.

Freudian (or fraudulent) slip OP?

ekkygirl

I was a little bemused by the claim of "living hand to mouth" and "mum buying food as a gift" as income support does not provide a great deal but it is hardly hand to mouth.
I was on benefits for a while and it isn't easy but from the opening post I thought OP had not claimed benefits for 2 years.
If Op had unknowingly put 10K into an account in sons name they would have been guilty of deprivation on assest to qualify for IS which is a little more believable than putting the 10k in their own name.
I sickens me that the benefit system depends on everyone telling the truth and the whole ethos of it falls apart when people are economical with the truth.
If OP can't afford to live why should her son have 10k for education? My hubby and I both work full time and our kids will fund themselves through uni all be it with a weekly allowance from us, If we can afford it.

Sixer

This looks like a case of ignorance/naivety rather than fraud, so let's obey the board rules and cut the OP a break.

OP - the likelihood is that you'll be asked to repay the extra benefits you have received because you didn't declare this capital. And you'll be able to repay on an instalment basis. You'll either have to manage on less weekly money coming in, or gradually spend the capital until it goes below the threshold. Be aware that you can only spend gradually. If you go and buy a car or somesuch to get rid of it more quickly, the benefits people will assess you as if you still had the money.

gravitytolls

Thank you Sixer, for being the voice of reason.

The OP has done something wrong, made a mistake, for which she will (re)pay. She's worried sick, not been sleeping etc., she's suffering NOW.

Of course it's obvious in retrospect that she should've declared her income, but let's face it, if it was really fraud, she'd've bunged £3,000 in an account in her son's name, kept what she was allowed to in her name, and mebbe asked her mum to look after the excess, or stuck it under the mattress ~ her actions don't shout fraud to me.

She doesn't deserve the vitriol some of you are spouting, you'd best hope you don't find yourself on your uppers!

As for 'even if you've got £1,000....'. Actually, I think the system's about right, you've worked for years, managed to save a bit for a rainy day, stuck a bit away for the kids, get made redundant and all of a sudden you're expected to start again? Often, after a period of benefits, you need some cash to get you started again once you're back at work ~ decent clothes, new shoes, mebbe a car ~ is anyone suggesting that the taxpayer pick up the tab for such items?

Sometimes I'm gobsmacked by how little charity some folk hold in their hearts.

RAS

airheadm wrote: »

Thanks, yes it was left to me by my uncle when he died, I put it in a separate account and have not touched it.

Ok

The reason this has been highlighted is because you are listed in public records as the benificiary of a will and this is routinely checked against benefit claims.

So it was your money and you should have declared that you had capital. They will know exactly how much you received, as that is on public record.

The fact that you put the money aside to provide for your son is neither here nor there.

So you should have received less benefit for a period of time, until such time as time as your capital was reduced to £6000.

You might want to see if anyone at CAB can help you work it out, but the best option maybe to return the money as soon as the calculation is bdone.

Rorkes_Drift

airheadm wrote: »

always been in the belief that money I have for my son, albeit in my name which has not and will not be touched until he reaches university age, did not have to be declared when claiming any benefits. The amount is £10,000.

If you hold the funds as a trustee for your son then it does not count as yours personally. Try to see if the Will gifting the sum does indeed hold upon trust until an age is attained, and if yes, find out who the trustee is.

If the money was left to you, but then you gift it away to avoid an IHT charge then its Disposition of Assets. Im not sure if asset disposal rules applies when seeking to attract a prescribed benefit.

If you are being interviewed, they it might be the intention to question you on suspicion of committing an offence under Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 - fraud by omission. You cannot be convicted if you made a genuine mistake (no intention of committing a fraud).

If you are in any doubt, give a No Comment interview until the interviewer places in front of you all the evidence they think they have, and even then you still have a right to an advocate.

Sixer

RAS wrote: »

Ok

The reason this has been highlighted is because you are listed in public records as the benificiary of a will and this is routinely checked against benefit claims.

So it was your money and you should have declared that you had capital. They will know exactly how much you received, as that is on public record.

The fact that you put the money aside to provide for your son is neither here nor there.

So you should have received less benefit for a period of time, until such time as time as your capital was reduced to £6000.

You might want to see if anyone at CAB can help you work it out, but the best option maybe to return the money as soon as the calculation is bdone.

Out of interest, and perhaps for how best to advise people in the future:

If the OP repays the overpayment in one go from the £10k capital, and this takes her below the £6 threshold, her benefits will simply continue in full? Providing the DWP are happy for her to do this?

CCFC_80

gravitytolls wrote: »

Thank you Sixer, for being the voice of reason.

The OP has done something wrong, made a mistake, for which she will (re)pay. She's worried sick, not been sleeping etc., she's suffering NOW.

Of course it's obvious in retrospect that she should've declared her income, but let's face it, if it was really fraud, she'd've bunged £3,000 in an account in her son's name, kept what she was allowed to in her name, and mebbe asked her mum to look after the excess, or stuck it under the mattress ~ her actions don't shout fraud to me.

She doesn't deserve the vitriol some of you are spouting, you'd best hope you don't find yourself on your uppers!

As for 'even if you've got £1,000....'. Actually, I think the system's about right, you've worked for years, managed to save a bit for a rainy day, stuck a bit away for the kids, get made redundant and all of a sudden you're expected to start again? Often, after a period of benefits, you need some cash to get you started again once you're back at work ~ decent clothes, new shoes, mebbe a car ~ is anyone suggesting that the taxpayer pick up the tab for such items?

Sometimes I'm gobsmacked by how little charity some folk hold in their hearts.

Agree with most of what you say and sounds like the OP has acted naively regarding the situation. As you say, If they really wanted to commit benefit fraud, the OP would have withdrawn £4000 from sons bank account and stuck it under the mattress or passed it off to someone else to look after. They would then have probably been okay declaring the 6K.

Disagree though with the comment by earlier poster that even with 1K you should not get benefits. Why should people who have worked their a***s off for years saving for a rainy day who then fall on hard times not be entitled to benefits when those that spend spend spend will be looked after by the government. The moral of this would be if you have any savings, spend everything that you have as the government will look after those that have spent everything but couldn't give a S** regarding those who had put away for the future.