Benefit Fraud interview with caution..help!

Oldernotwiser

Sixer wrote: »

It's against the rules of this forum to call an OP a liar - openly or by implication. We are asked to take what people say at face value and I see no reason to either believe or disbelieve in the OP's naivety. Hence my saying "This is what the OP stated. It shows a problematic ignorance of what the signing on declaration actually is, therefore an adviser at interview would probably be a good idea".

She made a post asking for advice. The point of the forum is to give advice based on the information given. Spending pages of threads debating the honesty of posters and the morality of their positions is a) against the rules, and b) makes the threads less helpful to both the original poster and people with similar issues following along at later dates.

I think that you'll find that you are the one who has interpreted my comment as implying that the OP is a liar. I also think you'll find that condoning benefit fraud (again, I'm not implying that this is what the OP has done) is also against forum rules.

poet123

Amanda_Adams wrote: »

To be in this situation in the first place is horrendous, you have no idea how sick and ill I feel. I am thoroughly expecting to be believed by no-one, and certainly not the DWP.
I am a woman in my late 50's who has worked all her life until being made redundant last year. Believe me, I have no sense of false security. I come here purely asking for practical advice on how to deal with a situation I have apparently got myself into.
I already know how my actions will be perceived without it being confirmed over again, or being called "stupid" which is neither helpful or practical.

As I have said earlier, thank you to everyone for their help. Most people have been great.
A

I wasn't actually passing comment in particular, more in general, as a response to Sixers critisiscm of ONW.

I do speak from a position of knowledge as I was a Fraud Officer with the DWP for several years. I do understand how traumatic this type if issue is if it is a genuine error (and they do exist) but hard though it seems it is useful to know how things could be viewed.

The rules surrounding permitted work are quite clear, 16 hours maximum, and a deduction of benefit for remuneration received. If the details of your assertion re the work had been understood by the advisor she would have asked for pay slips. It seems to me that there has been a blip in the communication channels and some crossed wires have ensued.

If it was me I would collate all the wage info, write a statement about who you told about the work and when, and take someone with you who is calm under pressure, articulate, and who knows you and your character. In short, an advocate. Be honest, and truthful and don't prevaricate.

I wish you good luck.

Amanda_Adams

poet123 wrote: »

I wasn't actually passing comment in particular, more in general, as a response to Sixers critisiscm of ONW.

I do speak from a position of knowledge as I was a Fraud Officer with the DWP for several years. I do understand how traumatic this type if issue is if it is a genuine error (and they do exist) but hard though it seems it is useful to know how things could be viewed.

The rules surrounding permitted work are quite clear, 16 hours maximum, and a deduction of benefit for remuneration received. If the details of your assertion re the work had been understood by the advisor she would have asked for pay slips. It seems to me that there has been a blip in the communication channels and some crossed wires have ensued.

If it was me I would collate all the wage info, write a statement about who you told about the work and when, and take someone with you who is calm under pressure, articulate, and who knows you and your character. In short, an advocate. Be honest, and truthful and don't prevaricate.

I wish you good luck.

Thank you, I am probably being more than I little twitchy at the moment, but I do genuinely appreciate the advice. I'm in the process of putting everything together, so that I have all the information at hand that they can possibly ask for. I would like the whole thing to be settled as soon as possible. As I do appear to have been pretty naive, and lax in certain respects, I am expecting to have to pay the money back and possibly a fine. I'm desperately trying to find a full time job, as I am struggling as it is. I have not done any work at all in the last two weeks, and my benefits have stopped as a result of this investigation.
I intend to take a friend who is a local counciller with me, he is articulate and knows me well.

A

dogfish12

It always struck me when I used to sign on that anything the `advisor` typed on the computer could be a source of future trouble. Text can be misinterpreted so easily, almost always against the character of the claimant.

gfplux

Amanda, Good luck for Monday.

If you have worked on average 4 hours a weeks for 6 months (26 weeks) at minimum wage you will (very, very rough calculation) have earned around +£600.

So if and when this were all cleared up I imagine that you will owe about 10 weeks worth of JSA.
Not knowing or understanding the system I would hope for your sake they will take your mistake at face value and give you a warning and suspend JSA until you have paid back what you owe.

However people with more knowledge than me may know better.
Are people fined in these cases or is JSA withdrawn for certain periods as punishment?

dogfish12

I'd also be interested to know how all this has come about? By cross referencing, I doubt it! Unlucky sample, perhaps? More likely a snake in the grass.

sueturnersmith

dogfish12 wrote: »

I'd also be interested to know how all this has come about? By cross referencing, I doubt it! Unlucky sample, perhaps? More likely a snake in the grass.

More likely the fact that income tax and NI has been deducted from Amanda's wages!

dogfish12

Sue: I doubt that. They are all seperate offices. There are millions of people. Something triggered them. There are people on here who can tell us the most likely scenario.

Sixer

poet123 wrote: »

There is an inherent problem with that though. Which is that if any poster gives detail of their actions which a reasonable person could interpret as showing they were not being entirely open with the authorities, to suggest that scenario may not be put to them or believed by the DWP, is unhelpful and lulls them into a false sense of security.

It may be a misunderstanding, it may not, but it is not unreasonable to let the OP see how their actions can be perceived and why.

When did I do that? That's why I posted what the rules were and how they were broken and strongly advised the OP to take an adviser with her to the interview - WITHOUT accusing her of lying or being dishonest, implying that she was lying or being dishonest, or indulging in endless judgements about the morality or immorality of the situation.

Casting aspersions on the veracity of a poster IS against the rules of the forum.

Giving bad advice IS NOT against the rules of the forum - in fact, the place has disclaimers all over the place about that.

Two completely different issues - I was talking about the former, but your reply applies to the latter.

And in actual fact, I've given GOOD advice representing the position to the OP exactly as it is, and I've done it without breaking the forum rules.

In my view, it's a shame more people hereabouts can't manage the both.

cassieB57

most likely, someone who is 'on the ball' at the jobcentre or maybe the benefit delivery centre noticed that OP declared that she had started working, and that no declarations of work and earnings had ever been completed by her. Could have been uncovered at a review, or just by someone going through the claim.

With reference to whether she was asked if she had done any work; not everybody does, but I ALWAYS ask this every time; that way I never have to remember if I asked this person or that one. BUT I think the wording on the declaration form is that the customer 'has done no work unless I have told (the jobcentre) about it'. The OP could argue that she DID tell them about it (originally), therefore had misunderstood the requirement to declare any work or earnings every time she signed on.