We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Benefit Fraud interview with caution..help!
Options
Comments
-
The interview is recorded to protect both sides. She will automatically be given a copy. If you have nothing to hide, you have no need for representation. The compliance officers have no interest in 'fitting up' innocent people.
You mean like if you are arrested and innocent but you are still offered a solicitor as that is your right?0 -
The interview is recorded to protect both sides. She will automatically be given a copy. If you have nothing to hide, you have no need for representation. The compliance officers have no interest in 'fitting up' innocent people.
You could argue on the other side that if she has got nothing to hide and in her eyes has committed no offence then she does not need to attend the interview anyway and should just ignore it.
The onus would then be on them to try & bring a prosecution against her and to repeat, if in her eyes she has done nothing wrong and only The OP would know this, the case would be thrown out straight away.0 -
How can she be lying if she answers all questions asked of her truthfully?
Now if they ask her if she has anything else to report, then that would be the time to tell them of any other work she has done!
It is entirely up to the OP if she chooses to tell them anything other than what they are asking.
As far as I am concerned the OP has not done anything she knew was fraudulent. When she told the JC they should have explained to her the process, it seems they did not! So she thought that has she had told them of the irregular part time work that everything was above board.
The OP did her part by telling them in the first place about the work she will be doing, at that point they should have explained the procedure for doing any paid work!
You don't seem to understand the concept of lying by omission? If she chooses not to tell them about the earlier work, she is committing fraud because she is intentionally hiding it.
No one has said that she has committed fraud to date, but her actions at the interview could mean that she will have.Gone ... or have I?0 -
You could argue on the other side that if she has got nothing to hide and in her eyes has committed no offence then she does not need to attend the interview anyway and should just ignore it.
The onus would then be on them to try & bring a prosecution against her and to repeat if in her eyes she has done nothing wrong and only The OP would know this, the case would be thrown out straight away.
A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest).
The DWP will be able to access her bank statements which prove she has worked. If she chooses to be difficult, as you suggest she does, they will conduct an investigation in her absence and it seems pretty clear that they will find the evidence they need.
Why would you not just go to the interview, explain the confusion as she has here, and give the information relating to when she worked? You are making it into a far bigger deal than it needs to be.Gone ... or have I?0 -
How can she be lying if she answers all questions asked of her truthfully?
Have you heard of the phrase lying by omission?The OP did her part by telling them in the first place about the work she will be doing, at that point they should have explained the procedure for doing any paid work!
I actually think the OP is being rather disingenuous with her responses on here. The JCP usually ask if you have done any work int he last two weeks, paid or unpaid.Amanda_Adams wrote: »I just told the jobcentre what I was doing, and where. At every meeting after that, they asked if my situation had changed, which it hadn't.
ETA: Cross posted with dmg0 -
You mean like if you are arrested and innocent but you are still offered a solicitor as that is your right?
Although it is an interview under caution, the situation is completely different. As I have already said, the DWP are not out to find someone guilty of something they have not done.Gone ... or have I?0 -
Although it is an interview under caution, the situation is completely different. As I have already said, the DWP are not out to find someone guilty of something they have not done.
I would have to strongly disagree, if the OP in her eyes has done nothing wrong and to reiterate only she knows that, then I would ignore the request to co-operate and not attend the interview.
If she thinks that she may have done something wrong then it makes common sense for someone to be present with her when she attends the interview if she is co-operative or not.0 -
I would have to strongly disagree, if the OP in her eyes has done nothing wrong and to reiterate only she knows that, then I would ignore the request to co-operate and not attend the interview.
If she thinks that she may have done something wrong then it makes common sense for someone to be present with her when she attends the interview if she is co-operative or not.
You are aware of the consequences of not attending the interview? If the OP attends and is honest, they will have their benefits reinstated pretty quickly, potentially within the same week. If the OP does not attend, her benefits will be frozen until their investigation is completed. She will not be a priority to the DWP, so she will be without any benefits for weeks, potentially longer. What do you suggest she lives on for this period?
You are creating a problem where there does not need to be one. Your advice is very irresponsible.Gone ... or have I?0 -
A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest).
The DWP will be able to access her bank statements which prove she has worked. If she chooses to be difficult, as you suggest she does, they will conduct an investigation in her absence and it seems pretty clear that they will find the evidence they need.
Why would you not just go to the interview, explain the confusion as she has here, and give the information relating to when she worked? You are making it into a far bigger deal than it needs to be.
The basic rules as far as prosecutions are concerned are:-
Total overpayment more than £2000 - Prosecution & repayment
Overpayment less than £2000 but don’t admit it - Departmental caution, repayment & a 20% fine.
Overpayment less than £2000 but admits it - Departmental caution & repayment.0 -
The basic rules as far as prosecutions are concerned are:-
Total overpayment more than £2000 - Prosecution & repayment
Overpayment less than £2000 but don’t admit it - Departmental caution, repayment & a 20% fine.
Overpayment less than £2000 but admits it - Departmental caution & repayment.
I am well aware of the potential sanctions, and indeed the law behind them. The information in my post is correct.Gone ... or have I?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards