Benefit Fraud interview with caution..help!

melbi_uk

dmg24 wrote: »

I am well aware of the potential sanctions, and indeed the law behind them. The information in my post is correct.

So you know the exact amount the OP owes?

Quote: 'A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest).'

CCFC_80

dmg24 wrote: »

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.

All I'm saying is that if she attends the interview then she should have someone present with her and your advice stating she shouldn't is irresponsible.

You said that the circumstances of the DWP interview are different but she will be treated just the same as attending an interview with the police. i.e allowed to consult PACE, tape recorded interview, asked if she would want someone present (something which you are not advocating) and the right not to say anything and feel free to leave whenever she wants.

If it was me I would certainly want someone present with me whether I was co-operative or not and I know these people at The DWP would get just as big a Buzz out of prosecuting people then the police do.

At least the police would offer you a free solicitor under these circumstances but The DWP don't.

dmg24

melbi_uk wrote: »

So you know the exact amount the OP owes?

Quote: 'A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest).'

Given the timeframe, it is not difficult to make a rough estimate, is it?

CCFC_80 wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if she attends the interview then she should have someone present with her and your advice stating she shouldn't is irresponsible.

You said that the circumstances of the DWP interview are different but she will be treated just the same as attending an interview with the police. i.e allowed to consult PACE, tape recorded interview, asked if she would want someone present (something which you are not advocating) and the right not to say anything and feel free to leave whenever she wants.

If it was me I would certainly want someone present with me whether I was co-operative or not and I know these people at The DWP would get just as big a Buzz out of prosecuting people then the police do.

At least the police would offer you a free solicitor under these circumstances but The DWP don't.

Complete overreaction - I take it you don't work in this area?

allen35

CCFC_80 wrote: »

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.

I think the OP now knows she's done something wrong and realises that when she earned income she should of made it clear at her signing day or contacted JCP regarding a COC, ignorance of the facts and criteria of her jobseekers agreement is unfortunately no excuse, it sounds like we're not talking about a couple of pound here as the OP states she has paid tax and NI so on any particular week she could well of been working at least 16 hours/earning £120 plus.

Hands up, take the overpayment and caution and learn your lesson.

Very unlikely CAB would attend. they don't do fraud cases just tell you your rights and consequences of your actions

LA will be notified once the investigation has been resolved with regards to an overpayment of HB/CTB

melbi_uk

dmg24 wrote: »

Given the timeframe, it is not difficult to make a rough estimate, is it?


If the OP confesses to all work she has undertaken then this could amount to well over £2000. As you think the OP should (by law) tell them of all the work she has done, then your statement below is wrong.


Quote: 'A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest). '

dmg24

melbi_uk wrote: »

If the OP confesses to all work she has undertaken then this could amount to well over £2000. As you think the OP should (by law) tell them of all the work she has done, then your statement below is wrong.


Quote: 'A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest). '

Six months part time work in a small shop - pretty reasonable to assume it is at minimum wage. Added to that, you argue that there is no fraudulent intent, and so no grounds to prosecute ... Unless you are changing your viewpoint?

CCFC_80

[QUOTE=dmg

Complete overreaction - I take it you don't work in this area?[/QUOTE]

Don't have too but know a man that does and know him well.

People have more rights attending an interview under caution with the Police then The DWP so it's wise for anyone who is asked to attend an interview under caution to have a representative with them.To reiterate at least the Police would provide a solicitor for you.

allen35

melbi_uk wrote: »

dmg24 wrote: »

Given the timeframe, it is not difficult to make a rough estimate, is it?


If the OP confesses to all work she has undertaken then this could amount to well over £2000. As you think the OP should (by law) tell them of all the work she has done, then your statement below is wrong.


Quote: 'A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest). '

Depends on the circumstances, i would imagine they are guidlines, if you have wrongly claimed benefits once as the OP does, now know it is your responsibility to admit and repay, she will have the chance to admit her wrongdoings before DWP tell her what evidence they have, so, once again admit the lot and take the smack on the wrist.

allen35

CCFC_80 wrote: »

Don't have too but know a man that does and know him well.

People have more rights attending an interview under caution with the Police then The DWP so it's wise for anyone who is asked to attend an interview under caution to have a representative with them.To reiterate at least the Police would provide a solicitor for you.

I understand your view but as the OP didn't know, i would yes, take a friend along and if it gets too heavy you can delay the interview until you seek legal representation.

melbi_uk

dmg24 wrote: »

Six months part time work in a small shop - pretty reasonable to assume it is at minimum wage. Added to that, you argue that there is no fraudulent intent, and so no grounds to prosecute ... Unless you are changing your viewpoint?

As I don't know the full facts and only have what the OP posted, as you have too, then nobody here can say she acted fraudulently

What the OP did could have been intentional or innocence.

It is wrong to say: A prosecution would not happen in this situation, an administrative penalty is far more likely (and perhaps not even that, if she is honest).

Unless you know all the facts. You are only assuming the OP received minimum wage.