📨 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!

Interview under caution

Options
13»

Comments

  • real1314
    real1314 Posts: 4,432 Forumite
    redbu wrote: »
    Well then that is your choice and opinion.
    What I can say is that this information came to me via a CID officer with whom I had a working relationship with through my employment with the government.
    You could say it was tittle tattle that went on out of the office over a pint!
    To say that this never happens is being totally niave.

    So:

    second hand evidence:-
    did CID get involved in a benefit prosecution? Do they have enough knowledge of the rules?

    Of one or two (?) occasions? Out of how many thousand cases each year?

    And where threatening behaviour with a lethal weapon was involved - erm - didn't the threat with gun become a more serious offence? The benefit fraud might have been part of a trial, and would most likely have been brought by DWP as a joint prosecution. DWP do the benefit questions, plod do the gun / threat?

    Leave the relevant bits to the relevant experts?

    Strange ways of working if it went the way you suggest. :cool:
  • chigley
    chigley Posts: 111 Forumite
    Why not write/ring to the person who invited you to the IUC, and interviewed you? Their detals should be on the IUC invite letter, and ask them what stage the case is at? It won't hurt, and you could explain your reasons for doing it.

    As has been pointed out, its only likely you will be prosecuted if your overpayment was over £2000 and only you know that.
    :TProud to have lived within my means all my life :T
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,920 Forumite
    10,000 Posts
    redbu wrote: »
    Do I?

    If only you knew.

    Why are people so niave to think that the DWP are the only ones to prosecute benefit fraud.

    Maybe the guy in who lived in South London whose only action was to cash cheques on a weekly basis through his bank account for a large company for fear of losing a contract. Cash that was then used by the large company to pay cash in hand wages. Backed up by bogus invoices to show that work was 'carried' out for these money transactions. This continued for 8 months.

    He didn't make a penny from this apart from holding on to a contract.

    He was arrested at 5am by the police, office, car and home (70 miles away) were searched and prosecuted as a conspirator and was sent down for 2 years at Southwark Crown Court. Why was not HMRC prosecuting? There was no money to repay as they didn't steal anything. Why did he get sent down? Because he refused to co-operate and turn Queens evidence.

    Then there is the case of boyfriend and girlfriend creating a bogus tenancy in Welling Kent. She told investigators that in any event her 'landlord' was gay! This was for CTB & HB, both received custodial sentences in Maidstone Crown Court following a police investigation, arrest of both of them at 5am, a full property search and prosecution by the CPS. Total fraud - £10,556 carried out over less than 2 years. Why not the Council? The £10,556 was repaid in full within weeks of the charges being levied + costs and months before it went to court.

    It is you that doesn't live in the real world!

    Good effort - only took you a day to tell your prison stories! :p
    Gone ... or have I?
  • lovetowinacar
    lovetowinacar Posts: 1,948 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    sumsup wrote: »
    I agree that you must disclose this information when you apply for the job. You would probably still get a CRB Disclosure, but the issue may appear on it, especially if you are convicted. You could write a statement about the situation on a separate piece of paper, seal it and address it Confidential to the Headteacher, then put " see enclosed envelope" on the application form.

    Although this is not a Child Protection issue, most school admin positions involve handing money. To be honest, the school would find it hard to justify exposing themselves to known potential financial risk, even though you have repaid and are obviously very regretful. Good luck.

    I agree, as an ex school governor involved in interviewing potential employees I would not take on anyone who had been prosecuted for benefit fraud since a part of the job involves handling money. If someone was underhand and didn't mention the "problem" and then the school found out that merely points to further dishonesty in my opinion. I understand that you are sorry and have repaid the money back but you still committed benefit fraud - what if you were not caught would the situation have just continued? I am not judging but there are many applicants for part time admin positions at schools and much easier to take on someone without benefit fraud that someone with. Good luck with the future.
  • real1314
    real1314 Posts: 4,432 Forumite
    redbu wrote: »
    Do I?

    If only you knew.

    Why are people so niave to think that the DWP are the only ones to prosecute benefit fraud.

    Maybe the guy in who lived in South London whose only action was to cash cheques on a weekly basis through his bank account for a large company for fear of losing a contract. Cash that was then used by the large company to pay cash in hand wages. Backed up by bogus invoices to show that work was 'carried' out for these money transactions. This continued for 8 months.

    He didn't make a penny from this apart from holding on to a contract.

    He was arrested at 5am by the police, office, car and home (70 miles away) were searched and prosecuted as a conspirator and was sent down for 2 years at Southwark Crown Court. Why was not HMRC prosecuting? There was no money to repay as they didn't steal anything. Why did he get sent down? Because he refused to co-operate and turn Queens evidence.

    Then there is the case of boyfriend and girlfriend creating a bogus tenancy in Welling Kent. She told investigators that in any event her 'landlord' was gay! This was for CTB & HB, both received custodial sentences in Maidstone Crown Court following a police investigation, arrest of both of them at 5am, a full property search and prosecution by the CPS. Total fraud - £10,556 carried out over less than 2 years. Why not the Council? The £10,556 was repaid in full within weeks of the charges being levied + costs and months before it went to court.

    It is you that doesn't live in the real world!

    Were these reported in the media?
    Did they happen recently?

    Even if it's true, it's very, very rare for plod to get involved in benefit issues, other than in a supporting role, as I said previously. Other offences outside the benefit realm may well introduce plod, but only if these other offences exist. :cool:
  • vax2002
    vax2002 Posts: 7,187 Forumite
    Generally if they interview you under caution they do not have any evidence they can rely on such as someone who has snitched but wont go to court, so they need you to snitch on yourself.
    If they have a strong case they just have you arrested and charged.
    It cuts the messing about out.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • real1314
    real1314 Posts: 4,432 Forumite
    redbu wrote: »
    No they weren't quoted in the media. The first one I have personal knowledge of because I assisted the offender in keeping his business together with regular visits to see him both at Brixton and Ford.
    This was in 2006.

    The second was a case I discussed with a serving police officer (CID) who was actively involved in the case. This was in 2008.

    How can you be so sure of the number of times the police don't get involved in benefit fraud?
    All I can tell you is that I receive information and used to discuss cases at the sharp end.
    Generally it is down to the DWP or the Council, but in cases were there is a refusal to co-operate or be interviewed or provide evidence to substantiate a valid claim to benefit, the council or the DWP have no powers to go any further. They can't force someone to make a statement, that have no powers of arrest or siezure.
    That is when the cases are handed to police who have a lot more powers.

    Any charges laid after they are brought in will be under the Fraud Act and not under the Benefit legislation.

    Simple answer, fail to co-operate with the DWP or the Council will lead to being charged with a much more serious offence.
    Finally why don't YOU ask what the DWP would do if a benefit claimant refuses to be interviewed, or provide any documentation - he/she just goes to ground?


    Well, first off, lots of DWP cases end up in the media. And all cases are open to public reporting, so if these cases were as serious as you make out (although DWP have handled far bigger cases) they might have been reported.

    Secondly, 2 cases in the last 5 years pales into insignificance comparded the the cases reported in the media as prosecuted by DWP or Local Authorities. Which one was the shotgun job? Didn't plod do it due to the shotgun aspect?

    Your "last case" is nearly 3 years old. Hardly current. I'm sure you like the idea that you are in-the-know, but 1 case of assisting in some way with an offenders business and another from chats with plod in the pub doesn't make you an authority.
    There are people on here with much closer links to the heart of these things.

    I'll say it again. Plod are rarely involved in benefit cases. They are used for arrest powers if needed, but DWP still do the case, they have their own solicitors for it.
    Why would plod get into that sort of messy stuff that they have limited experience of?

    Incidentally, and this might surprise you, there are no direct offences under benefit legislation. Why would there be? Prosecutions are done by DWP/LAs under the fruad act or under the theft act. :cool:
  • Morglin
    Morglin Posts: 15,922 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 30 May 2011 at 6:16AM
    To OP:

    You have been interviewed under caution by a DWP compliance officer, and as it has gone no further, this will usually be the last you'll hear of it. It only has a future impact if it ever happened again, and you have been required to pay back the money, which you have done. It will not affect any future claims you may need to make for benefits.

    The police, if they have not contacted you by now, are not involved (they are not usually, unless it is for large amounts, organised theft or for 'serial fraudsters' - the police wouldn't have the time or manpower to get involved in all cases like this!).

    Therefore, there will be nothing on any CRB check that may be undertaken, and you don't need to disclose it.

    Lin :)
    You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands..........for instance, if they are placed around your throat, she's probably slightly upset. ;)
  • Kimitatsu
    Kimitatsu Posts: 3,889 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Morglin - who works in the criminal justice systen is correct. However, if you are concerned you shoudl disclose the offence but NOT on your application form for every one to see.

    Instead, return you application form, and CRB with a seperate letter in a sealed envelope for the attention of the HR manager (or their equivelant) marked private and confidential. That way, if anything comes back you have disclosed fully, but not to anyone who happens to read the application form from the tea boy up!

    As this has been fully answered I am closing this thread - OP good luck with the job :)
    Free/impartial debt advice: Consumer Credit Counselling Service (CCCS) | National Debtline | Find your local CAB
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.