Interview under cauition...HELP

fluffymovie

In an iuc, legal advisors are welcome. An iuc can be stopped to allow the customer time to seek advice.

I work in HB and my hubby is a fraud manager. I would never suggest ignoring an iuc as it's your opportunity to put your side across

Benefits_Bod

Broadly, Vax is correct. There is no legal basis on which anyone can be required to attend an IUC for benefits. Where I would differ from Vax is about the options open to the council. They could go to the Police but they could also choose to simply issue notice of proceedings or suggest you accept a caution.

However, for £200 it would be unusual in the extreme for a full blown prosecution to proceed.

My advice is to write a short letter to the council acknowledging the request to attend an IUC but asking for the council to set out exactly what it is their officers wish to discuss in order that you can make an informed decision about whether or not to attend the IUC.

Also, whatever you do, do NOT "admit" to having committed fraud. Sure, you haven't (apparently) notified the council of a material fact affecting entitlement. However, in the legal sense, that is not "fraud" in itself.

If offered a caution, absolutely take formal legal advice BEFORE accepting. Cautions are sometimes offered where the LA (or DWP) are reluctant to prosecute. Without a caution, there can be no "admin penalty" (i.e. an amount the council could charge on top of the overpayment). Bear in mind a caution gets you a criminal record that lasts forever. In the unlikely event the council tries prosecuting, make sure you get a solicitor and insist that your solicitor obtains the services of an expert witness familiar with social security law.

vax2002

I would advise you take independent legal advise and avail yourself of your right of defence that is advised.
I would also recommend that in absence of legal representation you avail of your right to silence.
This is your legal rights, they were given to you by King James the third, you still luckily still have that right for now, but it wont be long the way we are going.
This is your Legal position
Anything else is moralistic trial by forum.

bobajob_1966

dlink10 wrote: »

I think I'll call in the morning and ask, but I'd still go along rather than being arrested. Ive been told I can go to CAB and get advice and a solictor but I think this might be too costly to me, I'm so terrified and seriously dont know what to do, I think I might search the forums that muirbabe suggests.

It is natural to assume that if someone does not attend they have something to hide. It seems to me that you would rather be honest, accept the penalty and move forward?

It is also worth noting that they will not withdraw all benefit from the relevant period - they will work out what you would have been entitled to had you declared working. Therefore your overpayment may be less than you think.

bobajob_1966

vax2002 wrote: »

I would advise you take independent legal advise and avail yourself of your right of defence that is advised.
I would also recommend that in absence of legal representation you avail of your right to silence.
This is your legal rights, they were given to you by King James the third, you still luckily still have that right for now, but it wont be long the way we are going.
This is your Legal position
Anything else is moralistic trial by forum.

The OP admits that she has no defence, she chose not to declare earnings and now wants to remedy that. Why would you advise being so obstructive, what benefit does that bring to her?

bobajob_1966

Benefits_Bod wrote: »

If offered a caution, absolutely take formal legal advice BEFORE accepting. Cautions are sometimes offered where the LA (or DWP) are reluctant to prosecute. Without a caution, there can be no "admin penalty" (i.e. an amount the council could charge on top of the overpayment). Bear in mind a caution gets you a criminal record that lasts forever. In the unlikely event the council tries prosecuting, make sure you get a solicitor and insist that your solicitor obtains the services of an expert witness familiar with social security law.

An administrative caution does not lead to a criminal record. You are confused with a police issued caution, which would not be applied here.

Why do some people insist on making a mountain out of a molehill?

vax2002

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

The OP admits that she has no defence, she chose not to declare earnings and now wants to remedy that. Why would you advise being so obstructive, what benefit does that bring to her?

It could prevent a prison sentence.

dlink10

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

It is natural to assume that if someone does not attend they have something to hide. It seems to me that you would rather be honest, accept the penalty and move forward?

It is also worth noting that they will not withdraw all benefit from the relevant period - they will work out what you would have been entitled to had you declared working. Therefore your overpayment may be less than you think.

Hi, I am being honest I'm just unsure what to do, I have all ready sorted out a pay back with the council at £20.10 per week we went through the money I earnt in detail, he printed them off for me and I did get one payment in june which was my largest payment some payments were less then £30 I'm just worried as we seemed to have sorted out this part so I dont understand what the interview is for, I think they want to prosacute me?

vax2002

They don't do them for the fun of it, those are called informal interviews.
They are to obtain evidence to assist possible prosecution.
Hence taking legal advice, self incrimination may be the only way of that evidence been obtained.

hkminca

A friend of mine was in exactly the same situation and didn't declare an increase in hours worked which resulted in an overpayment of just over £200. The first he knew about it was when the DWP turned up and explained they wanted to do an IUC. nHe admitted everything and offered to pay it back. DWP prosecuted him, it went to court, he wasn't allowed legal aid as the case wasn't considered serious enought to warrant it so had to represent himself. As he had admitted the offence the magistrate explained he therefore had to find him guilty. He was given a conditional discharge - which is a criminal record and does stay with you forever (although becomes spent after a year if you are required to to a CRN check it will show up).

So beware - DWP may well prosecute as this is an easy case to win seeing as you've already admitted it.