Interview under cauition...HELP

bobajob_1966

dlink10 wrote: »

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?

Unless you have a history of benefit fraud, you will not be prosecuted for a £200 overpayment. The council officers are not there to catch you out, especially as you have been so honest up to now.

I'd go with vax2002's advice on the other thread ...

So in short, if you have nothing to hide, just go along and all will be well.

dlink10

Thank you for all the advice tonight, I'm not feeling much calmer but I dont think I will until the interview is over.

I will let you know how I get on with a call to them tomorrow although I have no idea what to say to them.

Goodnight all:lovethoug

bobajob_1966

hkminca wrote: »

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.

Your story does not make sense - no one that goes to court is denied free legal representation, plus a claimant would not be prosecuted for a £200 overpayment without other serious factors.

Edit: To clarify, the following guidelines are used by the DWP and LAs when deciding whether to prosecute:

If there is sufficient evidence the Department will refer the case to the Department’s Prosecution Division for consideration of criminal prosecution where one or more of the following criteria are met:

1. The gross adjudicated overpayment (including Housing and Council Tax Benefit) is £2,000 or over
2. False identities or other personal details have been used
3. False or forged documents have been used
4. Official documents have been altered or falsified
5. The person concerned occupied a position of trust
6. The person concerned assisted or encouraged others to commit offences
7. There is evidence of premeditation or organised fraud
8. The customer had previously been convicted of benefit fraud
9. The amount of the overpayment is under £2,000 and the offer of an administrative penalty or caution is not accepted.

bobajob_1966

vax2002 wrote: »

Advise I issue is relevant to each posters conditions and based upon such, so carry on trolling through posts to your hearts content.
Some people are in slightly different positions, it's called life.

So you would suggest that someone subject to a complex LTAHAW investigation should attend an interview without representation, yet someone with a simple overpayment should wait for the police to turn up at their door?

Jai_M

Dlink10, have a read of https://www.advicenow.org.uk/advicenow-guides/problems-with-benefits/how-to-handle-an-interview-under-caution/ and the links on the right.

hkminca

Bobajob -there were none of those factors in my friends case and yes, you can be denied FREE legal representation at court -although you can get one free meeting prior to court with a solicitor this doesn't help you on the day.

I agree it doesn't make sense, but sometimes in life things don't make sense and for whatever reason in this case DWP did prosecute.

Also my friend was never offered the option of an administrative penalty or caution -I don't know why.

chigley

I am not sure why they are bothering to IUC you when they already know you have been working, and you are making attempts to repay the overpayment.

Anyway, to clear up another matter, a Caution issued by either the DWP or LA is not the same as one issued by the Police, and should not be confused. The Caution issued by the DWP/LA will stay on a file, but will only be used in relation to DWP/LA matters. No one outside of these bodies will ever find out, or need to know. If you were to commit any sort of benefit fraud again though, this previous caution would be used against you.

One final word of advice if I may, please do not rely on colleagues for advice regarding benefits! As you have found out, they often do not know what they are talking about (like a few posters on here actually! ) and you would be so much better speaking to the relevant benefits department when seeking advice about your claim.

dlink10

chigley wrote: »

I am not sure why they are bothering to IUC you when they already know you have been working, and you are making attempts to repay the overpayment.

Anyway, to clear up another matter, a Caution issued by either the DWP or LA is not the same as one issued by the Police, and should not be confused. The Caution issued by the DWP/LA will stay on a file, but will only be used in relation to DWP/LA matters. No one outside of these bodies will ever find out, or need to know. If you were to commit any sort of benefit fraud again though, this previous caution would be used against you.

One final word of advice if I may, please do not rely on colleagues for advice regarding benefits! As you have found out, they often do not know what they are talking about (like a few posters on here actually! ) and you would be so much better speaking to the relevant benefits department when seeking advice about your claim.

This is why I am frightened, I am making repayments and yet they need me to attend.

Well I rang them this morning, the women on the phone could not tell me anything just that an officer feels it's relevent for me to attend an interview because of undeclared earnings, I asked her what would I need to bring etc and she couldnt even tell me that I think CAB is the way forward now.

I have looked through other threads on this site about interview under caution and they make me feel worse than what I do now!

bobajob_1966

hkminca wrote: »

Bobajob -there were none of those factors in my friends case and yes, you can be denied FREE legal representation at court -although you can get one free meeting prior to court with a solicitor this doesn't help you on the day.

I agree it doesn't make sense, but sometimes in life things don't make sense and for whatever reason in this case DWP did prosecute.

Also my friend was never offered the option of an administrative penalty or caution -I don't know why.

This is why people should not tell stories without knowing the true facts of the situation - anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject would know that what you described would not have happened. Even if the DWP had gone on some power trip a magistrate would have thrown it out.

I can only assume that your friend lied to you. If not, ask him for the case number so you can check the facts yourself?

bobajob_1966

dlink10 wrote: »

This is why I am frightened, I am making repayments and yet they need me to attend.

Well I rang them this morning, the women on the phone could not tell me anything just that an officer feels it's relevent for me to attend an interview because of undeclared earnings, I asked her what would I need to bring etc and she couldnt even tell me that I think CAB is the way forward now.

I have looked through other threads on this site about interview under caution and they make me feel worse than what I do now!

They need to get everything down in writing/ on tape, and if they do this in a formal setting it is a message to you that you have to be completely honest or they will take things further. There are people that will realise they are going to get caught and own up to a proportion of what they have done, thinking that the rest will be overlooked. This interview ensures the rest is not overlooked.

In terms of what to take with you, I would take bank statements for the relevant period plus a few months before (to show you were not receiving income at an earlier date), any payment slips you received (or a pay statement from the employer) and your ID. Take copies of these for yourself also.

I have sat in on several IUCs. I have seen claimants be difficult, and think they look good by staying quiet. They don't look so good when they are still there after two hours with the same questions being asked repeatedly. I have been to many more where people have been compliant, answered the questions and been out within half an hour or an hour at latest. I know which I would prefer.