Fraud Letter advice

ceecee1

vax2002 wrote: »

I would advise he uses some of the income to speak with a solicitor, who will generally spend around half an hour informing him of his rights:
Not to attend any interview by invitation
His right to silence
His right not to provide any information which may incriminate himself
The obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt
The chances of obtaining such prosecution in absence of self confession
The way that witnesses who have already given evidence against him may have done so in anonymity and such evidence can not be used in court.
That any informant may be reluctant to attend court and face the accused and may withdraw any statement.
That those admitting fraud do not get "let off" harsh examples are made to deter those not prosecuted.

This is NOT good advice...the reason that an IUC is arranged is to obtain an explanation of events. In absence of any explanation they have no alternative but to send for a prosecution.

It may be that the rent paid to your friend was paid into his bank account, if that is the case then the only information that the DWP have to hand at the moment is that £100 a week is received on a regular basis in addition to his benefit.

If he is interviewed and explains that this is a rental payment from his spare room - then all thoughts of working/income from an unknown source (could be anything ranging from drug money to maintenance) can be disregarded.
Any overpayment can then be calculated with the correct information and taking into account the appropriate disregards for rental income. If the amount of the overpayment is then less than £2000 then either an administrative penalty or a departmental caution will be offered.

If your friend refuses to attend the interview the papers will be sent off to the solicitors with only the information held, ie whatever they have which suggests that he has had another income.

If he attends the IUC and does not give an explanation the overpayment will still be calculated, but cannot be done correctly as they will not have the correct information. In the event that this incorrect calculation is over £2000 then the case will go to court.

If he attends and says no comment then the caution issued at the beginning of the interview states that if he gives a different story at court then the court could ignore this. In practice I dont think this happens, however that it was the caution says.

I have no idea what the disregard for rental income is but bear in mind that the overpayment will only be for the amount of benefit paid, less the disregard and then the balance of benefit. Not the amount of money received from his lodger.

Only your friend can decide on whether or not to attend, or whether to speak at the interview but in my humble opinion, its better to sort things out correctly and then its all done with. Rather than drag things out to a court hearing, or pay a penalty which might not be correct just because an explanation was not given

kopper

Thanks all.
It is better to be honest than dragging this through the courts. I will keep u updated

BRIANCARSON

I have been though the Fraud process although the reason why I was called in is different.

I run a Team of Volunteers who earn money for charity and one of them who was barred from volunteering because he had caused problems decided to report me to the DWP and I suspected he had claimed I was being paid to run the fifty volunteers when in fact although I am the official organiser I do not receive payment directly or indirectly as I am a unpaid volunteer myself.

In fact even although I had taken my bank statements the person doing the interview only glanced at them and the interview was quickly over as he accepted my explanation -

I gave him the contact details of the charity concerned but I know for a fact that the DWP never contacted them.

He did say I should have let them know about my Volunteer work but he did say he would update my records and I did not need to be concerned and I would hear no more about it and I never did.

The main difference between my case and the friend of the OP is that I was 90% certain the reason why I was called in as this took place six months after I had told that particular Volunteer that he was barred.

Clearly in my situation I had nothing to hid but it always pays to be honest although a person with a brass neck may try to brass it out.

I was expecting the third degree but the person doing the interview clearly accepted what I was saying - he could not confirm or deny that it was a anonymous letter although he dropped big hints it was and when I mentioned that I had to bar one of the Volunteers he said ' well that explains it ' and his whole body language changed.

I made a quick written statement and I was out the door.