Benefit fraud - do i need a lawyer?

Yuki60

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Some really irresponsible "advice" here. You do not have nearly enough information to state how they should plead, nor what the likely outcome will be..

And yet you feel you have enough information to give your advice. Having worked within the Crown Prosecution Service for 30 years should hope I have the relevant background. I'd love to know what your qualifications are that enable you to decide who's advice is worthy of listening to.

At the end of the day its too late now. The time for giving information on a mental health condition to DWP is before they make the decision on whether or not to prosecute. That should have been mentioned at the IUC and at that point the interviewer would have informed her that she should get a letter from her GP or psychiatrist and let them have it. That letter is then sent with the rest of the documents to the DWP solicitors who are the ones that decide whether or not to prosecute. The interviewers merely give their recommendations. The OP has had plenty of time to get all this evidence. I do know it takes months from IUC to court date which was plenty of time to see a solicitor. In fact as the whole crux of her defence is her depression the first thing anyone would have done would be to get evidence of this.

Depression does not stop you knowing right from wrong and is no excuse in court. As said before you should get a solicitor. If you have all this money in the bank surely you can pay for one. On that note I'm gonna go eat some dinner:)

tomjonesrules

Yuki60 wrote: »

And yet you feel you have enough information to give your advice. Having worked within the Crown Prosecution Service for 30 years should hope I have the relevant background. I'd love to know what your qualifications are that enable you to decide who's advice is worthy of listening to.

At the end of the day its too late now. The time for giving information on a mental health condition to DWP is before they make the decision on whether or not to prosecute. That should have been mentioned at the IUC and at that point the interviewer would have informed her that she should get a letter from her GP or psychiatrist and let them have it. That letter is then sent with the rest of the documents to the DWP solicitors who are the ones that decide whether or not to prosecute. The interviewers merely give their recommendations. The OP has had plenty of time to get all this evidence. I do know it takes months from IUC to court date which was plenty of time to see a solicitor. In fact as the whole crux of her defence is her depression the first thing anyone would have done would be to get evidence of this.

Depression does not stop you knowing right from wrong and is no excuse in court. As said before you should get a solicitor. If you have all this money in the bank surely you can pay for one. On that note I'm gonna go eat some dinner:)

My advice is to refer to the solicitor that has all the facts in front of them, something which you do not, do you?

Depression *may* lead to a lack of mental capacity, and this is a valid defence in criminal law. Surely you'd know that with your thirty years of experience in the CPS? :rotfl:

(On a side note, whilst claiming expertise in an area it's always best to ensure you are not contradicting earlier posts. Apparently you've been on IS "for a long time due to a severe anxiety disorder" - I guess your "30 years" within the CPS are not in the recent past?!)

The_Write_Girl

so I wonder if it is worth hiring a lawyer for me to just plead guilty and say the above to the court in mitigation as I was asked £4,000 by one lawyer.

It would be advisable to get a solicitor even if it is a plea. He/she can put across a better case, thus leading to a reduced sentence/penalty. I've been in courts when benefit claimants are charged and those with a solicitor usually enjoy more leniency. Not that the Penalty will be lenient.

Notmyrealname

YOU NEED A SOLICITOR. Its not "well you might only need one", YOU NEED ONE. Why? Because with the amount it is, you could be looking at prison time for benefit fraud and at the moment there's a real witch hunt on. The fact you've made a token offer to repay won't really go in your favour whilst you've got enough money to pay it back in whole. You need a solicitor to plead your case.

Vejovis

x4xy wrote: »

i got medical certificates over the years about my medications (2 paroxetine and one zoplicone tablet per day) over 11 years. Would these suffice or do I need a specific letter from my doctor addressed to the court?... I will try the cab for a mitigation statement, any suggestion what can I put in it or the way or writing it to make it more acceptable - plausible?... Some of the capital I did not declare I had from my sister (I.e. she gave to me to keep it for her) but she died recently (after the summons) and I have nothing on paper to prove it.

not really a great deal of medication even on the highest doses. i can't see they'd be much of a mitigating factor.

x4xy

Happychappy wrote: »

Plead not guilty, just answer the questions posed by the prosecution and let the court decide.

Unfortunately few fraudsters and cheats get sent down, so even if found guilty, you should be fine and may be able to settle on 50p a week from your benefits, just tell the court as to why you made the statement you did in the first place when you applied for your hand out, and what it is about the case against you which is wrong, you don't need a lawyer to do this? Regarding what you used the money for? it really is of little importance, you claimed it, received it, spent it. Let us know how it goes, always interested.

Just to clarify I did not spend my sister's money, I did not do anything with it. that's why I am now able to pay back the overpayment by using it to do so.

x4xy

I was on income support, then my sister gave me the money, which got mixed with mine, but I did not declare my sisters part of the money, because she asked me to help her to do something with it which then did not materialize. I gave some of it back to her and then I was going to give her back the rest, when we realized she would not do anymore what she wanted me to do for her in the first instance because something else happene. It was not my money but being in my bank account they are saying I knowlingly did not declare it, and I do not have a piece of paper to prove it was my sister. As she passed away suddenly before christmas I could not get her to write a letter or to find any documentation.

daveys_2

I can understand where you're coming from with the 'dishonesty' aspect OP. There are 2 pieces of law that the DWP can use against you:
1: Failure to give prompt notification of a changein circumstances
2: Dishonestly failing to give prompt....

The 2nd being the more serious charge, and as a result carrying harsher penalties. There are many reasons why they might be trying to go for the more serious charge. Firstly they may have asked you something along the lines - if you considered your actions dishonest? If you answwered 'yes' then they have their dishonesty charge.

Another reason might be that they've screwed up their paperwork, and this charge is the easier one to get to court...and therefore an easier one to contest in court.

My advise is to get legal representation
Also when you were interviewed you should have been given a notice about how to get hold of a copy of the tape of the interview - get a copy, remind yourself what you said. Better still get a copy of a transcript of the interview - the DWP will have had one done. If you give the investigator a call they might even e-mail you a copy

x4xy

THANKS DAVEYS, i admitted there was an overpayment at the iud AFTER the investgator erxplained to me how things worked, ie that if you have money in your bank account is deemed solely as yours wherever it comes from. I was not aware of this at the beginning when I put my sister's money in.
If I was aware - i know I should have been aware - but I was not for reasons explained in the OP I would not have done it but I was too ill to care about anything... With the court papers I have already got copy of the transcript with the ocurt papers and altghough it is not as clearly stated that was what I said... Some months later I did phone up the DWP and asked the person to look at my application and go through it with me, but she just said it was all right or something to the point it looks okay and did not go through it page by page as I asked.
All along I said to the investigator that I would pay back any money due as the money is still there. My only guilt would be of not reporting or clarifying at the time the situation with my sister's money, not of dishonesty as I was waiting to give it back to her and not for my own use... What can a lawyer do now to convince the court this is the case?

rogerblack

x4xy wrote: »

ie that if you have money in your bank account is deemed solely as yours wherever it comes from. I was not aware of this at the beginning when I put my sister's money in.

This is not the case.
It's what the DWP would argue, however, it's not actually the end of the matter.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch52.pdf - the official 'decision makers guidance' 52099 is a very relevant case.

It's not your money because it's in your bank account.
It being in your bank account means there is a strong presumption it's your money, which you would have to argue against.

If this caused part of the overpayment, then it may be worth a late appeal to reconsider this.

I strongly recommend you find someone skilled in benefit law _NOT_ a regular solicitor who does not specialise.