Accused of benefit fraud!!

Mara69

In my area of work we make many searches, including Experian. I wonder if the DWP have carried out such searches and if the OP's partner has made an applications for credit from her address.

drwho2011

sundays wrote: »

blah blah blah

Apart from the incorrect information its not a bad start at telling people the simple ways not to get caught.

sundays

The DWP can only carry a credit ref check out on the grounds of S29 (3) PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF FRAUD-of the DPA. if they were found to be doing these without a)good grounds- they have to really demonstrate this and b) not in line with s29(3) they would be done by the ICO for being in breach of the legislation. The DWP are not as savvy as you assume, these checks cost and again they would be mindful of that cost.

No one is allowed to phish your credit ref file , for the poster who does it in work, there must be a footmark on your file to show your actions were for a purpose which should only be to apply for credit.
Unless it is one of the excemptions i have stated under s29, which can also be for recovery of taxes ie non payment of council tax

under S29 of the DPA no footmark needs to be shown, but there has to be a proper process followed and a audit trail of that process for criminal procedures, if there isnt a solicitor would have that information struck out and it could not be used in any part of evidence, so if one was got unlawfully and it promted them to make further enquiries all the enquiries promted by that check would be struck out, hense the case would prob fall apart.

Contary to what most think, to investigate properly and put that information to you would not be in a compliance interview but in a interview under caution of which they would notify you to attend and inform you of your right to legal representation. Prior to that interview your sol will get disclosure on the goods they have on you and should terminate the IUC if information is put forward that wasnt in the disclosure.
To be IUC is voluntary, unless you are arrested, but it is your right to have legal representation or to say nothing.

sundays

drwho2011 wrote: »

Apart from the incorrect information its not a bad start at telling people the simple ways not to get caught.

ive read your comments, because someone is questioned doesnt make them guilty and neither does having a boyfriend make them a couple.
She can prove he has a principal home.
My information is to ensure that if someone is fiddling , there are many way to catch them, and many dont get away with it that are investigated and proven, however the DWP does go about things very !!!! over tit, so i doubt they have b een compentant.

Im not telling them how to fiddle the system but im telling it as it , and having spent a long time working in this field , i think i know what im on about, as do the others such as UGANDA who can see the person will win a appeal.

Sadly MSE has a lot of people who are jealous of others and many who judge.

Cherry_Bomb

sundays wrote: »

Contary to what most think, to investigate properly and put that information to you would not be in a compliance interview but in a interview under caution.

So the information given in the compliance interview was enough to warrant immediate suspension of benefits, does that mean the OP could potentially still be investigated?

drwho2011

Cherry_Bomb wrote: »

So the information given in the compliance interview was enough to warrant immediate suspension of benefits, does that mean the OP could potentially still be investigated?

Possibly by the fraud team but by the sounds of it compliance thought the OP's wrong doing wasn't intentional.

Hence why the closed the claim down.

There is a big difference from Compliance and Fraud and they are dealt by different teams.

sundays

I would say, no there wasnt enough to warrant suspension or cancellation, they have cancelled the claim as she has said, the letter states her benefits have ended, therefore the DWP have instigated a change of circumstance, that is recorded as such and not fraud, the recording of the reason the claim ends affects subsidy payments if there has been a overpayment.
I bleive she would win a appeal.

I beleive the DWP are at fault.

If she gets CAB involved she will def win her appeal and they can do the appeal urgently for her or a regulated money advice specialist.

Compliance interviews for want of a better word are knock of interviews, slight suspision they call you in, no enquiries are conducted pre the interview, they tell you the suspected allegation, sometimes will show it, they hope you will "cough "and they get a result for the confirmation of the disclosure from the benefit claimaint . compliance officers are lower grades that counter fraud officers, they are not authorised officers as per Social Security Admin Act therefore cannot do many /if any financial enquiries, many dont hold the PINS qualification which enables them to conduct interviews under caution, collate information for criminal investiagtion and surveillance to name a few.

In my opinion they would get the compliance information struck out if they upgraded it to a full fraud enq, but to be fair, there isnt much to strike out, because they havent told her anything, if they started producing proper evidence at a compliance interview then they could not use that again as when suspision arises they should suspend and offer a interview under caution.
The Stephen Lawrence enquiry changed the way criminal cases were investigated and all have to obay the CPIA rules inc the DWP. Esp when you should caution.

DWP are not gen intrested in investigating living together claims def if the claim has been cancelled as they cannot get the evidence.

The basis to investigate is to prove 1) dishonesty or 2 ) change of circ. 1) would have to be proven from when the claim was first paid, near on impossible in this suitation, most cases taken to court are based on failue to disclosure on reporting a change of circs.
Most cases are not being taken even into court if the overpament is less than 10k , this is because the vicitm is the public sector and therefore it comes with a very little sanction, a 10k overpayment would get you community service .
IVE SEEN cases in excess of 150k overpayment get thrown out by the CPS.

DWP hate living together , very hard to prove, they want working and claiming as there powers are much greater to prove such .

The_Write_Girl

And this was one of the forums I wrote about in a recent article as ones to either avoid or snigger from afar. I think this thread speaks volumes.

Mara69

The_Write_Girl wrote: »

And this was one of the forums I wrote about in a recent article as ones to either avoid or snigger from afar. I think this thread speaks volumes.

Oooh, do tell us where your article was published. I'd love to read it; I am sure it is an unbiased and honest piece of journalistic writing