unfairly being interviewed for benefit fraud

Firefox1975

It will be about the ad hoc payments to the account.

even though you told them he sends you money "now and again" this isn't acceptable for the system. There has to be a line drawn under how much and how often. Whether or not they have confirmed these limits to you is a different question, but somewhere in black and white there will be a cut off point that triggers a Q and A session.

Elvisia

If it helps in the guidelines the compliance officers are given it says they must be "robust and challenging" and not accept the first answer. this is why your meeting felt so nasty. Don't give them extra information, answer the question then don't feel forced to fill in the gaps. One technique to get people to own up to things is to remain silent when they've finished talking, in the hope they'll add more in.

Dunroamin

Elvisia wrote: »

If it helps in the guidelines the compliance officers are given it says they must be "robust and challenging" and not accept the first answer. this is why your meeting felt so nasty. Don't give them extra information, answer the question then don't feel forced to fill in the gaps. One technique to get people to own up to things is to remain silent when they've finished talking, in the hope they'll add more in.

Good advice for benefit cheats - a bit of an insult to the OP!

Firefox1975

Excellent point Dunroamin.

Why would the OP not want to "fill in the blanks" ?

is this some kind of game or something? the benefit office are there to assist you with whatever you are entitled to. It stands to reason if you don;t give them full and accurate information they cannot fulfill there roles to the best of their ability and get you everything you deserve?

raven83

Just wanted to say good luck OP and make sure you come back and let us know how you got on

luceno1

hi, interview over, totally different experience than the last time, different person which was a bonus.
She basically said that they had had an annonomous tip off from someone stating that im still in a relationship with my childrens father. havnt got a clue who could of done it. Ive never made an enemy of anyone in my life, im guessing that this person has just got the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway signed another statement, and she said that if no other evidence comes to light of the allegation within the next 4 weeks the case would be closed. At least now i know what its all been about, and nothing about the old phone line was mentioned, she said there was nothing in the notes and stuff relating to it. so that should be it... (hopefully)
thanks for all the advice!

backinbusiness

That's good.

Pleased for you.

BiB

raven83

luceno1 wrote: »

hi, interview over, totally different experience than the last time, different person which was a bonus.
She basically said that they had had an annonomous tip off from someone stating that im still in a relationship with my childrens father. havnt got a clue who could of done it. Ive never made an enemy of anyone in my life, im guessing that this person has just got the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway signed another statement, and she said that if no other evidence comes to light of the allegation within the next 4 weeks the case would be closed. At least now i know what its all been about, and nothing about the old phone line was mentioned, she said there was nothing in the notes and stuff relating to it. so that should be it... (hopefully)
thanks for all the advice!

Ahhh that must be such a relief to have got it over, though it can't be a nice feeling knowing someone has mad a false allegation about you. Hopefully though that should be the end of it now

uponahill

vax2002 wrote: »

Does this state interview under caution ?
If not anything they interview you about can not be used anyway.
But my advice is, someone is grassing on you behind your back.

Yes it can be!

So if you were in a police car having been asked to go to the police station but not under arrest and you happen to tell them that it had not better take too long as your cannibis plants in the bedroom needed attention, they wouldn't use what you said to mount an investigation, then you have no real idea what happens in real life!
They certainly won't say - 'oh we can't use that information that was given to us voluntarily as we hadn't cautioned him!'

uponahill

Elvisia wrote: »

If it helps in the guidelines the compliance officers are given it says they must be "robust and challenging" and not accept the first answer. this is why your meeting felt so nasty. Don't give them extra information, answer the question then don't feel forced to fill in the gaps. One technique to get people to own up to things is to remain silent when they've finished talking, in the hope they'll add more in.

You must be working for either the government, the police or have had similar training!

That could be taken from a handbook!

Spot on and you would be surprised how true it is. Most people feel the urge to say something - anything to fill in the silent gaps!!

Had more information extracted in those 'silent periods' than in being 'robust and challenging'. It's a great amusement how people can be manipulated under questioing.

When questioning without it being recorded I found people to be most co-operative if they had been told that they cannot answer - no comment and that they are obliged to give an answer. You could see their brains working - is he telling the truth - do I not have those rights? Worked wonders as did the rythmic tapping of a pen during the quiet moments