Interview Under Caution Re Alleged Benefit Fraud..

teddyboy02

Hi All,

In need of as much info and advice as possible due to being contacted by the DWP Fraud Officers who allege I did not inform them of monies paid out when medically retired from work.

I wrongly believed that you were allowed up to approx 14-16k in savings/redundancy payments without having to declare it as this would not effect any claim for Income Support,Council Tax benefit and help with Mortgage payments????
After receiving my redundancy which was approx 14k i paid off various creditors, some money loans from family members and had a family holiday too,I was left with approx 9k in capital.

As of yet i do not know how much i have been overpaid but the little money i do have from my redundancy is now approx 6-7k and has been for last couple of years.

If found guilty of deliberately and calculatedly defrauding the system what is most likely to be the outcome re punishment other than the obvious repayment,court case,poss criminal record and fine etc....???

My biggest fear is that i could be jailed which would devastate both myself and my family and most probably leave them homeless and fighting to pay off unaffordable debts without me to help.

Would it be a good idea to try and get some legal advice in this field too so that i at least have a chance to put forward my side and try to reason as to how and why this genuine mistake occurred??



many thanks.

any informative reply good or bad would be appreciated.

[Deleted User]

when you apply for I/S or any means tested benefits you have to declare all your savings it ask the question on the application forms,if you have used some of these savings that you didnt have to e.g repaying loans early (the list is endless)it might be deprivation of capital and you would be treated as still having the money
for every £250 savings you have(over 6k) you lose £1 of I/S,if you have 16k or more you get no I/S,so even 9k of savings would cost you £12 a week,
believing you could have 14-16k of savings is no defence,especially when as i say you had been asked the question in black and white
i suspect you will be asked to repay all overpaid benefits and possible a cash penalty on top,depending on how much the overpayment is then further action might not be ruled out

Dunroamin

For how long were you claiming and what sort of amounts are involved?

Gallstones

My advice is take someone with you to the interview. Legal representation if possible. My wife used to transcribe taped benefit fraud interviews and it can get really intimidating even for the genuine mistakes (and there are plenty of genuine mistakes believe me). If you can't remember something be honest about it - don;t try and gloss over it - its those little things that can make a difference. As for the verdict or penalty I can't comment on that, but I wish you the best of luck sorting it - 14k at the end of the day is not a huge amount.

Dunroamin

Gallstones wrote: »

My advice is take someone with you to the interview. Legal representation if possible. My wife used to transcribe taped benefit fraud interviews and it can get really intimidating even for the genuine mistakes (and there are plenty of genuine mistakes believe me). If you can't remember something be honest about it - don;t try and gloss over it - its those little things that can make a difference. As for the verdict or penalty I can't comment on that, but I wish you the best of luck sorting it - 14k at the end of the day is not a huge amount.

It isn't the amount of capital/savings that matter but the amount claimed falsely. If the OP has been claiming IS/CTB/SMI for a couple of years or more, the sums involved could be several times that.

rogerblack

Repost from other thread.

Addressing only the overpayment for the moment, and assuming you did this solely to obtain more benefit. (this will be the DWP argument)

The first issue is that money given to others when you absolutely don't have to, or unreasonable spending may result in you being treated as if you still have that money.

'Absolutely have to' - means that debtors are at the point of calling debt collectors.

Assuming that 4K of this early spending is 'unreasonable' spending that you diddn't have to do, that means you have 4K of 'notional capital'.
This is added to your actual capital.
Assuming none of the spending more recently (the 2-3K) was not on reasonable essentials, and is not disputed, this means that you are treated as if you have had 9+4=13K at the beginning of the period, and 6+4=10K at the end.

13K will knock 28 pounds a week off means-tested benefits (13000-6000)/250), and 10K 16 pounds.

A simple calculation would be (say) 28*52+16*(3*52) =around 4000.

But, unfortunately, IS and CTB are treated separately in the calculations, so this increases your overpayment. (the CTB overpayment can't be as large, as it's at a maximum of your CT per year)

Then you get into the more complex bits.
The 'notional capital' (seperately for each benefit) is diminished by the amount your IS (for example) would have been reduced if you'd informed them.
So your 'notional capital' reduces initially by 1456/year for IS, and by the full amount of your council tax for CT.


The calculation that needs to be done for your actual overpayment per week is something like:

date actual notional total effect overpayment

01/01/2009 9000 4000 13000 28 28
07/01/2009 9000 3972 12972 28 56
14/01/2009 8700 3944 12644 27 83

For both IS, CTB, and any other means-tested benefits you are entitled to.

This is one half of the equation. This is an idea of how to compute the actual overpayment.
(the 9000-8700 on 14/01/09 is an example if you'd bought a washing machine after your old one broke, it's an allowed expense)
It's important that this is done correctly - as it will reduce dramatically the overpayment.

_However_.
The other, equally if not more important side is your state of mind.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch52.pdf - you really need to read the bits that apply to you - specifically 52815 and on.

52840 - 'you do not deprive yourself of capital for the purpose of getting more benefit if you did not know that it would affect your benefit'

(this would be about the initial funds you gave away, and any major spending) It means that if you can get them to accept that you did not know, any overpayment is limited to the amount your benefit would have been reduced by your real capital.

(so, in the case outlined above, it would start out at 9000-6000/250 = 12 pounds/week)

Proving this is going to be hard.
Were any of the debts at the stage of debt collectors?

The overpayment looks like it's going to be several thousand pounds, certainly over 2.
This is over the threshold for prosecution.

I would strongly advise reading the above documents section on notional, actual capital, and deprivation several times - most of it can be skipped, as it's about stuff that doesn't affect you like vaccine damages and stuff.

And yes, this is a time when a solicitor would be a good idea.
You need to find one that understands benefit law.
If they can't answer (roughly) 'what is deprivation of capital as it applies to means tested benefits' with more-or-less what the document above outlines, consider a different one.

To recap.
There are two separate strands.
First, properly compute the actual amount of overpayment.
This has two values, depending on if notional or only actual capital is used - this depends on if you can convince the DWP of your foolishness and normal honesty.

The second is related to the first - if you can convince them that you've been honest - you are due perhaps to repay 2500 pounds (I've not done the sums), with no prosecution.

If you can't, you will need to repay perhaps 4500, and prosecution is a possibility.

Arg

Why would anyone say anything in an interview under caution?

Dunroamin

Arg wrote: »

Why would anyone say anything in an interview under caution?

Why would anyone who knows they've done nothing wrong have to worry about it?

ceecee1

Arg wrote: »

Why would anyone say anything in an interview under caution?

Because sometimes it is to the advantage of the investigator if you remain silent...without any other explanation the decision will be made on the facts held.

Sometimes it is better to give an explanation

vax2002

ceecee1 wrote: »

Sometimes it is better to give an explanation

There is no "explanation"
This is not the dog eat my homework, they either have enough evidence to convict or they don't, it is your choice to provide that information or to remain silent.

Section 34, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Can draw conclusion from silence in interview, it can not draw conclusions from not attending an invited interview.

real1314

vax2002 wrote: »

There is no "explanation"
This is not the dog eat my homework, they either have enough evidence to convict or they don't, it is your choice to provide that information or to remain silent.

Section 34, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Can draw conclusion from silence in interview, it can not draw conclusions from not attending an invited interview.

There is potential for the police to be asked to make an arrest to enforce attendance at an IUC. It's not common, but I'd reckon it's increasing. :cool: