Interview Under Caution for Undeclared Capital.

sniggings

skintandscared wrote: »

You are missing the point. If she can show the interviewers that the DLA payments cover the loan repayment, then IF the interview is centred around this loan, she can surely easily justify using the loan to buy a car?

And the point about the mortgage was that basically she obtained a loan for £6k, which added to her savings took her over the £6k capital threshhold. She CHOSE to then spend that money on a car. Someone with an amount of money over the threshhold of £6k may possibly not be entitled to the mortgage assistance she is getting. So if she hadn't spent the loan on a car, she could potentially have spent the money on making her own mortgage payments for a while (as plenty of people not on benefits do every month - robbing peter to pay paul and using credit cards for bills, etc). Does that make sense? I think that is the point that the other poster was trying to make!

Anyway, this is all speculation as we don't even know yet what the whole interview request is based on. It might have nothing at all to do with the loan anyway.

well you give him/her more credit, I saw the post as saying if you can afford to buy a new car you shouldn't be getting help with your mortgage but I do tend not to look to deep into things, I'm sure they meant what you say

Lewis1967

skintandscared wrote: »

I'm confused as to what the OP actually gets as their intial post says they receive housing benefit AND their mortgage interest paid?

Shared ownership you can get the rent part paid and the interest on the mortgage part, cant you?

davefrombristol

If the problem is the loan that took the OP capital over the £6000 threshold then the OP must clearly state at the interview that she was unaware that the loan should have been disclosed as she clearly did not consider it as capital.

The Loan has been used to buy a car for the purpose of providing transport and has been adapted for the disabled person she is caring for. Carers Allowance & Disability Allowance are not means tested, and if a disabled person were to save up money from the above benefits to buy a car adapted for their use then any argument over breaching the capital rules would not have a leg to stand on. What the OP has done is exactly the same as above as the money paid for DLA and Carers is being used to pay back the loan.

If the Interview under caution is connected with the loan, I would explain that adapted transport was needed to assist you in your caring role and that you did not consider at the time that a change of circumstances had occurred with respect to capital. Apologise for the error and say that you would like to seek legal advice concerning the matter and consider terminating the interview.

Remember your innocent !

trixiedog

Well the meeting went well. They were really OK. There was one from the council and one from the DWP. They taped me and cautioned me on tape. I took a lawyer in with me which was paid through legal aid. He was asked not to comment although he did state that he had advised me not to speak and refrain from commenting but I had said I had nothing to hide and would rather answer anything I could. My lawyer said to the 2 people that if he felt it necessary to stop the interview then he would butt in and stop it. We were in for nearly 2 hours and I answered absolutely everything they asked me. They had copies of all my accounts going back to 2007 before I first started claiming. I had already brought in all the info about the car etc and gave them it as soon as they asked. I apologised and said I hadn't realised that loans counted as capital. They took the paperwork and photocopied it later. I only had the money 2 days before I paid for the car. They didn't lecture me about it at all. I also gave them a copy of a letter from my mums bank stating that it was on their advice that I became a signatory and by no means do I have access to my mums money for my own means. They took that for their files also. I'd already gone through all my accounts and noted any money in and had a spreadsheet showing all money in and where it came from for the last 4 years. They had an account which I had money going into via standing order for £250 per wk for 12 wks. It was an account that had been closed a year ago and I'd forgotten all about it. The money going in was for money owed from years before I even claimed and me raising a civil action after I started claiming. It was under £6000 so no issue and they could see from the decree and paperwork supplied what the issues with the builder initially was. This money was used to fix the problems. I still had receipts for the building work being fixed. I was asked to supply the decree for the civil matter and the receipts. They thought it was 12 x payments for working. They accepted my answer and had no issues about this. I handed in the paperwork early afternoon and got a phone call from the woman from the DWP about an hour later to inform me that I had supplied all necessary paperwork and they were happy with everything and would be closing the case. They said I would be receiving written confirmation of this but she wanted to put my mind at rest.

I got the loan for the car from the bank I have banked with for 25 years because they classed the disability as an income. As I said before, I have a good credit rating as have always paid off loans in the past....sometimes before end dates and have never opted for the new craze of having your debts written off. If I borrowed it then I pay it back!

I can see a few comments with regards to me claiming benefits and if I can afford to pay for a car then I should be paying my own mortgage interest. Firstly, I would like to state that I have worked all my life as has my husband until he was forced to give up work due to ill health. He should have been claiming disability years before he applied. I only gave up work because I could no longer sustaine juggling looking after 3 disabled people (my husband, son and mother) whilst working full time. Something had to give or I would become ill too (doctors orders). I only get 1 carers allowance which is a premium of £31 on top of my benefit because regardless of how many people I care for, I only get the one amount of £31. Everyone else would get nearly double that.
Due to the change in government, my mortgage interest is now less than half what it was originally due to me being on a fixed rate and capped for so many years just before the interest rates reduced substantially. Because I am on benefits I can no longer negotiate a better rate. I now only get £42 per week paid for my mortgage interest and I pay the rest from my benefit which is nearly double what the goverment pay. If I were renting my property I would have to pay nothing and could get as much as £400 per week paid. I am not complaining at all as I am more than grateful for any payment towards my mortgage and appreciate every penny I get in benefits. I reckon that the government are saving a fortune by me caring for 3 people and my mums care alone per week would be a lot more than £31 carers + £46 interest payments....more than 10 times this amount the last time I checked! I am not a layabout either and hope to eventually go back to work in the future so have been preparing myself for that by going to college part time for the last 2 years working towards a degree.
It would be nice if some people thought beyond programs like "The Scheme"!
I love my family and will always put them first regardless. I loved my job and always did it well and am looking forward to returning hopefully in about 5 or so years. Sorry for the rant at the end.

backinbusiness

Glad it's all finished for you OP.

Good luck for the future.

BiB

trixiedog

A great big thank you to everyone's support. You have no idea how much the positive comments kept me going as the last 6 days have been terrible. To anyone going through a similar experience then be as honest as possible. They were more than fair and reasonable with me and didn't play the bad cop good cop. They listened to what I had to say and they did put me at ease.

real1314

Well, I'm glad you've got it all sorted out.

And your story shows (as many other recent stories also have) that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear but fear itself; as you have said, you were treated Ok, and the following "claims" were not true:-

"They have instructions to be 'robust and challenging' and to ask the same question several times to try to get a different answer"

"Anything you put forward in defence will be ignored."

"I have sat in on dozens, there will be nothing informal about it, it will be worrying"

"There is no entitlement to legal aid"

Most of these quotes rather suggest that vax2002 should shut up when it come to IUC queries. ceecee1 seemed to give the closest prediction of what to expect, and as many suggested it was all over an issue that might have appeared unusual, but had a reasonable explanation.

I also think most people would expect a claim where an apparent income of £250 per month was not declared to at least be queried.
:cool:

Cate1976

So glad everything's worked out for you. Benefits can be sneaky and will try to get you for things they shouldn't. Think I said about what Housing Benefit tried to do on me.

trixiedog

I was pleased to hear that the case was now closed as they didn't need to phone me up and tell me that. To be honest, I wasn't even considering the money from the builder of £250 because I was only thinking of capital but can see why they queried this. They obviously found it when they were looking into my accounts and thought they'd struck gold but they had every right to ask me about the money. As soon as proof was shown they were happy as they were with everything else they produced.

trixiedog

real1314 wrote: »

Well, I'm glad you've got it all sorted out.

And your story shows (as many other recent stories also have) that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear but fear itself; as you have said, you were treated Ok, and the following "claims" were not true:-

"They have instructions to be 'robust and challenging' and to ask the same question several times to try to get a different answer"

"Anything you put forward in defence will be ignored."

"I have sat in on dozens, there will be nothing informal about it, it will be worrying"

"There is no entitlement to legal aid"

Most of these quotes rather suggest that vax2002 should shut up when it come to IUC queries. ceecee1 seemed to give the closest prediction of what to expect, and as many suggested it was all over an issue that might have appeared unusual, but had a reasonable explanation.

I also think most people would expect a claim where an apparent income of £250 per month was not declared to at least be queried.
:cool:

I have to agree with your comments RE vax2002. He scared me and had me in a blind panic. I also nearly cancelled my lawyers appointment on Friday after hearing that I wouldn't get legal aid. So glad I didn't because it was so good to have a lawyer there to guide me even if I did use him for support.
What a day. Going to go and pour myself a wee vodka. Don't usually drink weekdays but I think I need to just sit down and breath for the first time in nearly a week. Thanks again to everyone especially ceecee1 who I have to admits comments were very true.