Interview Under Caution for Undeclared Capital.

Spamfree_2

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I believe that bank loans should be declared as capital. I hope that someone else can confirm this.

OP, I know you are seeing a solicitor tomorrow. Have you checked to see if you are entitled to legal aid?

There is a useful calculator here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/GettingLegalAdvice/Gettinglegaladviceandlegalaid/DG_195390and also some advice about who you can contact for specific help from a suitable solicitor.

Who recommended the solicitor to you? Solicitors have certain areas in which they specialise so do check that you get the best one for your circumstances.

I would second CAB's advice and have a solicitor represent you at the interview.

Didn't the OP say that she started claiming the benefits 4 years ago and the car loan was from 3 years ago?

Which bank loaned money on the strength of benefit money paying it back?:eek:

Spamfree_2

trixiedog wrote: »

So what exactly have I done wrong with the loan for the car? Are you not allowed to take out a loan whilst on benefits? Surely they can see the money coming in from my bank as a loan. I also have paperwork to state it was a loan.
Say for example I had to do a home improvement eg I needed a new heating system and I got a loan to fund this project. Is that not allowed? Am I expected to fund this on benefits? or leave my family freezing. Not being wide...just want to ensure I know the rules as my credit rating is actually good and I know that once this loan is paid off that my bank wouldn't hesitate on giving me another loan and I wouldn't have hesitated on taking out another loan but want to ensure I am staying within the law. I assumed because this is not technically my money then this is no big deal and wouldn't have thought for one second that I needed to let anyone know about this.
The loan was taken out 3 year ago and did go into the account that all my benefits go into. I was not trying to hide anything and didn't realise that was wrong.

One way of looking at it is if you can afford to repay a loan for a car, you could be paying the mortgage that is keeping a roof over your head yourself?

sniggings

Spamfree wrote: »

One way of looking at it is if you can afford to repay a loan for a car, you could be paying the mortgage that is keeping a roof over your head yourself?

If you read the thread you will see she has 2 disabled people in the house who get a payment for travel cost which are meant to be used for travel costs not a mortgage payment, if she came on here saying she was using it for a mortgage I bet you would have slagged her for that too :rotfl:

Spamfree_2

sniggings wrote: »

If you read the thread you will see she has 2 disabled people in the house who get a payment for travel cost which are meant to be used for travel costs not a mortgage payment, if she came on here saying she was using it for a mortgage I bet you would have slagged her for that too :rotfl:

I'm not slagging anyone off. In my world a roof over my head is more important than a car, especially if someone else is paying for it.

princessdon

it is still very unusual for a bank to borrow money on the back of benefits - but as OP is entitled to motability this may have been their decision clincher to say yes, but I agree very unusual for someone on benefits (no motability) to be given a loan of that size.

BurnleyBob

princessdon wrote: »

No - just show the purchase of the car.

The OP from what I can discern didn't declare a change of circumstances when her savings went over the lower threshold of £6,000. That it was a loan and spent immediately are minor factors. She is, as they say, banged to rights on that one, because it is a certainty that prior to the funds appearing in her bank account she signed at least one form declaring that she understood the rules and would comply with informing the relevant authority if a change of circumstances occurred. It's also nailed on that the investigating officer will have the form or forms at their fingertips should the OP dispute that she signed such a legal undertaking.

I realise that this is not want the OP wants to hear. But it needs to be said as the assumptions she's made are incorrect - and if she contends, as she has here, that the loan money was not technically hers it would likely only serve to rile rather than garner sympathy because such a contention is quite plainly pure nonsense.

There'll be mitigation to be gained by providing evidence that the money was spent on a car that was helpful to her close family members' needs and at the time she innocently thought that doing so didn't contravene any regulations.

Nevertheless, she broke those regulations and the person(s) interviewing her will have no discretion to arbitrarily overlook them even if they wanted to through sympathy.

Assuming the £7.5K swelled her bank account to £9K it's likely they'll want to claw back £1 for every £250 over that £6K from the date her bank account was credited with the loan sum, so £12 times however many weeks since then for each means tested benefit she was in receipt of.

sniggings

Spamfree wrote: »

I'm not slagging anyone off. In my world a roof over my head is more important than a car, especially if someone else is paying for it.

they have a roof over their head!

and benefits for a car, so what point are you trying to make?

sniggings

princessdon wrote: »

it is still very unusual for a bank to borrow money on the back of benefits - but as OP is entitled to motability this may have been their decision clincher to say yes, but I agree very unusual for someone on benefits (no motability) to be given a loan of that size.

you say no mobility? they do get that payment, the OP said so, it is cheaper to buy a car than use it all to hire a mobility car, the payment is mainly for travel costs, so she can use the payment to buy a car and use the rest for other stuff, such as tax insurance parking etc.

princessdon

BurnleyBob wrote: »

The OP from what I can discern didn't declare a change of circumstances when her savings went over the lower threshold of £6,000. That it was a loan and spent immediately are minor factors. She is, as they say, banged to rights on that one, because it is a certainty that prior to the funds appearing in her bank account she signed at least one form declaring that she understood the rules and would comply with informing the relevant authority if a change of circumstances occurred. It's also nailed on that the investigating officer will have the form or forms at their fingertips should the OP dispute that she signed such a legal undertaking.

I realise that this is not want the OP wants to hear. But it needs to be said as the assumptions she's made are incorrect - and if she contends, as she has here, that the loan money was not technically hers it would likely only serve to rile rather than garner sympathy because such a contention is quite plainly pure nonsense.

There'll be mitigation to be gained by providing evidence that the money was spent on a car that was helpful to her close family members' needs and at the time she innocently thought that doing so didn't contravene any regulations.

Nevertheless, she broke those regulations and the person(s) interviewing her will have no discretion to arbitrarily overlook them even if they wanted to through sympathy.

Assuming the £7.5K swelled her bank account to £9K it's likely they'll want to claw back £1 for every £250 over that £6K from the date her bank account was credited with the loan sum, so £12 times however many weeks since then for each means tested benefit she was in receipt of.

Depends on how you look at it and timescales

A loan isn't savings really, so money in on a Monday out on Wed to pay for a car shouldn't affect anything. Yes perhaps it should have been declared - but for the day or so in the account I wouldn't have thought they'd go to this level of investgiation. surely if they have access to the bank account they can see the withdrawal immediately?

BurnleyBob

The investigators are rule following drones. They are as they are because if they care not to be then they'll be in the dole queue sharpish while another more compliant jobsworth sits in their former seat.

For benefit purposes, a loan acquired for whatever purpose becomes part of the claimant's capital and savings total. Whether it was sat in her account for a nanosecond, or days, weeks or months is irrelevant.

She'd do much better for herself by showing remorse for her unintended error by making an unsolicited apology for the benefit of the tape and for the person whose decision it will be with how to proceed.