Interview under caution twice?

Chrissiew

someone has been interviewed under caution once for IS fraud and they haven't heard anything about if for over a month, then they get a letter stating that the DWP want to do another interview under caution, why would this be, does anyone know? Is it normal for someone to be IUC twice for the same thing?

Would it be the DWP that would interview about child tax credits as well or would that be the tax credit dept? And no, before any one asks it's not me, I don't have any kids and don't claim IS.

marisco_2

Most likely is that since the last IUC the DWP have done some investigating and have new evidence that they need to question about. Advise your friend to go along and answer their questions honestly and fully. If he/she has done nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about.

tomtom256

The DWP would have covered the Tax Credits at the first interview.

As Marisco states, they must have checked out what was said at the first interview and obtained more evidence or found a discrepancy with what was said and want to clarify it so that the best action going forward can be taken.

Remember not all interviews lead to a sanction/prosecution. They just want the facts of how whatever is being investigated occurred (I know some don't believe this but it is true).

Chrissiew

It's very complicated, someone told them that she was claiming as a single person but her husband had moved out and was living with the woman in the downstairs flat, DWP watched the flats for two weeks, saw her husband going in and out of the block, saw him take the kids out and decided they wanted to do an ICU, she admitted to living with him for 4 months while claiming to see if they could make it work.

They wanted to speak to the woman downstairs and look round her flat, but they had moved out and she was renting the flat (she owns it) to someone else, the woman has bi polar and is claiming ESA, DLA and housing and council tax benefits for her mortgage, she hasn't informed any dept that she has moved so is still claiming HB ect for the flat as well as getting £600 a month from the tenants.

The DWP have spoken to her on the phone, made 3 appointments to see her at the flat but each time they turn up she's not there (obviously as she doesn't live there) and she has apparently told the tenants not to answer the door, the tenancy is not above board, no agreements or anything, just friends of hers who live there and pay her the money.

So I think that's the reason, they can't view the flat, I assume to see if there are men's clothes and stuff around, so they can't see for themselves that he does actually live there.

FBaby

Sorry but I'm totally lost....who is being investigated? the wife/ex-wife, or the woman living downstairs...

Mrs_Arcanum

Sounds like the downstairs woman may have a shared ownership. So it would be worth trying to find out who the rental part is paid to & advise the DWP & council that downstairs woman and the ex have moved out.

As long as she (upstairs woman) tells the truth & cannot be tripped up over any detail she should be OK.

Chrissiew

FBaby wrote: »

Sorry but I'm totally lost....who is being investigated? the wife/ex-wife, or the woman living downstairs...

The wife is being investigated for claiming whilst married, they were living together for a while at first then split up, they got back together, got married but it didn't work out, she carried on claiming as a single person for 4 months after they married in case it didn't work, she then stopped the claim but a couple of months later the marriage broke down and she started claiming again, someone informed the DWP that they were still living together, which they weren't.

He moved in with the woman in the downstairs flat, it's in the same block as his wife lives in, the DWP kept an eye on the block, saw her husband going in and out, saw him taking their kids out and called her in for a IUC, just to ask if he was really living with her or the woman downstairs, she told him he was living downstairs and they said they would have to go to the woman's flat to interview her.

The woman had moved out and was renting her flat out, well what I put in my other post.

I have just spoken to my neighbour who is the sister of the woman being investigated and she phoned the fraud investigator up this morning to ask why she had to go in again and was told new information had come to light and they had been trying to gain entry to the flat her husband had supposedly moved into but the owner was not playing ball. As I said it all seems very complicated.

PippaGirl_2

Messy. But remember it is the job of the DWP and investigators to prove and evidence what your neighbours sister is saying is incorrect and untruthful. So it is their job to get hold of the woman downstairs, if they can't and they can't evidence what she is saying didn't happen then she 'ought' to be ok anyway. Except for the 4 months she openly admits being with her dh and still claiming!

Face1992

Kids are nowt but trouble ar they lol!

Hoperfully seeing as the person was stealing for four months whilst the husband presumably worked, she will be done for fraud and taken to court. She should pay back every single penny of the money she has stolen, plus interest.

Then any future benefits should be stopped and social services informed that because she's a thief, she's an unfit mother and is unable to show her kids right from wrong.

How people think it is acceptable to just rake in hundreds of pounds a week by stealing is above my comprehension---does nobody have any morals these days?

Hopefully the one with bi-polar gets done as well for getting her mortgage interest paid and the council tax paid whilst getting £600 a month from her tenants.

Does anybody work in this country anymore?

tomtom256

She could still have all her benefits cancelled for the period of the surveillance and not be prosecuted. The DM's go on probability and the investigators go on beyond reasonable doubt.

If they go on probability alone she will lose benefits but probably not get prosecuted as the burden of proof is possibly not high enough.

Chrissiew

Face1992 wrote: »

Kids are nowt but trouble ar they lol!

Hoperfully seeing as the person was stealing for four months whilst the husband presumably worked, she will be done for fraud and taken to court. She should pay back every single penny of the money she has stolen, plus interest.

Then any future benefits should be stopped and social services informed that because she's a thief, she's an unfit mother and is unable to show her kids right from wrong.

How people think it is acceptable to just rake in hundreds of pounds a week by stealing is above my comprehension---does nobody have any morals these days?

Hopefully the one with bi-polar gets done as well for getting her mortgage interest paid and the council tax paid whilst getting £600 a month from her tenants.

Does anybody work in this country anymore?

I don't think I would go as far as saying social services should be involved and she is an unfit mother, yes fraud is bad, very bad, but that doesn't mean someone is an unfit mother