Interview under caution twice?

Chrissiew

Face1992 wrote: »

Oh I see, so it's not her fault she's stolen the thousands of pounds then? She's had a bad life.

What!! Who said she's had a bad life? Of course it's her own fault, but you made reference to her being dragged up and I said you can't always blame the parents for their children going wrong, she could have had an excellent upbringing and good life.

benefitbaby

Face1992 wrote: »

Quite right, nobody is perfect, but stealing thousands of pounds of money is hardly akin to watching a pirate DVD. All of the woman's benefits should be stopped (including the carers and everything).

I think you have mixed the two cases.
The woman who claimed IS for 4 months when she should have notified of her husband living with her (£1136 cost to public purse which she will have to pay back), and
The downstairs neighbour who is subletting her flat and pocketting the HB/CTB giving income which would probably disentitle her ESA (£??? massive cost to public purse).

Whilst none of them looks pretty in this picture the OP was talking about her friend and the issue of IS paid for 4 extra months, hardly the crime of the century.

This is a slightly different scenarion to that posed by the neighbours activities, my only hope is that the fraud investigators prove the neighbour is completely scamming the system and take her to court for her misrepresentation and dishonest intent.

marybelle01

Face1992 wrote: »

Quite right, nobody is perfect, but stealing thousands of pounds of money is hardly akin to watching a pirate DVD. All of the woman's benefits should be stopped (including the carers and everything).

I'll take that as a "yes" shall I? So you ignore that "moral statement" at the beginning of DVD's that says you should report it if it is pirated, and that thing about the penalties of downloading pirated DVD's. Is that a different kind of "morals"? Because funnily enough, the media industry regard this as theft. And the law agrees with them. To expand on "casting the first stone", one could add something about "glass houses".

KirstenKerr

There are benefit rules about claiming benefits as a single person while co-habiting but this is for a temporary period and once you deem the realtionship perminant you would need to report the change.

Who can tell me what is a reasonable temporary period? A week? A day? A month? Or once your married!!!!!

I would feel perhaps she made a mistake but there is no excuse when she took her vows!! She must have deemed the relationship as solid (or maybe that says things about todays morals again!!).

I think she needs to go along and be honest!! OR if she has no way of proving her story i suggest she first see's a solicitor but i think she already in trouble as she admited the 4 month fraud.

As for being an unfit mother - how stupid!!! SS only interested in physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect etc!! Do you really think they have time, rescourses and funds to police peoples morals!!! And i love the idea of poor little 1 and 3 year olds being interviewed to see what there morals are like!! lol. I am sure the government has a fund for this kind of interviewing and employs thousands of people to deal with this kind of situation!!

(ps - please excuse spelling i am too lazy to care or check!)

Face1992

benefitbaby wrote: »

I think you have mixed the two cases.
The woman who claimed IS for 4 months when she should have notified of her husband living with her (£1136 cost to public purse which she will have to pay back), and
The downstairs neighbour who is subletting her flat and pocketting the HB/CTB giving income which would probably disentitle her ESA (£??? massive cost to public purse).

Whilst none of them looks pretty in this picture the OP was talking about her friend and the issue of IS paid for 4 extra months, hardly the crime of the century.

This is a slightly different scenarion to that posed by the neighbours activities, my only hope is that the fraud investigators prove the neighbour is completely scamming the system and take her to court for her misrepresentation and dishonest intent.

£1136 in 4 months? And the free rent, and the free poll tax?

benefitbaby

Face1992 wrote: »

£1136 in 4 months? And the free rent, and the free poll tax?

We haven't had poll tax for a long time and there is no evidence that the OPs friend claimed HB and CTB from her LA.
If she did it would be a joint DWP/LA investigation.

Face1992

benefitbaby wrote: »

We haven't had poll tax for a long time and there is no evidence that the OPs friend claimed HB and CTB from her LA.
If she did it would be a joint DWP/LA investigation.

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

She wanted her cake and to eat it didn't she? She gets married to someone and continues to claim as a single person, with the added hundreds of pounds for the three kids of course.

marybelle01

Face1992 wrote: »

She wanted her cake and to eat it didn't she? She gets married to someone and continues to claim as a single person, with the added hundreds of pounds for the three kids of course.

And NOBODY has said that is right. But that does not mean that she is an unfit mother or that her "convenient" morals are any different than your "convenient" morals.

benefitbaby

Face1992 wrote: »

She wanted her cake and to eat it didn't she? She gets married to someone and continues to claim as a single person, with the added hundreds of pounds for the three kids of course.

Did it ever occur to you that judging by the relationship history she was fearful she would be on her own again soon and struggling. Stopping and starting benefit claims takes weeks and weeks and in the meantime what do people live on?
This is a real fear that I see regularly and this is a powerful reason for making poor choices, should we condemn or criminalise her for that?
I appreciate that you feel we should but I don't think anyone should be condemned for making a rash decision (that didn't hurt anyone) that she will pay for financially as the money will be reclaimed from her at source by the DWP.

tomtom256

benefitbaby wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that judging by the relationship history she was fearful she would be on her own again soon and struggling. Stopping and starting benefit claims takes weeks and weeks and in the meantime what do people live on?
This is a real fear that I see regularly and this is a powerful reason for making poor choices, should we condemn or criminalise her for that?
I appreciate that you feel we should but I don't think anyone should be condemned for making a rash decision (that didn't hurt anyone) that she will pay for financially as the money will be reclaimed from her at source by the DWP.

Sorry but it did hurt someone. Those that genuinely needed the benefit and the tax payers who funded her during the period of living together.

Times are hard for all but I haven't split from my wife on paper so she can claim benefits to support our lifestyle.

When needs must you cut your cloth accordingly.

Relationships either do or don't last. So what we should be doing then is letting people continue to claim as single person for months/years on end on the off chance it could end, but if they don't have the benefit in continuous payment it could cause a little hardship should it end.

My heart bleeds and I am glad my taxes are used to fund these lifestyles.