Are they real

PippaGirl_2

I spoke to someone who works in an investigation team and they said that benefits would not be stopped unless there was firm evidence of something and that wouldn't just be one persons word. There must be some evidence somewhere according to him. If they don't have firm evidence they do IUC's etc. and benefits remain in place.

princessdon

Thats what I was thinking Pippagirl. Surely they don't stop first and ask questions later?

stevectaylor

PippaGirl wrote: »

I spoke to someone who works in an investigation team and they said that benefits would not be stopped unless there was firm evidence of something and that wouldn't just be one persons word. There must be some evidence somewhere according to him. If they don't have firm evidence they do IUC's etc. and benefits remain in place.

I can assure you that I live 20 miles away and stay in my own home every night. Unless I have a double.

stevectaylor

missbunbury wrote: »

OP, this is obviously stressful for your friend but to be honest, you getting wound up and angry and starting on about human rights is only going to stress her out more. The best way for you to be a good friend to her would be to calmly offer to provide any paperwork they may need to see to prove you don't live there and tell her that since she has done nothing wrong she needn't get too worked up about it. Do bear in mind that this is her problem not yours, she is the one claiming not you, I know it sounds harsh but really, you wading in all guns blazing when you are "just a friend" might look suspicious if anything. If I were her, I would be querying what information they have to make them think such a thing? Have you, for example, used her address to have letters sent to?

There is one thing I should point out. I have a family of my own that I live with that now thinks !!!!!! is going on and why are they jumping to this conclusion. You might understand why I am a little upset.

paddedjohn

Have you actually seen the paperwork with your name on it or are you just taking this girls name for it?

stevectaylor

paddedjohn wrote: »

Have you actually seen the paperwork with your name on it or are you just taking this girls name for it?

She read it out but trust her that much. She seen the reply and agreed so if she wasnt telling the truth be her problem.

tomtom256

PippaGirl wrote: »

I spoke to someone who works in an investigation team and they said that benefits would not be stopped unless there was firm evidence of something and that wouldn't just be one persons word. There must be some evidence somewhere according to him. If they don't have firm evidence they do IUC's etc. and benefits remain in place.

Benefits are often suspended on suspicion prior to an IUC, however IUC's are only conducted with firm evidence. Without the evidence generally a claimant wouldn't be called in for an IUC. An IUC is not and cannot be a fishing expedition check out PACE etc.

If reading the OP's problem correctly its Tax Credits that have been stopped and that is not a benefit per se, so falls under different legislation and can be stopped by HMRC at any time if they suspect it is being paid incorrectly without an IUC needed as they generally do not prosecute for tax credit fraud unless its in the thousands.

They, Tax Credits, are and have been using credit data for sometime and can only presume that the OP is linked to the address with some form of credit and that would be the reason the credits have been stopped.

As someone has posted appeal and provide evidence of other address.

missapril75

fannyadams wrote: »

...I was a lodger in my male friend's house (no I wasn't seeing him).
Fast forward two years and I claimed HB & CTB again whilst living at a female friends house - how strange no visit!

[STRIKE]Well, not really strange. Couples of opposite sex do live as husband and wife without being married and that has relevance to the benefit system.

The relationship of two people of the same sex has no relevance to the benefit system so it doesn't need to be considered.[/STRIKE]

Edited...apologies...seems there's been a change.

tomtom256

missapril75 wrote: »

Well, not really strange. Couples of opposite sex do live as husband and wife without being married and that has relevance to the benefit system.

The relationship of two people of the same sex has no relevance to the benefit system so it doesn't need to be considered.

Although just to make things equal I suppose they could delay all claims involving shared premises pending a visit - and reduce the benefit levels to pay the additional costs involved in providing equal treatment. :eek:

Same sex couples are treated the same for benefits purposes, its just that most LA's don't like to tackle the living together aspect as they get embarrassed to ask.

missapril75

stevectaylor wrote: »

There is one thing I should point out. I have a family of my own that I live with that now thinks !!!!!! is going on

I'm quite surprised that wasn't mentioned at the beginning.

Are there children for whom you'd be named as a parent with care?