Accidental Benefit fraud

tiredandworried

My partner receives employment and support allowance as he is unable to work due to a disability. I moved in with him and his parents in April 2012 and we didn't realise that would affect his benefit and he didn't know he had to inform them. I found out I was pregnant and due to complications I had him on 23/11 at 31 weeks pregnant. At 28 weeks I applied for sure start maternity grant which as part of the form I stated we lived together. Does this count as telling them?

I contacted them today as we just got our claim through for working tax credits and child tax credits and thought this might affect his benefit. THey said they didn't realise we were together and they are sending us a form so we can say the circumstances and they could take legal action.

What would the legal action involve? He has been paid between 3-4k during the time we've been together, but like I say it's a genuine mistake and we would pay it back if that's what they ask.

Where do we go from here? I don't want us to go to court/prison. My partners disability prevents him from leaving the house so court would be very intimidating prospect.

rogerblack

You needed to actually contact ESA.
To clarify.
Is he on income-based, or contributory ESA?
If he is on income based ESA, then he (assuming you are working) have been overpaid ESA, as his forms will have said that he must contact them if circumstances change, and this will have been one of the circumstances mentioned.

All of the ESA will likely need to be repaid, if you have been working and it's income related, unless he has good cause for not declaring this.

(Which would be very rare).

They can consider prosecuting if the overpayment exceeds 2K.

Contact ESA, on the number on the letters, and make sure they know.

If you have been claiming WTC as a single person, things become more complex still.

missapril75

Out of curiosity....when people were paid by payment book at the PO, every slip in their book - be it weekly or fortnightly - included the declaration that they had read the pages in the book (which were clear about the types of change that had to be reported) and that their circumstances were as last declared.

Nobody could really claim not to know what had to be reported when they were constantly signing to say they were aware. And each of these signatures was evidence that would aid a prosecution.

But with payments uniformly going into the bank now, what takes the place of these regular declarations?

Going from signing to say they understand what to report and they have reported changes every time a payment is claimed, to having something like an annual review with no such declarations for months on end is a big change.

It must be harder for the DWP to prove Fraud if they can no longer highlight the number of false declarations.

So is there an alternative in operation?

sja75

Seems that there are alot of Compliance Visits at present judging by the queries on these pages... Perhaps that is their alternative?

ceecee1

missapril75 wrote: »

Out of curiosity....when people were paid by payment book at the PO, every slip in their book - be it weekly or fortnightly - included the declaration that they had read the pages in the book (which were clear about the types of change that had to be reported) and that their circumstances were as last declared.

Nobody could really claim not to know what had to be reported when they were constantly signing to say they were aware. And each of these signatures was evidence that would aid a prosecution.

But with payments uniformly going into the bank now, what takes the place of these regular declarations?

Going from signing to say they understand what to report and they have reported changes every time a payment is claimed, to having something like an annual review with no such declarations for months on end is a big change.

It must be harder for the DWP to prove Fraud if they can no longer highlight the number of false declarations.

So is there an alternative in operation?

The Social Security Fraud Act brought in a specific offence of failing to report a change of circumstances. On each claim form there is now a declaration that they are aware that all changes whether or not they may affect benefit must be declared and that failure to do so is an offence.
Added to that, at least annually information is sent out which confirms all the changes which need to be notified.

[Deleted User]

missapril75 wrote: »

Out of curiosity....when people were paid by payment book at the PO, every slip in their book - be it weekly or fortnightly - included the declaration that they had read the pages in the book (which were clear about the types of change that had to be reported) and that their circumstances were as last declared.

Nobody could really claim not to know what had to be reported when they were constantly signing to say they were aware. And each of these signatures was evidence that would aid a prosecution.

But with payments uniformly going into the bank now, what takes the place of these regular declarations?

Going from signing to say they understand what to report and they have reported changes every time a payment is claimed, to having something like an annual review with no such declarations for months on end is a big change.

It must be harder for the DWP to prove Fraud if they can no longer highlight the number of false declarations.

So is there an alternative in operation?

when you are awarded a benefit the award letter will explain that you need to advise any changes and sometimes give an examples(not exhaustive)of what some of those might be

missapril75

woodbine wrote: »

when you are awarded a benefit the award letter will explain that you need to advise any changes and sometimes give an examples(not exhaustive)of what some of those might be

I remember that always happened anyway. Not necessarily in the letter but a little leaflet was enclosed with the award notice...and then with revised assessments thereafter

ceecee1 wrote: »

The Social Security Fraud Act brought in a specific offence of failing to report a change of circumstances.

That doesn't really sound new, though. Failure to report a change could previously result in a Fraud prosecution.

It sounds like one of those new acts that enables a department to do what they always could.

Like when you see those news items about government "getting tough" and bringing in legislation to penalise benefit recipients for something or other (not seeking addiction treatment for example) when the legislation to do so has existed for decades.

On each claim form there is now a declaration that they are aware that all changes whether or not they may affect benefit must be declared and that failure to do so is an offence.

Ah, now that's new...at least from my time.

I wonder if some research has been done to see if A) There are more overpayments and There are fewer successful prosecutions with people claiming they were less aware of responsibilities, things slipped their minds etc as a result of being expected to act on something way back, rather than the reminders that used to be common.

Thanks for the responses