So worried .Advice needed.Interview under caution

schristine06

nurse.lorraine wrote: »

My son works abroad and is still registered at this address on the electoral roll, all his mail comes here as there is no where else for it to go, I then send anything out to him that he needs to see in bulk or I scan it and email to him.
His car insurance is here as well.
I claim benefits and have never had any problems.
I would actually be delighted if they tried to say he was living here illegally, they are charging me bedroom tax for his room.
There is nothing wrong with doing that, some people do it as their post 'isn't always safe where they live.

I still occasionally get mail addressed to the tenants that lived here before me and i have lived here since 2000!
I do think thats its because my daughter is employed by the same LA that i am in receipt of HB from. To be honest it would be an extremely silly thing to try and defraud the people you are employed by! She works in the housing dept too! I was employed by them too for 17 yrs until they made me redundant 2 yrs ago. This has been my first experience of benefits and what a nightmare it is.

zzzLazyDaisy

schristine06 wrote: »

I was employed by them too for 17 yrs until they made me redundant 2 yrs ago. This has been my first experience of benefits and what a nightmare it is.

So when she moved out 4 years ago, you were working and her failing to declare that she had moved in with her bf's family would not have had any repercussions on you, as you were not claiming benefits at that time? Two years later you get made redundant, and claim housing benefit, but by that she has already been left home for two years. You had already removed her from the electoral roll at your address, and you assumed that she was registered on the electoral roll at her new address. So as far as you were concerned, as her affairs were no longer relevant to you, apart from occasionally still receiving some mail for her at your address.

Is that a fair summary of the situation?

Dx

schristine06

SuziQ wrote: »

My ex applied for a credit card at my address, and that initiated an investigation into my benefitslast summer. It never got to an interview under caution, but it was still an extremely stressful 4 weeks until it was sorted. Luckily, I had made a legal declaration at a solicitors a couple of years before to say he didn't live at my address ( I kept getting bailiffs turn up) and had also commenced divorce proceedings. I was able to show that all utilities etc were in my name and paid by me, but the investigator told me that without the declaration at the solicitors and divorce letters they wouldn't have believed me. It seems unfair that the onus is on us to prove we haven't done anything wrong, but then we are in receipt of benefits so we have to do what they ask.

It is extremely stressful tbh. I only got the notification on Saturday and these past few days have been taken over by worry. Ive been strong but tonight its all become too much. The thought of going through this until my actual interview in 3 weeks time is over whelming. Ive got to breaking point now and my poor children are just about to sit SATs (13yr old) and A levels (18 yr old) and im a crying wreck

schristine06

Sorry this is not the place for this.Many thanks to you all for your invaluable advice. It has been greatly appreciated

lighting_up_the_chalice

schristine06 wrote: »

It is extremely stressful tbh. I only got the notification on Saturday and these past few days have been taken over by worry. Ive been strong but tonight its all become too much. The thought of going through this until my actual interview in 3 weeks time is over whelming. Ive got to breaking point now and my poor children are just about to sit SATs (13yr old) and A levels (18 yr old) and im a crying wreck

And... Breath....

I can fully appreciate how worrying this "under caution" thing sounds. And you should be concerned. However, if you understand the actual rationale behind it, the whole thing may fall into perspective much easier.

Most people assume that if they are invited for an interview, the information given can be used by the interviewing authority in any legal action they may bring. However, this is not the case. If you have not received a caution, ("You have the right...... etc") there is a real possibility that nothing you may say could be used as evidence. That evidence may not necessarily be against you.

If you were to get caught speeding, or littering, or letting your dog foul, or not wearing a seatbelt, you will be, effectively, interviewed under caution. It's pretty standard practice among evidence gathering bodies, even though very, very, very little of the information gleaned under caution ever gets any further.

Of course, it does have secondary uses, which those who issue the caution are well aware off. It frightens people witless. And that gives them power, which they like.... a lot.

It IS serious, and should be treated as such..... But it isn't THAT serious.

missapril75

nurse.lorraine wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with doing that, some people do it as their post 'isn't always safe where they live.

Quite right, there isn't.

But this situation sounds like someone has actually been giving an impression that it has been where they live. How deliberate that was and for what reason remains to be seen.

But there have been threads before where an address has been used as beneficial in one situation that then causes a problem in a different one or for someone else.

Morlock

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I am surprised that so many people are telling you not to worry about this. If I was required to attend an interview under caution, I would be worried, as I think most people would be.

Nobody is required to attend, the OP could just tell them to !!!! off if she wanted to.

Morlock

My advice is not to attend, just ignore the letter if you have not broken the law, or inform them you will not be attending if you feel like being polite. If the council considers it has enough evidence to prosecute, it will, otherwise the case will be dropped. By attending the interview without legal representation, you may incriminate yourself. If a prosecution goes ahead, you will then be entitled to legal aid if you qualify.

If you do attend, remember that you are doing so voluntarily, do not have to answer any questions, and are free to leave the interview at any time.

schristine06

Morlock wrote: »

My advice is not to attend, just ignore the letter if you have not broken the law, or inform them you will not be attending if you feel like being polite. If the council considers it has enough evidence to prosecute, it will, otherwise the case will be dropped. By attending the interview without legal representation, you may incriminate yourself. If a prosecution goes ahead, you will then be entitled to legal aid if you qualify.

If you do attend, remember that you are doing so voluntarily, do not have to answer any questions, and are free to leave the interview at any time.

Thank you. After reading everyone's advice I'm wondering whether I should just gather together all the statements and other evidence and just send it to them in the next wk instead of attending interview? Could this go against me?
Thanks again everyone.

zzzLazyDaisy

Yes it could. The likely result would be that you would be found to have fraudulently claimed HB over the past two years (or however long you have been claiming it) and have to repay it, and lose your HB going forward.

The fact is that you could type up a whole pile of statements yourself saying anything you like, and send them in. They have no value without you being there to give your version of events personally. Even if you do attend the interview, other people's statements will not be given any weight unless or until those people are also interviewed. But the existence of the statements may support what you are saying. If they still have doubts after that, they will interview the other people concerned. If you do not attend the interview, they will not get that far, they will just file the statements as worthless pieces of paper. If you refuse to go along and explain the situation from your point of view, they won't bother investigating the matter further.