Advice needed desperately please - "benefit fraud"

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Caz3121 wrote: »

have they said how much she has been overpaid due to this - I would expect 8 years of housing and council tax benefit alone to be a significant amount. £50k+?

Exactly hence possible use of the Diminution of Capital rules.

O/Ps mother would need to speak to her solicitor to see if a request for diminuation of capital rules will have any impact of bearing on the coming fraud trial.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

princessdon wrote: »

Sorry but I don't see why people awaiting trial for benefit fraud should be paid benefits, but your sister is 100% innocent and as such she should continue to be supported in anyway possible.

The overwhelming majority of people found guilty of fraud continue to receive benefits depending on the nature and scope and period of the overpayment.

If someone was found working and then they stopped work they can reclaim.

If someones income was higher than declared then their benefit might reduce but they could continue to be entitled.

Someone with an undeclared partner could still get benefit once the partners financial circumstances are taken into account.

When processing benefit claims we look at the current household and financial circumstances - although with depravation of capital or undeclared capital we use the diminuation of capital rules for the period of the overpayment and diminishing capital rule for the ongoing claim.

Pricivius

I appreciate that it's by the by, but I don't understand how three adult daughters could each take £18,000 of their mum's money, knowing she was on benefits. If my mum offered me £18,000 and I knew she was relying on the state to support her, I would give it straight back and tell her to live off her money and not expect the state to support her. Why was it okay to spend £64,000 of your mum's money whilst the state supported her?

As others have said, you need to speak with your mum's solicitor and understand what is going on with the court case. I agree that it seems off that she is contesting the charges as she clearly admits she gave you all the money and did not declare it. Surely she should be pleading guilty but with dimished responsibilty/mitigating circumstances?

rogerblack

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Exactly hence possible use of the Diminution of Capital rules.

O/Ps mother would need to speak to her solicitor to see if a request for diminuation of capital rules will have any impact of bearing on the coming fraud trial.

My understanding is that the notional capital is done seperately for HB and CTB - it's not £50K (or whatever the exact figure was) spread across both benefits - but across each.
That means that the amount needed to be 'spent' by those benefits goes up considerably.

In addition.
Though not likely appropriate in this case due to lack of assets - one risk of being found guilty of fraud at this sort of level is that there may be a further 'proceeds of crime act' prosecution - which can do things that would not usually be legal - for example selling 'core' assets that are normally protected from debt recovery, such as your only house.

tiger_eyes

dreamyseahorse wrote: »

She has four daughters and decided the best thing was to give it to us so we all recieved about £18,000 each and she kept £10,000. .Someone somehow mentioned a deeed of variation so this is what she did. She didnt get any of the money given to three of the daughters. She did however put her youngest daughter who was 10 at the time into a trust account for her when she was 18 but as she had access to this she did end up drinking it.

Not to throw a new spanner in the works - but it sounds like she stole £18,000 from a trust, which is a whole new set of problems ...

dreamyseahorse

princessdon wrote: »

Why a deed of variation? She could have gifted money anytime, there was no need if not either attempting to remove taxation or keep benefits. Example when my grandad died each grandchild was given £3,000 - my brother like your mum said he'd inject and probably OD, he needed to sign a document saying he wanted his portion to go to his children (this was in case in the future he complained we didn't give it and when under the influence he's capable of forgetting what he wanted). When he received another small inheritance (not willed) he just asked to send to kids bank accounts. I can't see why your mum took that route if not trying to hide something, it was hers, she can give away, why use a variation deed?

If she was so incapacitated due to her addiction then why did no one try to assist with this? Why did her advisor allow her to make decisions whilst incapable, were social services involved as she had a young child at home.

To you as her daughter you see no dishonesty (who does, we love them), to others we see very much that although I feel sure she was not in the right frame of mind to make such major decisions, keeping benefits was a reason she did what she did.

If you genuinely feel she was unable to make her own decisions due to mental impairment then your point of call is the advisor who you say misadvised and failed to ensure she understood the consequences.

On a practical note if your sister is 18 she can claim benefits, perhaps this would help in the mean time as it will cover some bills, especially if a joint tenancy can be arranged (its in the interests of the landlord).

You should also get advice re the eviction and ensure the landlord followed procedures etc.

Sorry but I don't see why people awaiting trial for benefit fraud should be paid benefits, but your sister is 100% innocent and as such she should continue to be supported in anyway possible.

That's the point...she didnt /wouldnt have known what it was, why would she be advised to do this? She thought this made it 'official' as in she could do this and not have anything to do with the money and it was all taken care of.....stupid yes but she did not question this.

Alcoholics can sometimes function very well in public and make out that they are fine but behind closed doors its a very different story....no social services were not involved, I dont know how she avoided them tbh...


Thank you for the pointers and advice...

dreamyseahorse

skintmacflint wrote: »

Certainly this is to be congratulated and hopefully with the ongoing support of her family can continue.

Is it possible for her to find some or any type of paying work, now her condition is stable? Even something part time at nmw would be better than her present zero income.?

She really is looking for work but having been not working for a long time (she was a carer for my gran)and an older lady with little experience she is having no luck finding one at the moment.....we are on the case with this...

dreamyseahorse

Pricivius wrote: »

I appreciate that it's by the by, but I don't understand how three adult daughters could each take £18,000 of their mum's money, knowing she was on benefits. If my mum offered me £18,000 and I knew she was relying on the state to support her, I would give it straight back and tell her to live off her money and not expect the state to support her. Why was it okay to spend £64,000 of your mum's money whilst the state supported her?

We did not understand at the time, just assumed that it was all legit (yes we shouldnt have but we did) We grew up abroad and not very clued up on benefits, we took the money because we had basically left home at very young age and not been supported much since then and she said please have this as she had not supported us financially at all once we left (in fact we used to send money to her when we could)and she said either you have it to set yourselves up or i will drink it....I was paying my own way through uni and struggling and another sister had a baby at eighteen, another massive debts mounting from medical school...we were young, naive and broke, that's why we took it....if the situation was the same now (even without hindsight) I would not take it....

dreamyseahorse

As others have said, you need to speak with your mum's solicitor and understand what is going on with the court case. I agree that it seems off that she is contesting the charges as she clearly admits she gave you all the money and did not declare it. Surely she should be pleading guilty but with dimished responsibilty/mitigating circumstances?[/QUOTE]

My mum just followed solicitors advice, he advised her to plead guilty initially but then changed his mind and said plead not guilty as she did not 'dishonestly' fail to declare...'misguidedly' maybe...
She is just following advice and really TBH has just shut off from everything and just going trhough the montions...

ceecee1

[/QUOTE]My mum just followed solicitors advice, he advised her to plead guilty initially but then changed his mind and said plead not guilty as she did not 'dishonestly' fail to declare...'misguidedly' maybe...
She is just following advice and really TBH has just shut off from everything and just going trhough the montions...[/QUOTE]

I would be careful with this, does her solicitor have experience in benefit fraud cases - or is he suggesting not guilty to improve his fees. Has he said that saying not guilty will result in a trial - has he explained that any sentence can be reduced by one third because of an early guilty plea?

The DWP and/or LA will be able to show that your mum has been informed, at least every year, of all details that need to be declared to them - this will include the money that she received. They will be able to show that they have made her fully aware that it is her responsibility to tell them that she inherited the money and that she failed to declare it.

How is the solicitor suggesting that she proves that she was not dishonest when every letter says to declare everything and that even if not sure to declare it anyway.

These are the reasons why people are saying that a guilty plea with mitigation might be the best way forward.