Interview Under Caution for Benefit Fraud investigation

Brighton_belle

shop-to-drop wrote: »

If you had told him where your Ex is actually living he would have more reason to believe you. Saying he hasn't got is act together and staying with various family and friends is not very believable.

Seems pretty believable to me. It's far from unheard of for some people to struggle to get their act together and couch surf. And why would an ex necessarily have their full address?

I too think he was making some stuff up to try and get you to 'confess' to avoid 'worse trouble'. Keep sticking to the truth (as you are doing). He hasn't been living there, therefore it will be impossible to prove.
I really can't get the 'he will be in terrible trouble for not telling his employer about his new address' line.

snookey

Hi I found this advice for you from a poverty action group;

FRAUD INTERVIEWS

If you are called into an interview with fraud investigators, NEVER go alone. It is essential you have someone there to support and advise you. There will almost certainly be two fraud investigators present, so you don't want to be outnumbered! You have an absolute right to be accompanied, we have done this dozens of times, it is a normal procedure.

Ask the investigators names, and write them down, The accompanying person should take pen and paper to make notes.

They will tell you that the interview is to be tape-recorded. We strongly advise that you tell them you do NOT want the interview recorded. This is because it is in your interest to completely control what you tell them. The fraud investigators are trained at interrogations and will question you closely, asking the same question in different ways, they will try and get you to admit you have done wrong, and that you knew you were doing wrong. If the interview is recorded, then if they catch you out or pressurise you into an admission, it will all be down on tape.

You have an absolute right not to have the interview tape recorded. We have been present at several interviews and have insisted on this, they just have to accept it.

If the interview is not recorded, then they will write down all the questions and answers, then at the end of the interview they will ask you to sign to verify all the answers they have taken down. You don't need to sign this. It is almost always better to just write you own short statement, and give them that. Again, if you want to do this, there is nothing they can do to prevent this. We have accompanied claimants who have done just this. They will make out that it will cause you problems but they are just trying to get more evidence to use against you.

It is often very difficult for them to prove fraud, so they are trying to get you to admit your guilt. Often, without a confession, they will be unable to do prosecute you, and may not even be able to stop your benefits, as there is no real evidence. And of course often the accusations are groundless anyway.

At any point during the interview you can ask for the interview to be stopped, so you can consult with your adviser in private. If they are harassing you, leave the interview and inform them you are going to make an official complaint. When we last did this, they then dropped the whole investigation.

Many, probably most, fraud interviews are conducted " under caution ", this is standard procedure, but if it is an interview under caution it is even more essential you go accompanied and follow the advice above.

If you are being investigated, try not to worry too much, the vast majority of cases do not result in prosecution. We have supported people in several fraud investigations and almost always they have ended without prosecution, sometimes without even any repayments.

The Child Poverty Action Group's Welfare Benefits and Tax Credits Handbook has more info on how fraud investigations work, you can consult it at ACE, or it should be available via the library.

sniggings

snookey wrote: »

Hi I found this advice for you from a poverty action group;

FRAUD INTERVIEWS

If you are called into an interview with fraud investigators, NEVER go alone. It is essential you have someone there to support and advise you. There will almost certainly be two fraud investigators present, so you don't want to be outnumbered! You have an absolute right to be accompanied, we have done this dozens of times, it is a normal procedure.

Ask the investigators names, and write them down, The accompanying person should take pen and paper to make notes.

They will tell you that the interview is to be tape-recorded. We strongly advise that you tell them you do NOT want the interview recorded. This is because it is in your interest to completely control what you tell them. The fraud investigators are trained at interrogations and will question you closely, asking the same question in different ways, they will try and get you to admit you have done wrong, and that you knew you were doing wrong. If the interview is recorded, then if they catch you out or pressurise you into an admission, it will all be down on tape.

You have an absolute right not to have the interview tape recorded. We have been present at several interviews and have insisted on this, they just have to accept it.

If the interview is not recorded, then they will write down all the questions and answers, then at the end of the interview they will ask you to sign to verify all the answers they have taken down. You don't need to sign this. It is almost always better to just write you own short statement, and give them that. Again, if you want to do this, there is nothing they can do to prevent this. We have accompanied claimants who have done just this. They will make out that it will cause you problems but they are just trying to get more evidence to use against you.

It is often very difficult for them to prove fraud, so they are trying to get you to admit your guilt. Often, without a confession, they will be unable to do prosecute you, and may not even be able to stop your benefits, as there is no real evidence. And of course often the accusations are groundless anyway.

At any point during the interview you can ask for the interview to be stopped, so you can consult with your adviser in private. If they are harassing you, leave the interview and inform them you are going to make an official complaint. When we last did this, they then dropped the whole investigation.

Many, probably most, fraud interviews are conducted " under caution ", this is standard procedure, but if it is an interview under caution it is even more essential you go accompanied and follow the advice above.

If you are being investigated, try not to worry too much, the vast majority of cases do not result in prosecution. We have supported people in several fraud investigations and almost always they have ended without prosecution, sometimes without even any repayments.

The Child Poverty Action Group's Welfare Benefits and Tax Credits Handbook has more info on how fraud investigations work, you can consult it at ACE, or it should be available via the library.

sorry but you are so wrong it's not funny, you say they are trying to trick you into admitting something you haven't done but will write the questions down correctly if you refuse to allow them to record it :eek: so what if you refuse to sign, if they are so dodgy then they will stop your money anyway. The notes will be worded in such a way you think it's ok to sign, later to realise they were worded slightly differently and you have now admitted guilt.

I have been in interviews where the person holding the interview also takes notes and no good ever comes of it, you either agree with their take on it or you don't, which gets you no where, you end up fighting to get the notes corrected, it becomes a big mess.

My advice is to demand it is recorded, then if they try and trick you, it will be clear seen on the tape, no one will admit something they haven't done.

The OP said in this thread she was going to say "she didn't realise it was fraud" everyone said oh don't say that you are admitting to it, sorry but no she wasn't but but I can guarantee the note taker would have worded her reply a little differently, she would have signed it and they would have had their evidence, but with a recording it would be clear what she was saying, that they were saying wrongly her actions were fraud, she saying she didn't realise taking their word for it, so clearly not admitting to anything but accepting their definition of the word "fraud" so no evidence of anything.

If you need any proof of what I am saying just look at all the Atos ESA notes people get back, full of miswordings and down right lies, Atos even refuse to allow recordings by saying the machine is "broken" as they know it's easier to get the result they want if they are the ones in total control of the note taking and no recordings are made.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Have seen plenty of birth certificates where the usual residence address for mother and father are different.

rogerblack

snookey wrote: »

They will tell you that the interview is to be tape-recorded. We strongly advise that you tell them you do NOT want the interview recorded. This is because it is in your interest to completely control what you tell them. The fraud investigators are trained at interrogations and will question you closely, asking the same question in different ways, they will try and get you to admit you have done wrong, and that you knew you were doing wrong. If the interview is recorded, then if they catch you out or pressurise you into an admission, it will all be down on tape.h

I believe that the interviews under caution are under PACE - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117601/pace-code-e.pdf

If the suspect objects to the interview being audibly recorded at the outset, during the interview or during a break, the interviewer shall explain that the interview is being audibly recorded and that this Code requires the suspect’s objections to be recorded on the audio recording. When any objections have been audibly recorded or the suspect has refused to have their objections recorded, the interviewer shall say they are turning off the recorder, give their reasons and turn it off. The interviewer shall then make a written record of the interview as in Code C,
section 11. If, however, the interviewer reasonably considers they may proceed to question the suspect with the audio recording still on, the interviewer may do so.

This is the rule you're relying on in these cases - the interviewer can refuse to turn off the tape - but it's unclear when this would be usual.
It would seem to be unreasonable in most circumstances.

mum2one

You did the right thing, there may be issues for your ex, espically driving licence, as you have to notify DVLA with change of address etc.

What I would do now is keep a diary of the times that your ex comes and goes and get him to initial it, so he knows your doing and why, - if he stays over add a reason why daughter was ill been up all day - he took over childcare.

Hopefully it be done and dusted and you can get on with life, just put your foot down with your ex and his postage etc xx

fluffymovie

It usually says on the BC, fathers address if different. If there's nothing, then he's made a declaration to the registrar. This can be an offence in itself.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Mumof1littlegirl wrote: »

Hiya. I don't even recall my ex giving an address on that day. And the only address shown on the birth certificate is the mothers.

Unless the format of birth certificates have changed there should be questions 10 and 13 about addresses of Mother and Informant.

Informant would be Mother and Father jointly if they were not married and thus if the Father lived at a different address then this would be shown on the certificate.

Description of informant. The current list of eligible informants reads, in order of preference

(1) In all cases - mother

(2) Father - if he is married to mother

(3) Father and mother jointly where they are not married to one another

(4) A person present at the birth

(5) The owner or occupier of the house or institution

(6) The person in charge of the child

NYM

Sorry to butt in...but surely what these people may threaten your ex with, has nothing to do with you ?

From your account of the interview, the majority appears to concern your ex and his failure to notify his employers, the DVLA, the Registry Office...

You've explained that he doesn't live at your address and unless they can show otherwise, you shouldn't be concerned nor involved in any action those other government departments make take against him.

It doesn't sound as if it was you being investigated but rather as a witness concerning your ex's circumstances !

btw...to be a named driver on your car insurance doesn't mean he must be living with you. My parents are both on mine and I haven't lived with them for the last 15 years !

The DVLA may be more troublesome. They should be advised of the current address of a licence holder. But that's your ex's problem - not yours.

Personally, I can't see you having anything to worry about at all.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Mumof1littlegirl wrote: »

The certificate says in 10, mothers address. And in 13, informant, usual address...and then my address again.

Like I said, neither of us remember him being asked an address. We didn't write anything, the registrar filled it out. Could it be she just assumed we lived together? I really can't remember the specifics unfortunately. If it turns out that he did sign something to say that was his address...and it's an offence, what are the punishments? Surely there would be websites outlining the fines or punishments for the above? I can't seem to find any. If we have done wrong in this respect we totally hold our hands up to it, but our memories are fuzzy from that day.

Please could you link me the official offences and fines/punishments website regarding this? Thanks x

1911 Perjury Act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/contents

Less than 20 people a year are prosecuted. People tell white lies about addresses or occupations. You don't really have anything to worry about. From what you have said they really don't have anything as you have given reasonable explanations for the discrepancies.