Interview Under Caution for Benefit Fraud investigation

RAS

Since when were you the judge and jury on this case?

spacey2012 wrote: »

I am accusing of nothing, I am pointing out that your excuses are more than enough to convince a jury, they need removing immediately, I do think you are kidding yourself as to the seriousness of the situation you are facing.

We have seen tens if not hundreds of cases here which have been caused by data matching.

The benefit recipients cannot force the person who left the relationship to change the address on their accounts etc. And they are unable to change the addresses themselves except the electoral roll. They cannot even close joint accounts without the ex-partner's agreement.

And many of these ex partners will be visiting children at the house; some may even stay over the odd night is the PWC is ill. Particulalrly so if the child is very young or has special care needs.

~Chameleon~

spacey2012 wrote: »

DVLA are not the DHS, if he is not living at your address, where his licence and car is registered is not your problem and if you do not want attention of fraud investigators I suggest you make it his problem to get them changed as quickly as possible.

I do have to say reading your explanations, it does look like they have you bang to rights here.
A lot of excuses and explanations that all appear to add up to what they are accusing you of, living with someone and drawing benefits, if this is not the case then I suggest you get to work on the number of excuses you have running and cut them down, they are like spinning plates and sooner or later they are going to fall the more you have.

I suggest if he is not living with you, you get him and his affairs cut off immediately from your address .
If you are put before a jury, the prosecution will have a field day with all these spinning plate excuses.
You are in a fight for your freedom here, that has to come before your ex's problems .
I suggest you sit down and put your priorities in order, your ex and his cheaper car insurance and "address problems" or your freedom.

Oh not another one!! Btw, it's not been called the DHS for many years now. Please do get it right if you're going to attack another poster!

spacey2012

Attack ? another poster, by pointing out the obvious.
Someone has to point out, the OP has been Interviewed under caution for benefit fraud.
This is a criminal investigative process to obtain evidence for prosecution.
Every stone that turns over needs yet another excuse.
They do not need absolute proof, this is a ridicules assumption that someone can not be found guilty unless they admit it ?
If they are charged and do not plead guilty they will be sent for Jury trial.
My opinion is and I am entitled to my opinion is that this very long and extensive list of excuses and explanations would not go very well at a jury trial .
They do not interview people under caution and obtain documents under RIPA to take you out for a day to the Seaside.

If pointing that out is "an attack" well the it will be alight hun brigade are kidding themselves.
Which to be honest is what I think the OP came here for.

bloolagoon

I see discrepancies in OP's story and I think she is lucky they didn't have surveillance.

RAS

As you are so well informed on legal matters, you will know that they only prosecute when there sufficient evidence to obtain a guilty verdict and when it is in the public interest.

You may be entitled to your opinion, but the evidence from this forum would suggest that no action wil be taken against the OP.

HappyMJ

spacey2012 wrote: »

Attack ? another poster, by pointing out the obvious.
Someone has to point out, the OP has been Interviewed under caution for benefit fraud.
This is a criminal investigative process to obtain evidence for prosecution.
Every stone that turns over needs yet another excuse.
They do not need absolute proof, this is a ridicules assumption that someone can not be found guilty unless they admit it ?
If they are charged and do not plead guilty they will be sent for Jury trial.
My opinion is and I am entitled to my opinion is that this very long and extensive list of excuses and explanations would not go very well at a jury trial .
They do not interview people under caution and obtain documents under RIPA to take you out for a day to the Seaside.

If pointing that out is "an attack" well the it will be alight hun brigade are kidding themselves.
Which to be honest is what I think the OP came here for.

A jury trial would only happen in a crown court. A benefit fraud offence isn't that serious. It's a summary offence dealt with in the magistrates court....with no jury unless the defendant requests a crown court trial pleads not guilty and a jury is allocated...which is very unlikely. I couldn't even begin to imagine the costs involved for the DWP/council/crown prosecution service just to get a 3 month suspended sentence..It's not in the public interest unless the amounts involved are almost 6 figures.

spacey2012

RAS wrote: »

As you are so well informed on legal matters, you will know that they only prosecute when there sufficient evidence to obtain a guilty verdict and when it is in the public interest.

You may be entitled to your opinion, but the evidence from this forum would suggest that no action wil be taken against the OP.

Thank you for granting the OP that status.
How very noble of you.

:rotfl:

spacey2012

bloolagoon wrote: »

I see discrepancies in OP's story and I think she is lucky they didn't have surveillance.

The OP would not be informed of what evidence they have, only what they need to question on.
Anything they think does not need further explanation will only be made available in the disclosure bundle at court if a charge is brought.
But if as the OP suggests, the EX does not live with her, despite just about his whole life happening on paper at he OP's address then they wont have any surveillance footage to put forward other than the EX leaving his mothers after a night on the sofa.
They tend to obtain any surveillance before they conduct an interview.


But making this point is probably another "attack" :eek:

Derwent

The OP appears to have deleted all of her posts ?

~Chameleon~

Derwent wrote: »

The OP appears to have deleted all of her posts ?

Quite sensible as it's likely the level of detail contained in them could identify her to any snooping DWP bods and lets face it, there are plenty of those on these forums