Interview Under Caution for Benefit Fraud investigation

BurnleyBob

bloolagoon wrote: »

I believe they meant the only person who should apologising is the ex - who blatantly put her in this position and still won't help her by providing an address, over those that investigate as per their job where there is overwhelming evidence.

Do you think the state should never ask any questions?

The OP stated that the ex has never claimed a benefit. Why on earth the DWP are interested in his affairs is a mystery, to me at least.

I might see the reasoning if it was the police poking around inside his bank account for evidence to support a conspiracy to defraud investigation.

bloolagoon

BurnleyBob wrote: »

The OP stated that the ex has never claimed a benefit. Why on earth the DWP are interested in his affairs is a mystery, to me at least.

I might see the reasoning if it was the police poking around inside his bank account for evidence to support a conspiracy to defraud investigation.

Benefit fraud can only look at claimants but he put her on jeopardy and still does so.

On paper she is guilty which he created - her innocence is his affairs as only he can prove it, yet he doesn't.

It's him to be angry at not DWP who ask questions on a paper trail.

Slowhand

If the ex is not claiming any benefits how come he can be compelled to be interviewed? I'm concerned that the OP by discussing her interview with the ex could be seen to be colluding in some way.

Blackpool_Saver

Men cause all the problems, they leave a big mess behind them whatever they do. This loon needs to get his !!!! together and stop being lazy with his paperwork. I would have been on his back night and day to remove himself from my paperwork and addresses. I had the misfortune to be involved with a nutter like this who not update anything, I had to phone all over the place and tell different departments FOR HIM, as he would not get off his backside to do it

BurnleyBob

Someone who's half-soaked/complacent about updating their circumstances is a loon and a nutter?!

I'd be far more concerned about a person who indulges in ludicrous hyperbole.

FBaby

I have indeed never heard of the supposed partner being interviewed, but surely if he is that should reassure you. He will confirm all you said and should even brings his girlfriend with him to add even more weight to it. I don't understand do wby you are so focused on trying to prove you live alone rather than doing everything to prove he lives and has a life elsewhere. Am also surprised they didn't ask if paid regular maintenance unless it's been left out from the recollection.

tomtom256

bloolagoon wrote: »

Benefit fraud can only look at claimants but he put her on jeopardy and still does so.

On paper she is guilty which he created - her innocence is his affairs as only he can prove it, yet he doesn't.

It's him to be angry at not DWP who ask questions on a paper trail.

Nope you can look at the partner/alleged partner also, hence why they would have so much evidence against her putting him there.

If they only looked at the claimant they would have nothing evidential on any partner/alleged partner.

Dunroamin

BurnleyBob wrote: »

What does that mean?

Is it that the state through its agencies has carte blanche to do whatever it wants and citizens should have no expectations about privacy?

Assange and Snowden are fugitives for daring to tell us of how committed governments are to monitoring their populations. Few, if any, are more dedicated than the UK's is.

From information that the OP gave us, there was obviously a case to answer, even if she's completely blameless, so why should she expect someone to apologise just for doing their job and investigating her circumstances.

When you accept public money, you lose a great deal of your right to privacy and that's a choice each person needs to make for him/herself.

sniggings

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Men cause all the problems, they leave a big mess behind them whatever they do. This loon needs to get his !!!! together and stop being lazy with his paperwork. I would have been on his back night and day to remove himself from my paperwork and addresses. I had the misfortune to be involved with a nutter like this who not update anything, I had to phone all over the place and tell different departments FOR HIM, as he would not get off his backside to do it

works both ways, I bet she handed over the letters each time he visits, instead of returning them, they would then be closed if he didn't correct his address, blaming the man is daft, it's her benefit , its her house, she has the power to stop the letters but has choosen to allow him to use her address.

You call him a nutter? all you know of him is he has fathered a child with the OP and was allowed by the OP to use her address, if you have had trouble with men, don't put that on the OP or other men.

Erinnire

Dunroamin wrote: »

I hope you're not serious, there's no need to apologise to someone for being investigated.

I think it is pretty obvious from the tone of the post that it was a sarcastic comment in reply to another poster.