Interview Under Caution for Benefit Fraud investigation

NYM

The OP wrote ...'He stays with his mum sometimes, but mostly stays with his girlfriend'


Does his girlfriend claim any benefits ? It could be the reason he hasn't bothered to change his address.

Dunroamin

Erinnire wrote: »

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

You could be right but obviously other posters took it at face value as well.

ktate

alls she asked for was what to expect from an interview under caution
some very judgemental people on hear but good luck

Blackpool_Saver

BurnleyBob wrote: »

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.

Believe you me Bob I have not exaggerated the mess it left me in

Blackpool_Saver

sniggings wrote: »

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.

Don't be silly, they would not be closed unless HE CLOSED them which obviously he didn't, what magical thinking is this?

He is obviously a loon look how he has walked away from his post (and you can be sure a lot of it was debt, and that's why he did it) there is a lot more to this and you can bet she has just been a pawn in his game

Blackpool_Saver

NYM wrote: »

The OP wrote ...'He stays with his mum sometimes, but mostly stays with his girlfriend'


Does his girlfriend claim any benefits ? It could be the reason he hasn't bothered to change his address.

Will be just one of many reasons

MissMoneypenny

sniggings wrote: »

all you know of him is he has fathered a child with the OP and was allowed by the OP to use her address,

And that he has also fathered another chilld with another woman, that he no longer lives with.

And that the mother of his first child doesn't like him, but the OP does I assume as she is protecting him (didn't tell them that he lives with a new girlfriend, but just said he was couch surfing).

And that he only works 3 days a week.

missapril75

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

Dunroamin wrote: »

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.

I didn't take it as a serious comment but one or two comments alleged of the interviewing officer were perhaps a step over the line.

Blackpool_Saver

So, care to update on all this OP?

ampersand

I entirely understand why this young, principled op chooses not to write more.
She acknowledged helpful, informative posts warmly, but the ludicrous and unpleasant heft of too many others[not all of whom seem to have read op's posts attentively]is fair enough reason to stay away.
The Thread facility is not an IUC. or a tabloid rag.
I wish you and your daughter well.