Interview Under Caution for Benefit Fraud investigation

Dovah_diva

ampersand wrote: »

I entirely understand why this young, principled op chooses not to write more.

I didn't know you are personally acquainted.

ampersand

...nor do you now.

Dovah_diva

ampersand wrote: »

...nor do you now.

Sorry, that makes no sense. Is it supposed to say, now you do know? Or simply, nor do you?

Poppie68

Im sorry but as the thread went on the OP kept giving information that did'nt add up..She DID say her 'ex' lived mostly with his girlfriend and sometimes stayed over at his mum's, then said he did'nt stay with his girlfriend but he sofa surfed at friends. Makes no sense if he has a mum and a girlfriend why would he need to stay with friends on their sofa? Also i asked what address his employer had for him, OP said his mums....then later says he only changed it from her address to his mums last week. This was after she had the letter regarding the interview. They have supposedly been seperated about 18 month and he still uses her address???
Can't understand why they have now told her they are interested in her 'ex' and not her...why? He is not claiming benefits..sorry my doubts set in after about her 3rd post.

princessdon

It had more holes than a colander.

Poppie68

ktate wrote: »

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

Thats not all she asked....the OP offered information and asked advice on various aspects of the information.
It was a case of..'what about this' and what do you think about that'.

In the en she shot herself in the foot when her information did'nt add up and she started forgetting what she had said, as she had deleted her posts.

Poppie68

princessdon wrote: »

It had more holes than a colander.

Spot on....it's so blinkin annoying when people try to help and basically have the pee taken. Genuine people then start looking suspicous.

princessdon

Poppie68 wrote: »

Spot on....it's so blinkin annoying when people try to help and basically have the pee taken. Genuine people then start looking suspicous.

The address change (you know where she had his wage slips and his SA in mums address, that became only changed this week) was the sealer, even if paid weekly there was no time for that to happen let alone the self employment return change.

Poppie68

princessdon wrote: »

The address change (you know where she had his wage slips and his SA in mums address, that became only changed this week) was the sealer, even if paid weekly there was no time for that to happen let alone the self employment return change.

Made no sense.....the OP had wage slips and SA paperwork from January, that had his mums address on, but he only gave his employer his mums address last week???? God im confused......anyone for a glass of Pinot!:D

chigley

spacey2012 wrote: »

The information is obtained under RIPA investigative powers, this gives them total access to all financial information held by any organisation on either party involved in the investigation

Its actually the Social Security Fraud Act......

HappyMJ wrote: »

A benefit fraud offence isn't that serious.

Oh yes it is! and plenty of people find themselves in Crown Court for Benefit Fraud.