Interview Under Caution for Benefit Fraud investigation

notanewuser

Mumof1littlegirl wrote: »

I split with him whilst I was pregnant after we had lived together for a year. I had no choice but to claim as I obviously couldn't work and had no income. I have NEVER claimed anything in my life before (I'm in my 30s), and have never been in trouble for anything. Unfortunately he has turned out to be a bit of a loser, and although he is working 3 days a week, he still really has no fixed abode. He stays with his mum sometimes, but mostly stays with his girlfriend.

He does not contribute money to my house in any way.

Why isn't he giving you any money for your daughter?

HappyMJ

notanewuser wrote: »

Why isn't he giving you any money for your daughter?

We've been over this. The guy buys things instead. On 3 days income it's likely to only be £5 a week anyway. A private informal agreement can be to buy stuff instead which appear to be what he is doing.

sunflower_2

BurnleyBob wrote: »

...if he has his own key to the property to let himself in...

he doesnt have his own key OP? does he?

this would not look good IMO

hope it all goes ok x

notanewuser

HappyMJ wrote: »

We've been over this. The guy buys things instead. On 3 days income it's likely to only be £5 a week anyway. A private informal agreement can be to buy stuff instead which appear to be what he is doing.

Sorry - missed that.

Dunroamin

BurnleyBob wrote: »

I agree that an IUC suggests that they believe they have enough to make whatever it is stick. Assuming it's everything to do with the ex and cohabiting then it's best to presume they have evidence accrued from watching the property over a week or two so if he has his own key to the property to let himself in since the split and/or has spent the night there regularly for any period then it's best not to deny it and instead be prepared with extenuating reasons for why he did with the baby was ill and he was extremely concerned or you were ill and he thought you weren't capable of caring for her as competently as when you are healthy.

I'm sure that the OP will be very grateful that you've given her some ready made excuses should she need them.;)

Dunroamin

HappyMJ wrote: »

We've been over this. The guy buys things instead. On 3 days income it's likely to only be £5 a week anyway. A private informal agreement can be to buy stuff instead which appear to be what he is doing.

Three days' income, even on NMW, would lead to regular payments of around £20 per week.

fluffymovie

Unfortunately OP, there is a bit of incorrect information on here imho. I am married to a Fraud Officer (albeit for the council) so hope I can clarify a few things.

Firstly, it's not required for them to tell you up front what they suspect you of. The IUC is your opportunity to explain your side of things for evidence they have. The interviews are conducted in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and you need to be cautioned before you go into things. This is why they don't like to discuss things on the phone.

It's actually for your protection and not, as others have suggested, an infringement of your human rights.

This IUC is not them saying you're guilty of an offence but rather, asking you about some information they have, which might suggest that your circumstances are not the same as you have declared.

As far as I am aware, if your ex has his car insurance linked to your house, this is fraud against the insurance company and so he may want to fess up to them straightaway as DWP may contact the Insurance Company for verification which may get Insurance Investigators involved!

As they say, you have the right to have someone go with you but they are only allowed to be there for moral support and can't actually speak in the interview, other than to confirm their name for the purposes of the tape.

The investigators will put their evidence to you and give you the opportunity to explain it. It's scary and it's not nice but if you have nothing to hide, that will come out.

As for the person who has made the allegation, it's very easy to shout on here about people doing that but if people didn't tell us about fraud, the benefit bill would be much higher and some people would receive monies they were not entitled to.

spacey2012

fluffymovie wrote: »

As they say, you have the right to have someone go with you but they are only allowed to be there for moral support and can't actually speak in the interview, other than to confirm their name for the purposes of the tape.

Incorrect, your lay representative can speak to you at any time they wish to offer you advice during the interview .
If they don't like it, they can end the interview.

fluffymovie

They can speak to you but not answer the questions is what I meant - perhaps I didn't explain myself properly

ampersand

I won't comment on your situation. There have been some sensible, calming and supportive replies and you write as someone who can discern these from others.

I just wanted to offer you good wishes and Well Done for making the CAB appointment. The more you show you have tried to make sense of this, with honest straightforward replies and a paper trail diary, noting all you do, including seeking advice here, the better you will feel, the more transparent your case.

I hope your little girl's health problems recede and that you both thrive.
You will come through this.
It occurs to me they may also be looking at exOH re:his current situ.

Wise advice has been given about ensuring his name is no longer used/linked to you or your address. Mention this to the CAB. Have a checklist of points written down and you will feel more in control.

Very best wishes to you.
#########
I have just read the link given by pmlindyloo - it is very worthwhile. Please do take it on board.
I would have a print-out with you on Monday:
post no.20
http://www.advicenow.org.uk/adviceno...ml,659,FP.html