Interview Under Caution for Benefit Fraud investigation

mazza111

Agree with Poppie. All you can do is go and tell the truth. He would need to be staying there for them to bring any charges. They would need to have proof if they bring any charges.

As for ktate. You just have to read their other posts to see that there's a big difference. I have no idea why people need to make things like this up to scare other users.

ilikewatch

Hi,

I know that this reply echoes a lot of what has already been said, although I have never worked for DWP investigations I have worked alongside them in the past, and so have a little knowledge about how they work.

Firstly, if you had continued to live with a partner as husband and wife, had done this deliberately, this could be proved in court, and you were convicted. I would be extremely surprised (given your circumstances) if your punishment amounted to anything more than a community order or suspended sentence plus an order to repay the overpayment. From what you've said this isn't the case, and could not be proved to be the case.

Personally, I suspect there are 3 possible reasons that you have been invited to attend an IUC:

• Someone has reported that you're living with your ex partner - I think this is the least likely option. if it is the case, then the person who has reported you is almost certainly connected with you (probably either a "friend", or your ex's new partner). Under interview it will be simple to explain the actual situation as you have done in your posts - a huge amount of benefit fraud reported by third parties has been reported maliciously or vexatiously and DWP investigators are well aware of this.
• A DWP data trawl or cross matching excercise has identified that a) your ex-partner is still appearing at your address in credit reference agency reports. b) your ex partner is still listed at your address for voting/council tax purposes. Again, under interview it will be simple to explain the actual situation as you have done in your posts. Once you have attended the IUC you should lose absolutely no time in ensuring that his name is removed from any official databases as being connected in any way with your address.
• A DWP data trawl has identified unexplained regular payments into your bank account - if these are regular they may still be counted as undeclared income, however, you were not aware that this should have been declared and so it should be looked upon as an omission, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Remember, DWP investigators are not monsters - their job is to protect the public purse and identify fraud and error, not to hound and prosecute people who may have made an innocent mistake. From what you've said I would attend your IUC and explain everything as you have done in your posts in this forum.

JulieElizabeth

Well said ampersand, I only wish you could go with her

ampersand

OP - I have just been looking on Royal Mail's site for advice on mail re-direction for someone non-resident at your address.
This is the umbrella area for this:
http://www.royalmail.com/search/google_cse_adv/can%20i%20redirect%20someone%20else%27s%20mail

I then went here:
http://www.royalmail.com/node/19350096

You can always return such post with : NOT KNOWN AT THIS ADDRESS, having advised OH accordingly. The onus is on him, or the DWP whose access to information will outdistance your own.

###########

Thankyou JulieElizabeth - have done similar, still do at times.
Excellent reassurance, ilikewatch.

ktate

im sorry you think that way i said it started off at £4000 then thay backdated it it was incapacity benifit i worked for five hours a week but didnt ring the dwp has i wasnt been paid cash i was on there books the rest is very very true has for legal aid you might struggle with the new rules i was in the magistrates court in birmingham last week to answer to the confiscation order not nice but very true it wasnt about what i did or how much it was about the system and what happens iv no reason to lie and please no more bashing

hunters

yeah yeah and your name is not Andy

skintandscared_2

ktate wrote: »

im sorry you think that way i said it started off at £4000 then thay backdated it it was incapacity benifit i worked for five hours a week but didnt ring the dwp has i wasnt been paid cash i was on there books the rest is very very true has for legal aid you might struggle with the new rules i was in the magistrates court in birmingham last week to answer to the confiscation order not nice but very true it wasnt about what i did or how much it was about the system and what happens iv no reason to lie and please no more bashing

erm, so actually your case (whether it's true or not) is completely different to the OP's so completely irrelevant to her circumstances anyway? Why would you scaremonger her when she's already in such a panic?

ktate

i wasnt scarmongering far from it she asked about an interview under caution iv been there and i wish someone had given me some info before i went but please think what you want

ampersand

ktate-Perhaps you could start another Thread re:your own misfortune.

We really want to give sound positive help to OP before Monday. She is frightened enough already and no 2 cases are alike.

skintandscared_2

ktate wrote: »

i wasnt scarmongering far from it she asked about an interview under caution iv been there and i wish someone had given me some info before i went but please think what you want

Yes, but an interview for completely different circumstances. The OP hasn't been working "on the side" and it sounds like she has a strong case to deny any wrongdoing. You are just causing unnecessary panic. I am very sorry for your situation and I really hope you don't have to go back to prison but scaring someone in a totally different situation is not very nice.