Benefit Investigation

HB58

Surely an ISA should only be contributed to by a taxpayer? Is it likely that someone over the tax threshold would qualify for income related ESA?

rogerblack

FBaby wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what a joint account is. It means that all the money in it belongs to both. It means either can withdraw all of it.

No, it does not.
There may be an implication of that in most cases.
But there are many circumstances in which this is not the case.

Just because you can get the bank to give you money from the account on your signature does not make it legally yours.

A most obvious example of this would be a business account where you are not the sole owner - you can't simply take the money legally - though the bank will let you.

Another would be trustees.

publicsectorworker

rogerblack wrote: »

Because guilty people hide things!
It makes it _WAY_ easier to investigate if you have two documents, one of which the claimant has amended on the assumption you only have their document.

It also means that they can assess if likelihood of criminal intent at benefit fraud was there.

If it wasn't - then yes - simply repaying the overpayment is a possibility.

If it was - then a prosecution for benefit fraud may be triggered.

You have not quite answered the earlier point.

Was the money placed into the account by the second person intended to remain the property of that second person.

If it was not - then it counts fully as capital.
If it was - it may be disregarded.
(In principle, if this fact is accepted by the DWP/LA)

The second persons money added was there own and as far as i know was still intended to be theres. but anyway as its been picked up on the account they are accepting it has to be treated as claimants and counted towards capital. this has not been disputed but it sounds like if it was it might reduce most of the overpayment.

publicsectorworker

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

So how is the other person related to the claimant - you still have not answered this? And how did this other person choose the claimant to open a joint bank account with?

They are not in a relationship. they didnt choose the person to open an account with they were helping a family member with a joint acc due to no credit history. right or wrong thats all.

publicsectorworker

Morglin wrote: »

Nobody's credit score will be bought into it, but the DWP need to establish exactly what savings the claimant has, and what exactly has been overpaid.

So, take all the paperwork relating to all and any accounts connected to the claimant, and she needs to tell them the truth.

If she is saying that some of this money is not hers, then she will need to prove it, and they may wish to interview the other party involved. If she isn't in a partnership, and has this joint account with a friend, then there must be records of whose is what.

Low credit scoring is irrelevant - basic bank accounts can be opened by anyone, without a credit check.

Because she has misled them, they will now want proof of everything.
Lin

I dont know the reasons why the accs were set up etc just whats happened and is ongoing. they are excepting there is some to pay back and worked this out on it all being claimants money. if claimant says its all theres and will pay will they get overpayment + fine and thats it. its the first time anything has been investigated.

publicsectorworker

FBaby wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what a joint account is. It means that all the money in it belongs to both. It means either can withdraw all of it. From a benefit perspective, if that person had access to all what was on the account (which they would as per the rules of a joint account), then it all belonged to them. Trying to hide transactions that they didn't make is hiding some of that's person access to funds, which could potentially be considered benefit fraud.

i know that and so do they. the edited transactions dont reduce the balance because they are the second persons in and out so the full statements dont have higher balance and as the claimant is excepting overpaymant as its there own money theres no gain to be had from the edit just privacy for second person

publicsectorworker

HB58 wrote: »

Surely an ISA should only be contributed to by a taxpayer? Is it likely that someone over the tax threshold would qualify for income related ESA?

isas are savings acc where tax isnt paid. you can save benefits in them if you want and any interest will be tax free. not that thats what is happening here.

[Deleted User]

HB58 wrote: »

Surely an ISA should only be contributed to by a taxpayer? Is it likely that someone over the tax threshold would qualify for income related ESA?

the thing is ISAs often pay higher interest particularly if you move them around each year to get bonus rates,i havent paid tax for 16 years but have an isa

tomtom256

publicsectorworker wrote: »

claimant is single no relationship. Joint acc is not isa an is for low credit score reasons. No hb or ct is claimed. Excepted that overpayment has happened and wants to pay back. None claimant doesn't want there credit score or details brought into it as they are not claiming. Why ask for statements if they just get them anyway. Two accounts involved one isa one joint not isa.

Why not just open a basic account that has no credit scoring attached, most banks, the post office etc offer these.

They ask for statements as it's fairer and owing to the onus of proof. If they had provided them with no redaction, the matter would have been sorted, however they have tried to hide outgoings/deposits from the account, hence why FIS would have obtained there own copies.

They would have also checked if any other accounts exised that had been ommitted by accident.

As to the relationship and th fact that they are not claiming is relevant, as there may sufficient evidence to suggest living together etc from the statements and other possible evidence obtained.

Pippin12

There's a very real possibility that this will end up in court and your friend will be fined and have to pay the money back. 'Editing' the bank statements was a very bad move as it looks like they're still involved in attempts to deceive the DWP - whether rightly or wrongly. The best advice is just to come clean and tell the truth about EVERYTHING, give accurate copies of all bank statemnts and hope their co operation leads to some leniency (that's a long shot though).