DWP interview under caution

realityprotector

Thanks guys as it stands i have replied saying
I will not be attending this invitation as they
Have given a week to find legal rep and sort
Out time off work. Will wait for further contact

Just one thing if they already have the evidence
As someone has suggested then surlely there is not
Much point in attending! Would it not be better
To wait and let them make there case if indeed they have
One and get disclosure to prepare my defence

nannytone_2

it sounds like you think they may have a case against you?

they only invite you ti an interview under caution once they feel they have evidence of wrong doing.
it is your chance ( before prosecution) to clarify things and put the record straight.


having to attend court would mean the cost of legal representation and time off work.
wouldnt you rather sort it out without the stress of a court appearance?

tomtom256

realityprotector wrote: »

Thanks guys as it stands i have replied saying
I will not be attending this invitation as they
Have given a week to find legal rep and sort
Out time off work. Will wait for further contact

Just one thing if they already have the evidence
As someone has suggested then surlely there is not
Much point in attending! Would it not be better
To wait and let them make there case if indeed they have
One and get disclosure to prepare my defence

Not really, just ask for disclosure and/or what the issue is prior to the IUC. They have to tell you the reason why they want to IUC you by law.

Once the summons hits, the court would not look favourably on you failing to attend an IUC if it would avoid wasting there time and if the evidence shows you have committed an offence the outcome could be worse.

Also if you have done nothing wrong and they do not have a case to asnwer, why waste tax payers money further?

They don't IUC for fun!

wildwestfan

I would have to know what I am being accused of so would attend. Perhaps the OP already has an idea what it is about and therefore is not curious.

spacey2012

A court does not "look favourably" they make the judgement based upon the evidence .
Absolute twaddle, sorry but it is.

It is also never "your chance to explain"
This is simply not the purpose is an interview under caution.
It is to gather evidence favourable to prosecution files.
Anything unfavourable is a matter for defence.
And finally, yes the police do arrest people for benefit fraud offences, again a misnomer.

realityprotector

No i have idea. I have not knowingly done
Anything! Thank you i will indeed ask
Them before attending surely its better to
Be prepared for it rather than going in blind

Morglin

Ask, but I would still attend, to protect any future claims you might make.

Lin

cattermole

I think writing for more time to get advice is the best option, if you have decided not to attend. You are not saying you are not willing to go but that you want to seek advice first and can they please outline exactly what they wish to interview you about.

I would request another appointment rather than "wait to hear further".

I do think people should easily be able to seek legal/representation advice in these situations unfortunately with "cuts" it is getting increasingly difficult and everyone should have equal access to legal representation.

realityprotector

Thanks cattermole thats what am going to do
if i know what the interview is about it can help
me decide wether i need legal rep or if
i can clear it up attending alone. Just dnt
want to be put in a blind situation and saying
The wrong thing or indeed agreeing to something
that i shiuld not. Thank you all for advise

cattermole

spacey2012 wrote: »

A court does not "look favourably" they make the judgement based upon the evidence .
Absolute twaddle, sorry but it is.

It is also never "your chance to explain"
This is simply not the purpose is an interview under caution.
It is to gather evidence favourable to prosecution files.
Anything unfavourable is a matter for defence.
And finally, yes the police do arrest people for benefit fraud offences, again a misnomer.

I agree that a case is decided upon the evidence completely in a court of law.

But I think they do have powers of arrest, what normally happens is from reading they involve the police in carrying this out for back up if required. In other words they use the police to "support their powers of arrest".

http://compass.port.ac.uk/UoP/file/86a74970-f723-4bda-b978-fd9d3849993e/1/Social_security_fraud_IMSLRN.zip/page_06.htm

OP if you do go the route of a letter make sure it is sent Recorded Delivery and you keep the receipt somewhere save and don't loose it! You can check on line with Royal Mail and print off a copy of the delivery and signature.