Interview Under Caution - benefit case

Helpneededplease_2

Hi,

I have been asked to attend an interview under caution regarding a benefit claim. I am not the claimant but I am linked to them.

I have already postponed the interview twice due to unavailability on the dates given. I am struggling to get legal representation for the new date set and wish to postpone it again until I do get some.

I am more than happy to co-operate with the LA but I was strongly advised to obtain legal advice before I go.

I was wondering if they were to postpone again, would they look unfavourably on the case?

Many thanks

Lioness_Twinkletoes

Three postponements does look somewhat fishy. It may make the investigators dig a little deeper, but assuming you, and the accused, are innocent and/or otherwise co-operating then it shouldn't be a problem.

pmlindyloo

I know you haven't given any details (and may not want to) but who advised you to get legal representation?

Are you attending as a witness or are you under caution as well as the claimant?

spacey2012

There is no favour to look upon.
There is evidence or no evidence.
Nobody looks "favourably" on anything, this is a silly MSE buzzword.
The only concession you may get is an early guilty plea can be used to request mitigation of circumstance at court in sentencing.
In my opinion this rarely works and they tend to throw the book at the ones they do catch to make up for the other two thirds that they do not.

At present you have been invited to attend and voluntary provide information which may be of use in a prosecution.

You will have to pay for Legal advice, if they have you arrested you get it free.

Helpneededplease_2

I am attending an interview under caution according to the letter. It says that they would like to ask me a few questions.

I don't feel fully prepared as I have heard that these interviews can be quite intense and could be used to manipulate situations that do not exist which is why legal advice was suggested.

Thanks

rogerblack

Helpneededplease wrote: »

I am attending an interview under caution according to the letter. It says that they would like to ask me a few questions.

I don't feel fully prepared as I have heard that these interviews can be quite intense and could be used to manipulate situations that do not exist which is why legal advice was suggested.

If the likely reason for the IUC was known - more advice can be given.
Is this likely to be a suspicion that you were living together without reporting it to the authorities?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fraud-investigations-staff-guide

See page 626 - 'Living together investigations'.

In short.
For many DWP benefits, your household income of a partner is counted.
In order for someone to be counted in this way - they have to be:
A) Living together
in a relationship that is more than friendship.

If both of these do not apply, you are not 'living together as husband and wife (or civil partners).

It is not against the rules to have financial ties to someone.
It is only against the rules to be LTAHAW - and both A and B above have to be true.

'A' will involve things like can you prove you had a home elsewhere that you were occupying. Where did your post go.

'B' involves things like was there an enduring relationship - was there an expectation of sexual fidelity - did you represent yourself as a couple to the outside world.

cattie

Helpneededplease wrote: »

I am attending an interview under caution according to the letter. It says that they would like to ask me a few questions.

I don't feel fully prepared as I have heard that these interviews can be quite intense and could be used to manipulate situations that do not exist which is why legal advice was suggested.

Thanks

The interviews are not intense, all the interviewers are seeking is the truth & as long as that is told, nobody has anything to fear. The truth cannot be manipulated, especially when the whole interview is being recorded.

The only danger comes from lies, which cannot be substantiated or, in some cases, even fully remembered. Hence why it is always best to stick to nothing but the truth.

rogerblack

cattie wrote: »

The interviews are not intense, all the interviewers are seeking is the truth & as long as that is told, nobody has anything to fear. The truth cannot be manipulated, especially when the whole interview is being recorded.

The only danger comes from lies, which cannot be substantiated or, in some cases, even fully remembered. Hence why it is always best to stick to nothing but the truth.

Err - no.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/2737/#13472 as one extreme example.

The problem for the honest claimant is not lies.
The problem is not understanding the legal framework surrounding what they are accused of doing. And the interviewer either being sloppy, and not properly explaining the nuances of the law that may mean the claimant is innocent - or intentionally leaving these out.

People are likely to agree to cautions in many cases if presented with 'damning' evidence of:
A) Bank statements showing balances exceeding maximum capital limits, and told 'You have this money - accept a caution, agree to repay the benefit, or we will prosecute'.
Being given a long list of proof someone lives at your address and then being told 'This is proof you are living together, agree to repay the benefit and accept a caution or we will prosecute'.
C) Being told 'we have the marriage licence, therefore you were committing an offence by not reporting them as your partner on your benefit claim, accept a cauti...
D) 'You were obliged to report change of circumstances...'

The problems:
A) Money only counts as capital if you are the beneficial owner - not simply if you have control of it. Money held for others may not count.
It is also required that there is some relationship beyond friendship - for want of a better term 'romantic'.
C) It is required that the person also lives with you or has at some time in the past - simply being married - even with children - does not count.
D) Only changes of circumstances that you have been informed explicitly of - or that a reasonable person would understand they needed to report.

Do many of these problems go away if the person doing the interview properly understands the law, and represents it to the claimant - and the claimant properly understands what they are being asked - yes.

FBaby

The problem is not understanding the legal framework surrounding what they are accused of doing.

And why would you need to know it unless you were trying to manipulate the system with the response? They ask questions, you answer honestly, don't need to know why these questions are asked if you've done everything by the book.

Mr_Lawnmower

FBaby wrote: »

And why would you need to know it unless you were trying to manipulate the system with the response? They ask questions, you answer honestly, don't need to know why these questions are asked if you've done everything by the book.

The problem is as rogerblack says - you might make commitments or give undertakings based on a mistaken or misleading interpretation given by the interviewer. People who have not done anything wrong might feel pressured by the situation into doing something they regret.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

1st– Have you read the DWP site about “Under caution interview” - if not, why not? Does your letter explain why they want to talk to you? It should. If it doesn't, get the CAB or someone similar to ring them – Not you, just in case you open your mouth by accident.

2nd– If this is not directly your benefit money, I can't see anywhere on the DWP information about 'under caution interview' where they have the power to caution you on someone else's benefit issues. Myself I’d get a solicitor to question it's validity at all.


3rd– Do keep communication open with the DWP, tell them what is happening as regards to your solicitor.


Even the DWP site says you should have an appropriate person or a solicitor present for the interview, so I doubt they'll go against their own advice. As for you personally they don't care at a personal level, you're just another case number.

4thI've personally always had the same rule for myself.

If the police or anyone else want to have a 'nice cosy little chat' at any point about anything which is legal or verging on the legal, then I say nothing without my solicitor present.

It is a reality that most people get 'done' by the police because they answer questions and dig themselves holes where none need exist.

"Under caution" means that you could end up nailed to a wall, so forget all this "Well if you're truthful...' stuff on here, that's really not the point.

Law comes imo in two very distinct forms; Spirit & Letter.

Those in authority want you to believe that law means "Spirit of..." and that you'll therefore drop yourself in it because it is morally correct to be a good little citizen and do as you're told.

Whereas they, police etc etc, know full well that all law is to the Letter. But it is perfectly legal to let you screw yourself up if you're silly enough to.

What they think they might know and what they can prove are two wholly different things and it is not your place to help them. If they have something they wish to prove, let them prove it.

So my advice is get yourself a solicitor.

However if they insist in seeing you without one, which they can, if this interview turns out to be legal which presently I personally doubt, then turn up but say nothing other than this:


You'll first get the standard police caution before they start talking. They should then tell you what they want or what they think. if they do not but start on asking you questions they you say:


What do you want? Make them outline their case of what they think they know.

Then say

" For the record I have been forced here without my solicitor. I have no comment to make.

Further to that, no comment is my answer to any question you pose should you proceed with this interview in the full knowledge that I want my solicitor present before I answer any questions"


Nothing else. You'll find the door opens very quickly. It should be taped, insist on a copy before you leave. If it is not recorded for some reason then insist on an immediate affidavit by the person talking to you of what has been said and transpired. Insist this is witnessed by someone in their offices as you watch them do it. They may not give you either but it worth rattling their cage and trying.

If you do not attend when they insist they will probably try to stop whomever benefits they are until they (DWP) are happy it is sorted out.



That is better surely than an unexpected trip to court and a criminal record because you couldn't stay quiet until your solicitor was there?


Some people won't like this post and will start huffing and puffing... whatever, knock yourself out.

But shall we say unlike 'Mr Upright of Croydon' I've lead a very colourful life on all the continents of the world and myself I have never been arrested for anything, at any time or anywhere. But there again, Old Ma Dorsetty didn't raise any of her kids silly enough to talk to anyone without their solicitor present.