Interview Under Caution - benefit case

BBQ141

Is the interview with the DWP or a Council or is it a joint investigation?

BBQ141

The quoted link is one example. All DWP Fraud Investigators are trained to a national standard in investigative interviewing as well as planning and execution of said interview and they have to follow a certain format.

The interview is just about gaining answers to questions that have to be answered in order to check the validity of certain claims.

Interviews aren't about trying to trip people up or to scare them into confessing to something they haven't done, it is simply to establish certain facts.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

BBQ141 wrote: »

.......it is simply to establish certain facts.

A 'fact' is actually just someone's perception. There can be a billion different truths about the same fact, there's not just 'A' truth.

BBQ141

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

A 'fact' is actually just someone's perception. There can be a billion different truths about the same fact, there's not just 'A' truth.

Hmm, I prefer to think of a fact as "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

But that aside, they simply want to get some answers to some questions.

dktreesea

Maybe have a read of this:

http://www.edinburghagainstpoverty.org.uk/node/21

My advice is not to go alone. Do you have an equivalent organisation in your neck of the woods? If people have problems with benefits up here, the Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty would be the first port of call, rather than the C.A.B.

tomtom256

Got to love barrack room lawyers.

Does your letter state it's an interview under caution or asking if you would answer some questions?

The two are different.

I presume it's a living together case and that you are the alleged partner of the claimant?

Maybe give out more facts regarding the why's and better advice can be given.

dktreesea

As to the competence of both DWP employees and housing and benefits officers in councils, the quality of their advice can be quite variable. They are not all competent by any means. Most don't seem to even know the law, let alone the correct interpretation of some of the clauses they are relying on.

http://www.name-n-shame.co.uk/benefits_system.html

Mr_F_Dorsetty

tomtom256 wrote: »

Got to love barrack room lawyers.

Does your letter state it's an interview under caution or asking if you would answer some questions?

The two are different.

I presume it's a living together case and that you are the alleged partner of the claimant?

Maybe give out more facts regarding the why's and better advice can be given.

You presume? I wouldn't presume or assume anything if I were you. I'm sure you know the old saying about assume.

Why do you want to know more? None of our business is it. Oh and real silly question btw. Have you read what the OP has said?

So, you love barrack room lawyers do you? How odd. I haven't seen any here but if I do I'll let you know. Is it a hobby of yours?:cool:

Myself, I so love the armchair talking heads who think they are 'all that' and know less than nothing if it is not in the Daily Mail; which means they know less than nothing all told.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

BBQ141 wrote: »

Hmm, I prefer to think of a fact as "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

But that aside, they simply want to get some answers to some questions.

And there is what I said in written proof, how you describe a fact, I don't.

This is not a mathematics equation nor a chemical profile study, this is people interacting; there are no facts, just perceptions.

When you are under caution you'll find there is no such thing as 'some answers to some questions. There is definitely no 'simple'

Have you ever been under caution?

BBQ141

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

When you are under caution you'll find there is no such thing as 'some answers to some questions. There is definitely no 'simple'

Have you ever been under caution?

Yes I have been interviewed under caution. I have also sat on the other side of the table countless times and carried out PACE interviews.