Interview Under Caution - benefit case

Mr_F_Dorsetty

BBQ141 wrote: »

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.

Then we'll definitely never agree what a fact is, will we now.

BBQ141

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

Then we'll definitely never agree what a fact is, will we now.

Probably not (I will add the caveat I've never been a DWP Officer), but I know how they are trained and it is a national standard.

tomtom256

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

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.

Well I am not you so if I want to presume something I can.

I did read what the OP put, however knowing DWP FIS policy, inviting them in for an IUC if they are not the claimant is very unusual.

They must therefore suspect an offence has been committed by the OP to want to interview them under caution as opposed to them being a witness, hence the request for clarification and they reason given for the IUC.

If one is better informed then one can give informed advice, hence the reason I thought it was an LT case with the OP being the alleged partner as policy states that they be invited to attend an informal interview or asked to provide a S9/MG11 witness statement.

No too far fetched a presumption if you know how FIS operate and their policies.

It is also against policy to offer more than one IUC and the letters are worded to that effect.

We can do the semantics of presumptions and assumptions all night if you like, however I cannot see how that would help the OP.

As for insisting you attend an IUC, the DWP cannot insist you attend an IUC, it is voluntary, unless they have you arrested in which case you will have access to free legal advice during the interview.

BBQ141

I have reread the OP and they mention the interview is with the "LA" which I am now reading as Local Authority. I don't know if council fraud investigators work to the same procedures as the DWP?

tomtom256

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Yes LA's investigators are trained by the DWP to the same standard and all IUC's are conducted in accordance with PACE.

Policy pretty much mirrors theirs, although LA's generally give 3 chances to attend an IUC.

samsmoot

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

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.

Just have to say that your posts are excellent! Informative, encouraging, empathetic and rather amusing. Ta!

Helpneededplease_2

Letter says interview under caution. Never been interviewed before. Never had anything to do with benefits.

Based on the people's experiences I've read, these interviews are used to gather evidence and to pressurise people into admitting something they haven't done because they are driven to it under the stressed environment.

My explanation is valid and simple but I do not want to accidentally incriminate myself for something else so the LA can meet their targets.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts so far

FBaby

Based on the people's experiences I've read, these interviews are used to gather evidence and to pressurise people into admitting something they haven't done because they are driven to it under the stressed environment.

What I have read is that those who had nothing to worry about report that the interview was quick and straight forward, and not stressful as they feared. Those who feel pressurised are those who need to think about what the 'right' response is rather then what the facts are.

My explanation is valid and simple but I do not want to accidentally incriminate myself for something else so the LA can meet their targets.

So there is something there, it is just that YOU think your explanation is valid. Whether it is is up to them.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

BBQ141 wrote: »

I have reread the OP and they mention the interview is with the "LA" which I am now reading as Local Authority. I don't know if council fraud investigators work to the same procedures as the DWP?

It seems to be pretty much exactly the same. I've only had a very quick scan of this web site, but that seems to be the case

http://www.advicenow.org.uk/advicenow-guides/problems-with-benefits/how-to-handle-an-interview-under-caution/

I truly hope the OP is looking at sites such as the link I have posted; information is the ultimate weapon in any situation.