Would you report someone for benefit fraud?

going_nowhere_fast

Mclark wrote: »

Hi there, I received a letter yesterday to go for an interview because they have reason to believe I live with my partner. I have a complicated story and really need some advice as feeling so upset and low.

When I found out I was pregnant with my daughter I also found out that my partner had over £24000 worth of debt that he has not disclosed to me. This broke our relationship apart and I decided that he was too much of a liability to live with as his debts were more than our income.

He moved in with his parents and at that time we were not longer together which was a hard position to be in as a single parent and being pregnant. When our daughter was born she was premature therefor he stated in the house with my son while I was at hospital.

We grew closer together and although he did not move in we started a relationship which has grown from strength to strength. He would come down every morning to help with the kids and also come over after work to see them both and help me with the house etc. this went on from march 2012 - start of May this year when he finally moved back in after I began full time work as a child minder and he had payed a lot of debt due to a second weekend job.

My partners car was always at my home as I used it for my work and for the kids and he did not use it for work as always got the train. I received the letter yesterday and thought it was because I hadn't got round to phoning up the various benefits to inform the
That my partner had
Moved in just shy of 2 weeks ago.

After phoning to ask about the letter they then said they have evidence to believe he has always stayed here. What kind of evidence is this? It was genuine but I have a horrible horrible feeling I'm in huge trouble?

Thanks very much any advice would be much appreciated

I don't think my opinion is going to be very popular here (she cringes) but my gut reaction is if he was at your house every day then he as good as lived there. You were not living the life of a single parent so shouldn't have been claiming benefits as a single parent.

I am single and happily so but hypothetically speaking, if I was in a relationship and he was at my house every day I would either stop claiming tax credits so it that was nobody's business but my own, or I would say to my partner move in and as soon as he did I would inform tax credits of a change in circumstances.

I do think there is a difference between casual dating someone and a partner being at your home every day.

When anybody claims benefits (me included) you are taking tax payer's money so the way you live your life is other people's business and it affects how you live your life.

As a single parent I have met an awful lot who admit to, how can i put this, manipulating the system by having a boyfriend who stays at their house every night but the paper trail says he has his own place or lives with family just so they can continue to claim benefits as a single parent.

Saying that, in this instance there will be no financial link to your address. His parents would say he slept at their house every night. And at the time there was no investigation i.e. no one came round to see if his clothes/possessions were at your house so I don't see how anyone could prove you were living together so expect you'll be fine.

tomterm8

Angelicdevil wrote: »

The role of a juror is to decide, based solely on the facts presented to them, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. What an individual deems to be right or wrong does not come into it! It's not about "conscience" it's about facts.

It is up to the judge to decide the severity of the punishment based on the circumstances.

Rules
Jurors must;
» decide the facts of the case only
» take directions relating to law from the trial judge, whether or not they agree with him/her
» remain impartial and independent
» remain uninfluenced by any person. It is an offence for any person who is not a member of the jury to attempt to influence a juror in any way. If any person speaks to a juror about the case, the juror should inform the court or a member of the Gardai.
» keep statements made in the jury room confidential. Jurors should not discuss the case with any person other than members of the jury. It is contempt of court punishable by fine and or imprisonment to repeat any statements made in the jury room.

The Juries Act, 1976, created the following offences punishable by fines;
» Failing to attend for jury service without reasonable excuse, or not being available when called upon to serve as a juror or being unfit for service by reason of drink or drugs.
» Making or causing to be made on your behalf false representations.
» Serving on a jury knowing you are ineligible or disqualified.
» Giving false or misleading answers to the presiding judge regarding your qualification for jury service.
» Making or causing to be made on behalf of a person summoned as a juror any false representations to enable him or her to evade jury service.

It should be easy for you, then,to give me a single instance where under English law any person has been successfully prosecuted for jury nullification in the last hundred years.

sh1981

SailorSam wrote: »

Not exactly the same but i was on jury duty, some years ago now and one of the cases was an old man for benefit fraud, he'd not declared a private pension of about £10pw. I said not guilty but he was.
This old man didn't have two pennies to rub together, he still lived in the same rented terrace house he was born in, he never had a car, he didn't even have a phone, his life was going to the local for a pint. So he wasn't one of these benefit fraudsters living the life of riley, he believed his small private pension was private . I felt sorry for him.
I tried to compare his fiddling with others who got away with it 'cos he was an easy touch to be caught.
I drove a Cab at the time and one of my fares was our MP taking him to the train going back to London for what he needed a receipt. But he didn't want one receipt he asked for several, and he wanted them left blank ...... (i can't imagine why). I refused, i'd only give him a receipt for the fare, so he told our taxi office not to send me again he wanted one of the other drivers.
Ok the old man may have claimed to much benefit, he was wrong doing so but i compared him to people like the highly paid MP who wanted more.

What this guy said is exactly what I think. People who report others usually do so out of jealousy or they got nothing better to do, which in my HUMBLE OPINION, is what the OP is doing. If they are parents and they are raising their children and need a little extra its fine just leave them alone its not much anyway that they'd be getting.

sh1981

Angelicdevil wrote: »

The role of a juror is to decide, based solely on the facts presented to them, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. What an individual deems to be right or wrong does not come into it! It's not about "conscience" it's about facts.

It is up to the judge to decide the severity of the punishment based on the circumstances.

Rules
Jurors must;
» decide the facts of the case only
» take directions relating to law from the trial judge, whether or not they agree with him/her
» remain impartial and independent
» remain uninfluenced by any person. It is an offence for any person who is not a member of the jury to attempt to influence a juror in any way. If any person speaks to a juror about the case, the juror should inform the court or a member of the Gardai.
» keep statements made in the jury room confidential. Jurors should not discuss the case with any person other than members of the jury. It is contempt of court punishable by fine and or imprisonment to repeat any statements made in the jury room.

The Juries Act, 1976, created the following offences punishable by fines;
» Failing to attend for jury service without reasonable excuse, or not being available when called upon to serve as a juror or being unfit for service by reason of drink or drugs.
» Making or causing to be made on your behalf false representations.
» Serving on a jury knowing you are ineligible or disqualified.
» Giving false or misleading answers to the presiding judge regarding your qualification for jury service.
» Making or causing to be made on behalf of a person summoned as a juror any false representations to enable him or her to evade jury service.

WRONG. You seem to be saying the juror should be making a set decision. It doesnt work that way, you can decide what you want you get to be the judge in a way.

Viberduo

As far as the benefits people and the government are concerned is that you should be living as basic a life as possible on benefits and anything above that is suspicious and just playing the system.

If they had their own way people on benefits would have zero contact with the outside world incase it "taints" them or if they as much as smile at another person they are dating them just so they have a excuse to cut benefits as they see public money as coming out of their own back pocket despite the rich having loopholes about paying stuff and paying less tax than others they think they have more say!

Indie_Kid

sh1981 wrote: »

If they are parents and they are raising their children and need a little extra its fine just leave them alone its not much anyway that they'd be getting.

I disagree. If the partner is working and the mother is claiming to be a single parent, she'll get quite a bit in benefits. Hardly a "little extra". Especially if the partner has a large income.

It's not as if it's £10 here and there.

Sniggle_2

My partner wanted to report someone anonomously, but when he enquired he was told that it is only anonymous until (or if) it goes to court. If that should happen your identity would be revealed. Is this the case?

Indie_Kid

Sniggle wrote: »

My partner wanted to report someone anonomously, but when he enquired he was told that it is only anonymous until (or if) it goes to court. If that should happen your identity would be revealed. Is this the case?

I doubt it. I seem to remember that you don't have to give your name.

BillJones

sh1981 wrote: »

What this guy said is exactly what I think. People who report others usually do so out of jealousy or they got nothing better to do, which in my HUMBLE OPINION, is what the OP is doing. If they are parents and they are raising their children and need a little extra its fine just leave them alone its not much anyway that they'd be getting.

Well what you think is clearly wrong. Many of us believe that fraud, stealing, and cheating is simply wrong, and should be reported, and stopped.

I do understand that morals like yours are not as rare as would be hoped, but please don't expect people who know right from wrong to look the other way when we see it.

tomterm8

sh1981 wrote: »

What this guy said is exactly what I think. People who report others usually do so out of jealousy or they got nothing better to do, which in my HUMBLE OPINION, is what the OP is doing. If they are parents and they are raising their children and need a little extra its fine just leave them alone its not much anyway that they'd be getting.

It's not what I think, personally. I agree in principal with Jury nullification but if this man knew what he was doing was wrong there's only one just answer to the case. Just IMHO.