Benefit fraud interview under caution

Mclark_2

Yes he has at insurance with me on as a second driver for my
Business insurance! Why did I have to be so stupid in thinking this was all ok!!

FBaby

Why didn't you just claim as a couple the moment you decided he was coming back into your life?

Mclark_2

Because although we were giving our relationship another shot I did not know if he would make the steps I needed him to make (growing up and taking responsibility for his actions) I did not want him moving into my home until I knew he would be a responsible parent. My children mean the world to me and I did not want him moving in on a happy whim to then move out again if the relationship failed

tinkerbell28

Mclark wrote: »

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

Mclark wrote: »

Yes he has at insurance with me on as a second driver for my
Business insurance! Why did I have to be so stupid in thinking this was all ok!!

Wait what? You are the SECOND driver? So you're not first the named driver on his car and the actual motor insurance.

If anything you've just admitted insurance fraud it's called fronting and is illegal.

Even if it his car/policy by what you've just said you should be the main driver, not the second driver. You use the car for business/kids, it's always at your disposal as he uses public transport. Your car insurance will be invalid, as will your business insurance if you're driving kids around in a technically uninsured vehicle.

So they may well notify the govt agencies responsible for regulation when you admit that one. I would get legal advice as if that's the case then, as it could be costly for your business. Not only the benefits business but if it comes out you're running a childminding business on invalid policies...

No legally standing car insurance, means no business insurance for driving children around and it could be massively costly to you, if you get fined for that as well when it all unravels.

Happychappy

Mclark wrote: »

So what can I do as evidence/proof to support myself?

Hopefully they have Survellience evidence and you will be able to sit down and watch telly with them

silvercar

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Wait what? You are the SECOND driver? So you're not first the named driver on his car and the actual motor insurance.

If anything you've just admitted insurance fraud it's called fronting and is illegal.

Even if it his car/policy by what you've just said you should be the main driver, not the second driver. You use the car for business/kids, it's always at your disposal as he uses public transport. Your car insurance will be invalid, as will your business insurance if you're driving kids around in a technically uninsured vehicle.

So they may well notify the govt agencies responsible for regulation when you admit that one. I would get legal advice as if that's the case then, as it could be costly for your business. Not only the benefits business but if it comes out you're running a childminding business on invalid policies...

No legally standing car insurance, means no business insurance for driving children around and it could be massively costly to you, if you get fined for that as well when it all unravels.

Not necessarily. It is not clear cut. He could use it evenings and weekends and for long trips. You can't just say who makes the most trips or who has the highest mileage or who is it available to most.

tinkerbell28

silvercar wrote: »

Not necessarily. It is not clear cut. He could use it evenings and weekends and for long trips. You can't just say who makes the most trips or who has the highest mileage or who is it available to most.

I'd say it was. Op's defence for his car being there WRT to benefit fraud. Is that his car was always at her house, for her use and her job. It doesn't mean he was at the house. He left it there for her use and he got public transport. So his car being there is not evidence of him being at the house.

So by saying that, it actually just drops her in it for insurance fraud. In effect what op is saying, it's her car to use in all but name, he left it there and came and went, he didn't use it as it was ALWAYS at her house.

She then used it for her business. That's fronting if she is not listed as the main driver. So by trying to defend one thing, she's actually admitting insurance fraud. So that's why I highlighted it, as she needs to tread carefully. As if they decide to start digging into that, it could cause massive problems.

For insurance where transporting children is necessary, then it's 100% conditional on being insured to drive the actual vehicle you are transporting them in. (I have to do this sometimes).

So if op is the main user of the vehicle and she makes it sounds like she is, she should be the main driver, or all her insurances are invalid, so god help her if there is an accident and people sue.

So op NEEDS to make it clear cut. Especially where childminding is concerned.

silvercar

If he used it in the evening, took long trips with it when on leave and/or at the weekend, then insurer may consider him to be main driver. In my experience, insurers decisions are often weighted by other things, like what other cars are available to each driver, where it is stored overnight and who would yield the more expensive cost etc

brianposter

I have started a thread about getting PAYG records on the mobiles board.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4974126

tinkerbell28

silvercar wrote: »

If he used it in the evening, took long trips with it when on leave and/or at the weekend, then insurer may consider him to be main driver. In my experience, insurers decisions are often weighted by other things, like what other cars are available to each driver, where it is stored overnight and who would yield the more expensive cost etc

Indeed and have you actually read op's posts properly?

It was stored at HER house, not his. They've only just started living together remember. She used it for the kids/work and it was ALWAYS at her house. Despite him not being there all the time, as he didn't live there. So the car parked outside...is not him coming and going when the DWP ask, it was ALWAYS there despite him not living there...as he left it there for her to use.

He used public transport, so she could have the car. So it wasn't a spare run a round...he left his car at hers and used public transport for the commute so op could use it for her work.

100% fronting and I stand by that.

So op does need to start being a hell of a lot clearer, as yes she's already muddied the water with the benefits, if they are doing it with the car insurance too, then it could land her in even more trouble and more importantly in her job, barring her from able to get insurance again.

It's an off topic so I won't say any more on it, as I don't think you've actually read all her posts properly. I think she also needs to consider this as a potential problem when she goes for interview, as they will latch onto it.