In A Real Mess....Benefit Fraud

missapril75

dktreesea wrote: »

The interviewer clearly doesn't know the law. What consideration did you offer for the money? Certainly not your labour. A gift is a gift, whenever it occurs and doesn't form part of your income for the purposes of assessing benefit. I can't believe the interviewer didn't actually know this. If they genuinely didn't then they should be sanctioned by their work place for incompetence. They are meant to know it.

This was an IUC. Generally that would be conducted by Fraud staff not benefit staff.

As we all know, benefits are complicated and ever changing. Investigations staff don't normally need to keep up on the intricacies and ins and outs because they don't process such things. Theirs is a different job.

It's actually quite a logical conclusion that a gift is something occasional or at least is only regular in terms of birthdays and xmas.

Three times a month, the same three amounts each month and every month doesn't look like a gift.

That it still falls to be disregarded is something technical and not necessarily part of their job.

The biggest criticism they should face is venturing an opinion on the matter.

But, of course, none of us knows just what was said.

Remember that none of this was declared. They have discovered three fixed payments making up £195 every month, regular as clockwork.

One assumes this was discovered by accessng bank records inthe way that has been mentioned on this forum often. The source of this apparent income would not be identified.

It needed investigating. It's now been investigated and when the information is passed to those who would be assessing benefits, the result should be no change in benefit entitlement.

If DWP is aware of an investigation by HB fraud staff on a different matter one can see how this might look.

dippy3103

jlawrence wrote: »

18 months trying to start up a business from nothing but claiming unemployment benefit/Council Tax Benefit/Income Support as well. Did advise every time I signed on that I was doing the day here and there and that after expenses was making just a few pounds a week at best. Found to be working full time (80% of my time was looking for business) by the DWP. Home was searched and records indicated that earnings were more than what I admitted to. Pleaded guilty, case was sent to Crown for sentencing. Received 6 months + 2 years probation plus had to repay the £12000 of benefits.
Later found out that the DWP had wrongly calculated the income - they calculated gross income, should have been net. Accounts sent to HMRC and agreed actually showed a loss for the period in question

All of that surprises me greatly....

ceecee1

dippy3103 wrote: »

All of that surprises me greatly....

Surprises me greatly too as the overpayment amount is under the threshold for a prison sentence.

BillJones

jlawrence wrote: »

18 months trying to start up a business from nothing but claiming unemployment benefit/Council Tax Benefit/Income Support as well. Did advise every time I signed on that I was doing the day here and there and that after expenses was making just a few pounds a week at best. Found to be working full time (80% of my time was looking for business) by the DWP.

Which would seem to be right. Most of many salespeople's time is "looking for business", and is still counted as time working.

NYM

jlawrence wrote: »

18 months trying to start up a business from nothing but claiming unemployment benefit/Council Tax Benefit/Income Support as well. Did advise every time I signed on that I was doing the day here and there and that after expenses was making just a few pounds a week at best. Found to be working full time (80% of my time was looking for business) by the DWP. Home was searched and records indicated that earnings were more than what I admitted to. Pleaded guilty, case was sent to Crown for sentencing. Received 6 months + 2 years probation plus had to repay the £12000 of benefits.
Later found out that the DWP had wrongly calculated the income - they calculated gross income, should have been net. Accounts sent to HMRC and agreed actually showed a loss for the period in question

Some weeks before the hearing, you would have been provided with copies of all the paperwork that the DWP relied upon when prosecuting you. You therefore had ample opportunity to refute their figures, especially given that HMRC agreed your accounts.

There must be more to this ...

jlawrence

NYM wrote: »

Some weeks before the hearing, you would have been provided with copies of all the paperwork that the DWP relied upon when prosecuting you. You therefore had ample opportunity to refute their figures, especially given that HMRC agreed your accounts.

There must be more to this ...

Thanks NYM, yes I received the Regina V ..... stuff all 1" of it. At that time I assumed that the law was as the DWP had said - they take into account gross earnings, so why would I think anything different? It was only when I came out of prison and after submitting my accounts that I became aware that the DWP were wrong. I asked the DWP, in fact I appealed against the overpayment to the Tribunal to change the records. Eventually the Tribunal ruled that based on the HMRC agreed accounts, which showed a loss for the period in question, that there was no overpayment. I had the £12000 or so reduced to nil, but couldn't get the £1098 that the court ordered me to pay back. The DWP blamed me for pleading guilty and as such nothing more could be done. Pointing out to them that they were the ones that caused me to plead guilty didn't change a thing. So for these many years since I have a criminal record for something that the DWP now accept was never criminal.

jlawrence

BillJones wrote: »

Which would seem to be right. Most of many salespeople's time is "looking for business", and is still counted as time working.

Thanks Bill. That was never the problem, the DWP were told by me exactly what I was doing and when. The problem was that I regularly told the DWP (when signing) that I was earning very little if nothing each week. Records showed a gross figure to be well in excess of what I had disclosed, hence the prosecution.

jlawrence

ceecee1 wrote: »

Surprises me greatly too as the overpayment amount is under the threshold for a prison sentence.

Thanks ceecee, maybe it is now, but then it wasn't. I wasn't charged with working and not notifying, I was charged under the Theft Act - Deception and submitting false information to the DWP. Each charge carried a 10 year max sentence, no matter what the amount was. It wasn't the DWP that prosecuted - they brought in the police who did everything.

cbrown372

Hi JL aka A&F (andyandflo for those who haven't guessed yet) which website did you get this fairy tale from or have you been watching too much Jeremy Kyle?

As an ex tax inspector I would have thought you would have known better how to fill in a tax return but hey oh it's just another day in the life of a troll :beer:

dippy3103

jlawrence wrote: »

Thanks ceecee, maybe it is now, but then it wasn't. I wasn't charged with working and not notifying, I was charged under the Theft Act - Deception and submitting false information to the DWP. Each charge carried a 10 year max sentence, no matter what the amount was. It wasn't the DWP that prosecuted - they brought in the police who did everything.

Why would the police take that on when the DWP have their own fraud team & solicitors units?