Housing benefit interview under caution

merlin68

Surely the fraud team arent going to believe that she didnt know that she owned a house, that really is far fetched. The solicitor would have explained it all.

GirlFromMars_2

Poppie68 wrote: »

I have no idea how the process of adding names to property Deeds works but I would imagine it involves the new addition to sign paperwork and maybe a solicitor being present and finances questioned, which in turn would lead to the subject of hb????

I can see how someone could sign a title transfer deed and really not realise the significance. It's literally a 2 page piece of paper with a place on the second page for you to sign and a witness to sign. The witness doesn't need to be anybody special.

The first deed transfer I did was witnessed by my flatmate at Uni before we headed out to lectures. No money was changing hands, so signing a piece of paper was literally all that was required.

The second was in my friend's car when she drove me back from the cinema. Ok, so money was changing hands in this instance, but I didn't have a solicitor and it could still have been a completely forgettable piece of paper.

The third time I had to sign deeds was when I was buying my current flat. This involved solicitors and money and everything, but again actually signing the deed was a completely common place occurrence. My friend & I were out for coffee with her kids at the play local soft play place. We signed a random bit of paper then played with the kids for an hour or two.

I think the point is the legal language "being added to the title deed" doesn't really convey the importance of becoming the owner of a home. And the actual transaction "signing a random piece of paper" doesn't really register as a transaction in the same way that using your credit card to buy a new computer would register. And it's nowhere close to feeling as significant as buying something on credit & having to sign a credit agreement.

So yes, I can completely see how someone could sign this kind of document without realising. Not that that does much good now, and I'm sure the OP will be facing serious consequences, but hopefully there's some distinction between a really stupid oversight and deliberately trying to defraud.

Cheeky_Monkey

Little point in continuing this thread - I think the OP has gone, having not posted since page 3.

Probably because they, along with everyone else living in the real world, now realise that they are completely screwed :eek:

sh0597

They are only screwed for the money. Not fraud. I don't think people know what they are posting about.

nannytone_2

no one has said that the OP is committing fraud.
but given the amount, the time scale and the repeated claim forms that have been signed declaring that they own no property... i think they may have a hard time convincing HB of that fact.
girl from mars ... i do understand what you are saying, but when you are claiming benefit you HAVE to understand the implications of everything you do

GirlFromMars_2

nannytone wrote: »

.
...

girl from mars ... i do understand what you are saying, but when you are claiming benefit you HAVE to understand the implications of everything you do

Oh, I get that! When my ESA & DLA went up I phoned the LA to let them know.

Their response: You don't need to tell us about changes that don't affect your Housing Benefit entitlement.

Mine: Um, with respect I don't think it's up to me to decide what may or may not affect my benefit, so I will tell you about all changes.

I understand from a Benefit point of view the OP should have known and should have informed, but I can see how they may not have realised! Especially given they would have continued to get HB if they'd not signed the papers.

And if they had known what they were doing I cannot see that they would have done it, as it doesn't appear to benefit anybody.

FBaby

My gut feeling is telling me that OP has been manipulated by the brother who had issues with his wife, and saw putting his sibling on the deeds as a way to make sure the wife couldn't get a hand on it if divorcing. I expect OP knew that things were not right, but brother convinced her that as long as they didn't pick up on it, and that they wouldn't, they would be fine. Desperate to keep the house if brother and wife divorced, they went with it thinking that the whole thing made no difference to them, they were not better off financially.

As to what will happen, no one can tell because no one knows the true story. All can depend on it, how desperate they are to prosecute and the skills of the sollicitor.

tomtom256

sh0597 wrote: »

They are only screwed for the money. Not fraud. I don't think people know what they are posting about.

Of course they are screwed for the fraud.

Two reviews and no mention of being put on land registry as the joint owner.

Straight forward change of circumstances offence. It's a no brainer.

Could also do them for two false review forms, but not as straight forward.

Chang of circs will be prosecutable.

SnooksNJ

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Us Housing Benefit Officers have telepathic powers don't we to know when someone's name has been added to a title register.

You have been visited twice and twice you have deliberately failed to advice the visiting officers of a relevant change. You also deliberately failed to notify the Housing Benefit Department you had become a homeowner rather than a tenant.

Somebody has told the Housing Benefit Department that you are committing fraud. They have checked the Land Register and discovered for 4 years you have fraudulently been receiving Housing Benefit.

You have nobody to blame but yourself.

My advice would be to get a good solicitor in the hope you avoid a prison sentence if you are prosecuted for your fraud.

There will be 4 years overpayment as you have no entitlement to Housing Benefit from the date you name was placed on the deeds. You will need to know if they will slap you with an administrative penalty or prosecute you for fraud.

I'm 99.9999999% sure the sister in law called when she found out the OP's name is on the deeds.

theEnd

SnooksNJ wrote: »

I'm 99.9999999% sure the sister in law called when she found out the OP's name is on the deeds.

That's probably true.

But can the brother sign the house over anyway? If he's married, wouldn't it fall foul of some other laws if/when they came to divorce.

Could the OP claim that whatever transfer took place was never lawful or something?

This case is a bit of a mess. Is there anyway the OP can prove that they had no real ownership/equity in the house despite being named on the deeds?

I'm a bit surprised HB was offered on a property owned by the brother in the first place.