Housing benefit interview under caution

sh0597

tomtom256 wrote: »

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.

If she wasn't aware of a change of circs then no fraud. It must be deliberate. The OP didn't believe she was a homeowner.

Errata

sh0597 wrote: »

If she wasn't aware of a change of circs then no fraud. It must be deliberate. The OP didn't believe she was a homeowner.

This makes it pretty clear she was aware of the change -

At the end of 2010 I had a big falling out with my sis in law and she threatened to kick me out and make life difficult for me. To avoid this my brother put my name on the house title deeds so that if anything happened to him I would still have a place to live.

sh0597

Errata wrote: »

This makes it pretty clear she was aware of the change -

It doesn't prove that they knew this affected their benefit.

Errata

So - two home visits and the OP didn't even say 'oh by the way, my brother has put my name on the deed to this house' ? It's material information.

Poppie68

Whatever..... why did she think her name was put on the deeds...she knew being on the deeds would protect the roof over her head as an owner, otherwise why get your name added..then asked during two reviews if they owned any property etc ....she lied.

nannytone_2

sh0597 wrote: »

It doesn't prove that they knew this affected their benefit.

the form asks if the claimant owns any property.
why wouldnt the sister in law be able to evict the op 'if something happened to the brother'?... the OP KNEW that having their name on the deeds gave them equal rights to the property.
what else other than ownership could possibly do this?

ceecee1

sh0597 wrote: »

It doesn't prove that they knew this affected their benefit.

I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse but you are clearly unaware of Social Security Legislation. All those on income related benefits are provided with a list of every change of circumstance you could possibly think of that they need to declare (and also goes on to say that if a person is not sure that they should declare it anyway).

Each claim form (or review form) completed either in person or on review by a visiting officer asks whether or not a person owns another property. On that claim form again there is a declaration that the information given is true and correct and that a person may face prosecution if not.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence - the LA have made it clear what changes of circumstances need to be declared and a failure to inform the LA is an offence under the Social Security Administration Act. This would either be under S111 of knowingly failing to declare information or under S112 when it just has to be shown that a change has occurred and that a person failed to declare.

HeavyMetalFan

Two ways of looking at it really. The OP knew exactly what they were doing and planned to use the excuse of ignorance if ever caught out. Or, we can assume the OP was ignorant and genuinely didn't appreciate the implications.

I know which one my money is on.

dippy3103

sh0597 wrote: »

If she wasn't aware of a change of circs then no fraud. It must be deliberate. The OP didn't believe she was a homeowner.

A 112 offence does not require intent. I doubt the o/p can argue they didn't understand they were being added to the deeds - they signed them

zugzwang

Fraud is deception intended for personal gain.

The deception didn't gain her HB, it stopped her qualifying for HB. If OP didn't gain, and wasn't trying to gain by cheating, it isn't fraud.

It seems reasonable to argue she didn't defraud HB, as she didn't gain HB by her deception.

You may argue she still gained. She wanted to achieve something else and still get HB. But we don't know the detail. IMO only the lawyers can sort this out.

All I would say is that because it's not straightforward and the costs of prosecution is significant, IMO there's some sort of chance this could be sorted without it going to court.