Housing benefit interview under caution

Poppie68

The OPs reasoning for her name being put on the deeds doesn't add up. She said her name added to keep the roof over their heads as sil wanted them out. The sil could of only evicted them if her own name was on the deeds, if the sil name was on the deeds she wouldn't of consented to the ops name been added...
I can't understand your reasoning with saying she hasn't gained anything but for 4 years worth of HB and failure to disclose they will prosecute and they may even find the years previous to 2010 were contrived.

ceecee1

zugzwang wrote: »

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.

You are missing the point.... although benefit fraud is the common term ..the offence under Social Security Legislation is that of failing to declare a change of circumstances (either knowingly or not). The OP will not be charged (if charged at all) under the Fraud Act.
And there has been a gain - the gain is the HB paid from public funds which would not have been paid if the full facts had been known
And the cost of prosecution doesn't come into it - the amount of the overpayment governs whether or not this would go to court

dippy3103

zugzwang wrote: »

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.

Not for section 112 of the social security adminstration act. There was a change (she went on the deeds) which she failed to report.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

In our Council we issue review forms to those we suspect are committing fraud - if they continue to deceive on the review form - it just gives us more evidence if they are prosecuted that their fraud was deliberate.

The O/P has twice been reviewed and twice failed to declare a change in circumstances.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

zugzwang wrote: »

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.

The deception did gain her HB as she failed to notify anyone of her change in circumstances and thus her HB continued instead of stopping.

She did defraud HB as she gained 4 years of HB entitlement by her deception.

zugzwang

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The deception did gain her HB as she failed to notify anyone of her change in circumstances and thus her HB continued instead of stopping.

She did defraud HB as she gained 4 years of HB entitlement by her deception.

I'm aware of this argument. I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, I'm saying there is an alternative argument.

Because:

before deeds transfer, she was getting rent paid by HB.

After deeds transfer, she was getting rent paid by HB.

So having deeds transferred disqualified her from claiming, but she didn't financially gain benefits purely from the transfer. As far as we know, none of this money went into her pocket.

So what did she intend? Intent is important in fraud and often difficult to prove.

Why were the deeds transferred? Did she agree to it under pressure from her brother because she was unnecessarily worried about losing her home? Not sure I'd condemn her for that. What line did he spin? Was it actually her brother who had something to gain? Is she just the accomplice?

So what I'm saying is we dont know the details or the intent, so IMO we can't conclude it's fraud and shouldn't be saying unhelpful things like she'll get a prison sentence or she's only got herself to blame.

FBaby

So what did she intend? Intent is important in fraud and often difficult to prove.

Surely to be able to stay in a house that she otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford? If she didn't get HB, the brother might not have been able to afford the mortgage, in which case, her house would have been repossessed. She had therefore A LOT to gain.

Saying that, I am still puzzled as to how she managed to get to be on the deeds without being on the mortgage.

OP hasn't returned, I understand they are scared and reading about prosecussion is probably keeping them away, but I know that if I was totally innocent, I would be here to provide more information to show it. After all, we are only asking the questions that she will be asked during the investigation so posting here could only help them.

Errata

Clearly the intent was taking legal action to change an AST to a Secured Tenancy through part ownership of the property.
Frankly, there are so many holes in the OP's tale I don't believe a word of it.

Sg1431

Hi thank you all for your comments some have frightened me to my core about sentencing I had an initial interview and have been asked to show that I was paying rent out throughout the time which I am in the process of doing. I have to keep my fingers crossed and hope they see it as a genuine mistake which it was. As many of you recommended I did take a solicitor with me and thank god on both occasions when they can out to review my case it was before the time that the property was in my name. The only think I can do is keep my fingers crossed now.

Poppie68

Now in your first post you state both reviews were done AFTER 2010 when you name was already on the deeds...which makes sense as you wouldn't of gone 4 years without a review.