Housing benefit interview under caution

NYM

None of this scenario makes sense!

The OP was claiming HB on a property her brother owned. Council presumably checked that it was on a commercial letting basis. Because the brother transferred equity in the property to the OP so that she couldn't be evicted by his wife then the commercial letting basis never applied.

Would the HB paid before the transfer of equity now become repayable?

sh0597

tomtontom wrote: »

Four years of HB payments is quite a gain?

But we are led to believe the op could have claimed HB perfectly legally if they had not had their name added to the deeds.


Therefore how was the OP gaining by their action?


If the OP's accounts show they continued to pay rent then I really don't see how they look guilty of fraud.


For fraud to stick there needs to be evidence that a non disclosure was deliberate.

NYM

sh0597 wrote: »

But we are led to believe the op could have claimed HB perfectly legally if they had not had their name added to the deeds.

It's not impossible to claim HB on a close relatives property providing the tenancy was a genuine commercial arrangement and that the tenant would be evicted if they didn't pay the rent.

sh0597 wrote: »

Therefore how was the OP gaining by their action?

They weren't initially if it was a genuine tenancy arrangement.

sh0597 wrote: »

If the OP's accounts show they continued to pay rent then I really don't see how they look guilty of fraud.

Continuing to pay a sum of money to her brother proves nothing. She could be paying an instalment for the purchase of part of his property.

sh0597 wrote: »

For fraud to stick there needs to be evidence that a non disclosure was deliberate.

There's plenty of that.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Fraud was committed the moment his name was added to the deeds and continued when he failed to declare this change despite 2 visits.

He needs to get a good solicitor.

merlin68

If you read the thread on netmums about benefit fraud quiet a few have been sent to jail for sums of £15000. There was an article in bbc news a while back saying that they want more jail terms for fraud over £20000. Which this will be. Funny how she only looked it up when she got the interview letter.

sh0597

NYM wrote: »

It's not impossible to claim HB on a close relatives property providing the tenancy was a genuine commercial arrangement and that the tenant would be evicted if they didn't pay the rent.




They weren't initially if it was a genuine tenancy arrangement.




Continuing to pay a sum of money to her brother proves nothing. She could be paying an instalment for the purchase of part of his property.




There's plenty of that.

Where is this evidence of fraud? It seems like a number of posters here just enjoy frightening people.

NYM

sh0597 wrote: »

Where is this evidence of fraud? It seems like a number of posters here just enjoy frightening people.

I can't believe you need it clarified, but...

Housing benefit is a means tested benefit. The OP owns a property and has claimed Housing Benefit for it. Not once, not twice, but for four years.

ergo...She fraudulently claimed housing benefit.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

sh0597 wrote: »

Where is this evidence of fraud? It seems like a number of posters here just enjoy frightening people.

Claiming Housing Benefit for a property he owns. Homeowners can't claim Housing Benefit on the property they own.

Poppie68

There is obviously a lot more to this than the OP is willing to disclose, she says he added her name to basically safe guard the roof over her and the children's head as the sil wanted to throw them out....she could of only succeeded in eviction if she was on the mortgage/title deeds but surely if she was she would of not agreed to the OPs name being added.

sh0597

NYM wrote: »

I can't believe you need it clarified, but...

Housing benefit is a means tested benefit. The OP owns a property and has claimed Housing Benefit for it. Not once, not twice, but for four years.

ergo...She fraudulently claimed housing benefit.

Yes, but fraud has to be deliberate. If the OP was not aware they were a home owner or that this affected the benefit then they have not committed fraud. They may well have been overpaid, but fraud is a criminal offence where as overpayment is not.


That said, the op ought to immediately declare if they are now a homeowner and set things straight rather waiting for the outcome of an investigation.