Housing benefit interview under caution

nannytone_2

it is the duty of every claimant to ensure that they know the rules of the benefit theu are claiming, and that their circumstances meet that criteria.
ignorance is NEVER accepted as a defence.
the claimant obviously makes an effort to discover which bene3fit they want to claim ...
they should also check that they themselves meet the conditions
HB forms clearly ask if the claimant owns any property.
what did the OP think having their names on the deeds meant?
they obviously thought it was to their advantafe to be added ... why did they think the sister in law wouldnt be able to evict6 unless it made them a part owner?

NYM

sh0597 wrote: »

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.

:doh:

How can someone not be aware they were a home owner? but, let's 'just suppose' she didn't know. She did know that she could no longer be evicted from the property (the reason supposedly for the TofE) and having had two earlier investigations to establish the tenancy was a legitimate commercial one, she would have been well aware that she now no longer qualified for HB.

As she continued to claim it knowing she wasn't entitled = Deliberate intent/Fraud.

dippy3103

sh0597 wrote: »

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.

Depending on the offence charged, intent is not always needed.

Would a reasonable person expect the fact that the o/p was now either a sole or part owner to effect the benefit entitlement? After all the o/p knew they were in the deeds.

micky2phones

tomtom256 wrote: »

Thats because most fraud is below the prosecuation threshold and the person gest a caution or an administrative penalty.

Otherwise the courts would be full with benefit fraud cases.

Thats true TomTom, plus if you watch some of the " Real Cops Shows", you see a person drunk who end up fighting with the Officer
and it takes 4 more to get him in the van, he then spends the time to get to the station kicking the inside of the van.

Which in my eyes a lot of laws being broken, yet they get a caution or a small fine.

Much the same as your point me thinks ?

tomtom256

micky2phones wrote: »

Thats true TomTom, plus if you watch some of the " Real Cops Shows", you see a person drunk who end up fighting with the Officer
and it takes 4 more to get him in the van, he then spends the time to get to the station kicking the inside of the van.

Which in my eyes a lot of laws being broken, yet they get a caution or a small fine.

Much the same as your point me thinks ?

Yep nail on the head there. It's easier and quicker to give them a slap on the wrist, so that's what happens.

dippy3103

If someone defrauded a bank of £1,500 I dare say they would go to court.

nannytone_2

its over 20k.
i cant see that theyre just going to accept repayments of £1 a week and just forget it

Poppie68

Could be a heck of a lot more when they inevitably look into the tenancy from day one, the dishonesty could be from the start.

ceecee1

i haven't seen where it is said that it is over £29k but if that is the case then the OP will definitely be prosecuted and that amount of money is over the imprisonable amount in the sentencing guidelines.

Of course mitigation will need to be argued by their legal advisor but I didn't know I owned a house will be weighed against all the declarations signed on all claim forms, all of the information sent out stating what needs to be declared and the statements given during the 2 visits when their claims were discussed.

Good luck is all I will say

nannytone_2

ceecee1 wrote: »

i haven't seen where it is said that it is over £29k but if that is the case then the OP will definitely be prosecuted and that amount of money is over the imprisonable amount in the sentencing guidelines.

Of course mitigation will need to be argued by their legal advisor but I didn't know I owned a house will be weighed against all the declarations signed on all claim forms, all of the information sent out stating what needs to be declared and the statements given during the 2 visits when their claims were discussed.

Good luck is all I will say

the OP's name was added to the deeds in 2010.
so minimally 4 years, but possibly nearer to 5.
presuming the rtent was at a modest amount ...
it soon adds up