benefit fraud.

keaton

dippy3103 wrote: »

None., but he may have a reduced entitlement to some of his benefits. The amount he would have been paid had his true circumstances been known will not count towards the overpayment.

From the wiki page-

The penalties for benefit fraud may be mitigated where it can be shown that the defendant would have been entitled to other forms of financial benefit, such as UK Tax Credits, had an appropriate claim on the true facts been lodged at the time.


I knew I read it somewhere.

dippy3103

It's called underlying entitlement.

keaton

dippy3103 wrote: »

It's called underlying entitlement.

So am I correct in what I said where the op's friend will be assessed to what he would have been entitled to, if he received more during his fraud he will have to pay back the difference. Plus the fine and possible court apperence.

rogerblack

keaton wrote: »

What's that?

Underlying entitlement is where if you had completely informed the authorities at the time, you would still have been paid something.

For example - a couple of people claiming tax credits as two single people, when they are under the regulations a couple.
It might be argued that they have defrauded the taxpayer.
However, the actual overpayment may be in some cases reduced by the amount they could have claimed as a couple - which might in some cases be more.

To the OP - benefit calculators can be oversimplified.
It may help if you state what benefits he's on, and how much he was earning, doing what hours.
The amount of the overpayment should not be accepted without much thought - as for example - he may only have breached the conditions for claiming the benefit in some weeks.

ceecee1

keaton wrote: »

From the wiki page-

The penalties for benefit fraud may be mitigated where it can be shown that the defendant would have been entitled to other forms of financial benefit, such as UK Tax Credits, had an appropriate claim on the true facts been lodged at the time.


I knew I read it somewhere.

That is for sentencing in Court where they look at the total loss of public funds. For example if someone claimed JSA whilst working the Court would reduce the overpayment amount by any tax credit that may have been paid had it been claimed. This is for sentencing purposes only and the full amount of the overpayment still needs to be paid back.

keaton

ceecee1 wrote: »

That is for sentencing in Court where they look at the total loss of public funds. For example if someone claimed JSA whilst working the Court would reduce the overpayment amount by any tax credit that may have been paid had it been claimed. This is for sentencing purposes only and the full amount of the overpayment still needs to be paid back.

But by overpayment do you mean the entire amount of benefit or the difference after underlying entitlement has been applied?

ceecee1

The entire amount, unless a reduced rate if benefit is still payable. Depends on which benefit, the number of hours worked and wages received.

keaton

ceecee1 wrote: »

The entire amount, unless a reduced rate if benefit is still payable. Depends on which benefit, the number of hours worked and wages received.

So the op's friend will probably be paying back the whole 12k and underlying entitlement does not apply to him?

This is possibly one of the most confusing threads I've read, either that or I'm stupid.

ceecee1

That's because it is impossible to advise properly without knowing which benefit and the amount of work

keaton

Am I at least correct in my assumption that if the op's friend is still on benefits he will repasy the amount out if his benefits and if he is now working and receiving no benefits will be expected to pay the amount in full, or will they work out a payment plan with him?