Deductions From Benefit

camboy48

Hi

Bit of a situation of my own making, but looking for sensible advice not criticism.

I currently receive JSA. The DWP received information that I may have been claiming benefit for 5 years (income support through illness) while not entitled to them, saying I was working for the whole of that time, when in fact I wasn't. This information was in the form of a statement made by someone under caution while being interviewed in relation to a trading standards issue said I had done some work for them. I did develop their website which took a couple of weeks - Snippets of this interview was passed onto DWP and as a result I am due to have deductions of £29 a week until the whole 5 years benefit is recovered. Basically this person said I have worked for them for the 5 years, meaning during this time I may have given him advice or done quick changes to his website every so often - but I wasn't employed nor did I receive a salary. In much the same way if you had a gardener who tended your garden for 10 years, but he is actually only there for 3 days a year. Trading Standards did interview me under caution in relation to the alleged offences against the company, I wasn't cautioned about benefit fraud - I did say in this interview much the same I did the website but didn't admit to receiving money from it. Trading Standards passed on details of these interviews to the DWP

Now I have not been interviewed by the DWP in relation to this, they appear to be taking this information it just appears they have imposed a blanket decision saying the whole of the 5 years I was working. There is no history of payments from this person into my account so no audit trail. In the letter I received the it says the overpayment resulted from fraudulently activity where the person either admits fraud under caution, agrees to an administrative penalty or is convicted - well none of those apply to me.

A bit of a mess I know but where do I go from here - I do believe they haven't interviewed me about benefit fraud is the key here, instead they are putting together snippets of other unrelated interviews and coming up with the decision he must have been working full time for the whole time.

Like I said, I know it's a bit of my own making, but I do think the full weight of the DWP is being dropped on me - with a limited version of events, and as I say, they haven't interviewed me in relation to this at all.

pmlindyloo

If you wish to challenge this decision then you are going to need professional advice.

From what you are saying (if I have read your post correctly) you were part of a Trading Standards investigation and the company(?) being investigated stated, under caution, that you had been paid for maintaining their website. Is this correct?

I am presuming that this company/person had proof that you were being paid?

The fact that you were not employed is irrelevant. You were providing a service and how you declared that income was not the company's business. You could have been self employed.

For example, my husband pays a monthly fee for someone to manage his website. That person may do a lot of work in a short period of time and then no work for a long time. However, he still receives a monthly fee for his 'management' of the website.

Even if there is no audit trial showing you were paid then if the company has shown proof that you were paid then this would have been sufficient for the information to be passed to the DWP. The DWP work closely with all manner of organisations/people to prevent benefit fraud.

I can find nothing in the regulations to say that the DWP has to invite you to take part in the investigations. Most of what I have read says 'you may be invited to attend/be visited by an investigator'.

Of course you have the right to appeal the decision. Did you receive no letters about this at all?

As I said at the beginning this is specialised stuff and I doubt it can be answered on a forum although other people may be able to add/confirm/contradict what I say.

From a layman's point of view it does appear that you have not had the 'right to reply' but if there is proof that you have been paid then it is possible that this negates your 'right to reply'. Specialist stuff.

The other possibility is that the sums involved may mean that you were still entitled to some benefit and it is worth checking this part. But this
'offsetting' may not be applicable if cases are deemed to be 'fraud'.

Anyone else who can help?

tomtontom

baggers02 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply - by company I mean the director of the company. No I haven't had any right to reply, I have never talked to anyone at the DWP about this - a decision was made and that appears to be it - the first I heard about it was the letter about the deductions. In the letter it states I have no right to appeal because of the nature of the overpayment, in effect saying it's fraud - but in effect I have been found guilty without any opportunity to put my side of events - I agree it is a complicated situation, I will approach my local CAB to see what they say.

I would imagine they would have to have proof covering the alleged period of overpayment, surely they can't just apply a one size fits all to the whole period without proof?

Any further comments appreciated.

Are you the OP? *confused*

rogerblack

Seems at the very least we're not getting the full picture.
Questions which arise:
Were you (the OP) convicted of anything.
Did you take a police caution in respect to anything?
Has action been taken against you through the proceeds of crime act?

NYM

tomtontom wrote: »

Are you the OP? *confused*

Where did that post come from ?

Was it on this thread and has since been deleted?

pmlindyloo

NYM wrote: »

Where did that post come from ?

Was it on this thread and has since been deleted?

Yes, it was on this thread.

No idea what has happened - not showing in their statistics.

NYM

:think: How odd..and annoying :rotfl:

Topcat1982

So did you receive any payment at all for these services?

tomtontom

NYM wrote: »

Where did that post come from ?

Was it on this thread and has since been deleted?

Yep, pretty quickly deleted when he realised he was posting under two names

rogerblack

On a more general point, as the OP seems to be a troll - 'deprived income' is a thing.
You can be treated as if you were paid even though you were not, if you could have been paid if you had requested it.

evenasus

tomtontom wrote: »

Yep, pretty quickly deleted when he realised he was posting under two names

I wonder if it's there's a connection here...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=57619875&postcount=27