Interview under caution for pension credit

Gold_Shogun

_shel wrote: »

The toxteth office is centrally heated/air conditioned. I've never been cold anywhere in that building.

Perceptions of "body warmth" are relative to each individual, and it is a medical fact that elderly people are more prone to feeling cold than younger people.

For example ..... When my Dad is "comfortable", I'm "melting in the heat" ... and when I'm "comfortable", my Dad is "Freezing".

Gold_Shogun

dippy3103 wrote: »

So you are basing your narrow experience with one or two people to suggest all are corrupt. Rather unfair,

Kindly note the following flaws in your post :-

1) ... Over the past four years, we have collectively dealt with MANY MORE than just "one or two people" as you wrongly claim, and almost without exception, they have tended to "follow-the-lead" and the "path-laid-out" by the original corrupt Senior Officer. ... Bureaucrats are notorious for becoming blinkered, closed-minded, and unwilling to "reverse a previous decision" once ANY decision has been made (especially those of a "Senior").

2) ... Nowhere have I suggested that "all are corrupt" as you falsely claim. Indeed, I specifically pointed out that "many DWP officials may be righteous or honourable" .... It is YOU that has created that "all are corrupt" fantasy.

3) ... Your posts about "your team" etc, give the impression that you are quite possibly a DWP or Government official, and seem overly defensive of the bad apples in your/that profession ... In which case, instead of "attacking the messenger" (me), how about you direct that energy & anger towards the corrupt officials & bad-apples that are creating a poor & corrupt reputation for all the good-apples.

4) ... In respect of your "Rather Unfair" comment, it is you who appears to be blinkered and blinded to "Natural Justice & Fairness" by your position/profession ..... Kindly consider the below well-known legal extract from Lord Justice Megarry, and especially note the portions I have highlighted in bold. :-

Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness
In the case of John -v- Rees [1970] Ch 345 , Lord Justice Megarry stated in respect of the Requirements for any Court or Appeal body
*************************************

"It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness.

"When something is obvious," they may say, "why force everybody to go through the tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunity to be heard? The result is obvious from the start"

Those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice.

As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of supposedly open and shut cases which, somehow, were not ;
of supposedly unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered ;
of supposedly inexplicable conduct which was fully explained ;
of supposedly fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change.

Nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment, likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find that a decision against them has been made without their being afforded the opportunity to influence the course of events."

*************************************
Such considerations are highly relevant to the issue of a person or
appellant being accorded (or denied) their rightful expectation of
Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness in the course of any Court,
Tribunal, or Appeal process.

hennesm

Gold_Shogun wrote: »

Hi Hennesm,
I haven't posted for many years now, but I just happened to be browsing & noticed your post, & your apparent plight has pushed me into replying to your request.

Unfortunately, I have NO problem in believing the overall essence & significance of the corrupt actions which the DWP appears to have inflicted upon you and your Mum ...
... As I have been representing & assisting my 89 year old Dad from similar absolutely corrupt DWP actions, perjury, and attempts to pervert the course of Justice in similar circumstances for FOUR Years now and have only JUST managed earlier this year to prove the DWP's corruption to HMCTS and win my Dad's Appeal case.

Like your case, my Dad was falsely accused by the DWP of


moving permanently to Ireland after more than 65 years of living + paying full taxes & national insurance in the UK, which the DWP falsely alleged meant that my Dad was supposedly no longer entitled to his pre-existing Attendance Allowance, Winter Fuel Payments, and Xmas Bonus (My Dad has never claimed any means-tested/HB/Council-Tax benefits)



The DWP has been stonewalling my Dad's appeals since 2012 in the hope that my Dad was likely to die before we could force it to Tribunal (which the DWP did not dispute at the 2016 Tribunal) ...
.... Like your Mum. the DWP suspended my Dad's payments without any notification or letter beforehand (OR after, despite repeated requests), then the DWP took TWO Years to issue an actual "Formal Decison" (by which time the DWP's new "Mandatory Reconsideration" policy had come in effect), and the DWP then took ANOTHER FIFTEEN MONTHS to "Rubber Stamp" that MR to exactly match their original decision, and subsequently delayed/blocked the HMCTS Hearings until we managed to get it before a Three-Judge Panel last month.

Also like yours case, the DWP is on the Official IUC Transcripts & Recording as openly & outrageously lying & attempting to Pervert the course of Justice, and it has taken Four Years to finally get that before the Independent HMCTS Tribunal last month which ruled wholly in my Dad's favour and quashed the DWP's Corrupt Entitlement & Falsely-Alleged Overpayment decisions.

Anyway, this post is NOT about publicising the DWP's Corruption in my Dad's case ... It IS about giving whatever help I can from my own experience & learnings about YOUR "as detailed above" circumstances.
My own health is poor at the moment so I can't stay online here long enough to provide everything in one go ... but I will revisit here as & when I can.

INITIALLY, I can tell you clearly & hopefully put your mind at rest that the DWP's "visiting or solely/mainly residing in Ireland" arguments/claims for the DWP summarily stopping/suspending all payments are FALSE and unsupportable in Law ... Rather than me having to write a "War & Peace" length post here, please go the below link at the HMCTS Tribunals & Judiciary website and download the CIS 0486 2013-00.doc Upper Tribunal Decison.

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3939

That decision specifically deals with the subject of "Ordinary Residence" in MULTIPLE locations and Legally proves that a person may be Ordinarily Resident (even simultaneously) at multiple places such as (for example) Liverpool + Ireland + Timbuctoo .... and effectively proves in Law that even whilst visiting you in Ireland (or at other family in UK), your Mum REMAINS "Ordinarily Resident in Liverpool/GB according to the way her life is ordered".

That decision deals with France (which is JUST part of the "European Union"), but the Legal Principles (which are binding on the DWP) in your Mum's case is even stronger as both North & South Ireland are part of the "UK Common Travel Area" as well as the EU. ... Paragraphs 7 onwards are the relevant ones for your Mum's case, and just "mentally replace" France with Ireland for your Mum's case.


That's all I can manage at the moment ... Digest this post and the linked decision in the meantime.

Cheers
Bob
.
.

Can't thank you enough, finally feel like I'm not losing my mind . I understand that people within the DWP are very personable the two I met were not and it was very like life on Mars. I was constantly waiting for the punchline and the professionalism . I know realise we have a long fight ahead of us but I'm glad you're dad finally had a just outcome .

dippy3103

I have not defended any bad apples. I have merely said don't judge everyone because of them.

[Deleted User]

Having been to an interview with the DWP (I was in receipt of income support and other caring benefits) I can say my interview was not as bad as reported on here, but it was still very bad and unbearable. Enormous pressure was brought to bear on me to sign off benefits. My now ex, who went with me (as a carer I claimed income support for him) was allowed to sign off the income support because he was due to start a self employed job.., the DWP told us they had evidence he was already working. He wasn't. We could have easily obtained proof of this from his soon to be employer but it was so pressured, didn't even think of this option at the time.

I told the person doing the interview (who was also shouting and making untrue statements, but also not specifically saying what the allegations were, what I have said above was only our surmising based on the direction of the questions) that I actually wanted to split up with my ex, I wanted to tell her I was in an abusive relationship but had no opening to do this, particularly with my ex standing right there.

She obviously knew I had mental health issues and when I said I wanted to split up with my ex, so solving any issue they felt there was with my ex (which there wasn't I say again he was not working) she said I obviously couldn't cope without him and shut me up that way. It was an awful interview. She also strongly refuted that I was a carer and my older son didn't go to school at all. Fortunately i had a letter on me proving he did go to school (he'd just left sixth form, as they didn't provide the support they should have done - he is diagnosed with ASD). It seemed like whatever I said they would come back with another argument, totally grabbed out of the air.

Consequently, I left the interview because I just couldn't cope, he was allowed to sign off my benefit claim (which I was claiming), he did do this temporary job, I had no money (he didn't give me any), I had to claim income support as he was self employed and working tax credits, both of which I had some delay in being able to claim because I was dependant on receipts and getting invoices for his work off him, which he gave very reluctantly..., so I ended up in considerable debt and having to call the police in the end to get him out of the house.

I did phone to make a complaint verbally, the person on the phone was actually sympathetic.., unfortunately it wasn't an interview under caution so there was no recording. I sincerely wish there had been. The interviewer MUST have broken several rules. She had me in pieces and we had no chance to answer whatever allegations there were (I am still unsure what the allegations are). If something like this ever happens again, I will take someone professional with me.

These type of interviews do happen. I've not done anything dishonest, ever, and it was totally stunning to be treated in this way.

missbiggles1

Gold_Shogun wrote: »

Hi Hennesm,
I haven't posted for many years now, but I just happened to be browsing & noticed your post, & your apparent plight has pushed me into replying to your request.

Unfortunately, I have NO problem in believing the overall essence & significance of the corrupt actions which the DWP appears to have inflicted upon you and your Mum ...
... As I have been representing & assisting my 89 year old Dad from similar absolutely corrupt DWP actions, perjury, and attempts to pervert the course of Justice in similar circumstances for FOUR Years now and have only JUST managed earlier this year to prove the DWP's corruption to HMCTS and win my Dad's Appeal case.

Like your case, my Dad was falsely accused by the DWP of moving permanently to Ireland after more than 65 years of living + paying full taxes & national insurance in the UK, which the DWP falsely alleged meant that my Dad was supposedly no longer entitled to his pre-existing Attendance Allowance, Winter Fuel Payments, and Xmas Bonus (My Dad has never claimed any means-tested/HB/Council-Tax benefits)

The DWP has been stonewalling my Dad's appeals since 2012 in the hope that my Dad was likely to die before we could force it to Tribunal (which the DWP did not dispute at the 2016 Tribunal) ...
.... Like your Mum. the DWP suspended my Dad's payments without any notification or letter beforehand (OR after, despite repeated requests), then the DWP took TWO Years to issue an actual "Formal Decison" (by which time the DWP's new "Mandatory Reconsideration" policy had come in effect), and the DWP then took ANOTHER FIFTEEN MONTHS to "Rubber Stamp" that MR to exactly match their original decision, and subsequently delayed/blocked the HMCTS Hearings until we managed to get it before a Three-Judge Panel last month.

Also like yours case, the DWP is on the Official IUC Transcripts & Recording as openly & outrageously lying & attempting to Pervert the course of Justice, and it has taken Four Years to finally get that before the Independent HMCTS Tribunal last month which ruled wholly in my Dad's favour and quashed the DWP's Corrupt Entitlement & Falsely-Alleged Overpayment decisions.

Anyway, this post is NOT about publicising the DWP's Corruption in my Dad's case ... It IS about giving whatever help I can from my own experience & learnings about YOUR "as detailed above" circumstances.
My own health is poor at the moment so I can't stay online here long enough to provide everything in one go ... but I will revisit here as & when I can.

INITIALLY, I can tell you clearly & hopefully put your mind at rest that the DWP's "visiting or solely/mainly residing in Ireland" arguments/claims for the DWP summarily stopping/suspending all payments are FALSE and unsupportable in Law ... Rather than me having to write a "War & Peace" length post here, please go the below link at the HMCTS Tribunals & Judiciary website and download the CIS 0486 2013-00.doc Upper Tribunal Decison.

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3939

That decision specifically deals with the subject of "Ordinary Residence" in MULTIPLE locations and Legally proves that a person may be Ordinarily Resident (even simultaneously) at multiple places such as (for example) Liverpool + Ireland + Timbuctoo .... and effectively proves in Law that even whilst visiting you in Ireland (or at other family in UK), your Mum REMAINS "Ordinarily Resident in Liverpool/GB according to the way her life is ordered".

That decision deals with France (which is JUST part of the "European Union"), but the Legal Principles (which are binding on the DWP) in your Mum's case is even stronger as both North & South Ireland are part of the "UK Common Travel Area" as well as the EU. ... Paragraphs 7 onwards are the relevant ones for your Mum's case, and just "mentally replace" France with Ireland for your Mum's case.


That's all I can manage at the moment ... Digest this post and the linked decision in the meantime.

Cheers
Bob
.
.

Given that you've been able to export the WFA to any other EU country until recently and actually been able to claim AA from abroad for at least 3 years, I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt.

Guest101

There is a good bit of advice, which any competent solicitor will give:


When interviewed under caution - answer no comment to every single question. EVERY SINGLE QUESTION. (that includes how are you? Can you confirm your name? Everything)


You can always provide a written statement afterwards.

NeilCr

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

I laughed so hard my tinfoil hat fell off.

Think I was more put off by all the Russian bride adverts on the copies of the decisions!

OP. In my experience these interviews are mostly conducted in a proper manner. Like others, though, I accept that there are bad apples in all walks of life. If you feel that you and your mother were harshly treated please do go through the complaints procedure - unfortunately, people are sometimes put off from this (I do get why) and, this allows the small amount who do carry out these interviews in the wrong way to be able to carry on

I do think it is incredibly hard for anyone who doesn't know the full story to be able to have a balanced view on many of the cases I read on these forums. I volunteer in an advice centre and quite often what you are told on the phone, by email doesn't completely match the facts when you see the paperwork. That is not to criticise anyone on here - I understand that is how forums like this work - more to say that I do think that seeking independent information/advice face to face may often be the best way forward

dippy3103

Guest101 wrote: »

There is a good bit of advice, which any competent solicitor will give:


When interviewed under caution - answer no comment to every single question. EVERY SINGLE QUESTION. (that includes how are you? Can you confirm your name? Everything)


You can always provide a written statement afterwards.

In many circumstances that's very poor advice. If there is something which will proove someone's innocence, is it not best to make it known straight away and bring the matter to a conclusion? Not least because adverse inference can be drawn from not giving the explanation at first chance.

RuthnJasper

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Shouting and posturing isn't the way to convince people of something, whether the DWP or an individual.

If you went in to the interview showing the attitude you're showing here, I'm not surprised you got a negative reception.

But, hey ho - all the best.:D

This subject seems to smoke them all out of the woodwork... Ye gods. _pale_