Benefit fraud IUC second interview

MacMickster

As pmlindyloo says, now is probably time to get proper legal help, rather than rely on the advice of anonymous users of an internet forum.

Clearly DWP still have suspicions that you have committed benefit fraud (or else you wouldn't again be interviewed under caution). You need someone with proper legal training to represent you if you are going to attend another interview, as you were obviously unable to dispel their suspicions at the first interview.

Guest101

Liviastreet wrote: »

A few months back I was called in for an IUC regarding HB IS. I had a few weeks prior closed all claims as my grandmother has had to sell her home and move in with us she gave me my inheritance early this gives me a chance to seek employment and I've had the support I'd been dying for .

I was initially told it was due to my ex 'never' leaving us, upon arrival I was then asked why I became a dog groomer which k am clearly not. I answered questions as honestly as possible some I didn't know like exs partners address etc they're not local. He had statements with him putting money in my account for clothes games trips etc and also a store card in his name that I kept use and pay for. At the end of the interview I was told the case would be passed onto a descion maker but I've now received a second interview.

This whole ordeal has made me mentally ill and I'm sure this is what they try to achieve my childrens dad has since spilt from his partner and been great with the kids but although things are improving for them seams my life is still upside down.

I'm confused as I've been expecting a letter from them not the investigator? I'm thinking perhaps I shouldn't go to the second interview I said all I needed to the first time round. Has any one experienced a second interview the investigator never mentioned this to me.

Time and time again, my advice is:


Prepare a statement and read from it at the beginning of the interview, decline to answer any other questions. Feel free to make notes.

dippy3103

Guest101 wrote: »

Time and time again, my advice is:


Prepare a statement and read from it at the beginning of the interview, decline to answer any other questions. Feel free to make notes.

That's not always the best advice. Each situation is different.

The best advice is to seek qualified legal advice from someone that is fully au fairly with your situation. Well meaning but unqualified advice can make things a whole lot worse.

Guest101

dippy3103 wrote: »

That's not always the best advice. Each situation is different.

The best advice is to seek qualified legal advice from someone that is fully au fairly with your situation. Well meaning but unqualified advice can make things a whole lot worse.

It's unlikely that there would be someone both legally qualified and totally aware of the OPs situation (otherwise I suspect they'd ask them!)


Anyway I didn't say best advice, I said my advice.

pmlindyloo

It seems the problem here is the OP is not sure what exactly they are investigating - her ex living with her while she was claiming benefits, running a dog grooming business, or maybe both.

A legally trained person would be able to 'see through the trees' and find out exactly what the 'investigators' are claiming and assist the OP in providing evidence to dispute this.

Guest101

pmlindyloo wrote: »

It seems the problem here is the OP is not sure what exactly they are investigating - her ex living with her while she was claiming benefits, running a dog grooming business, or maybe both.

A legally trained person would be able to 'see through the trees' and find out exactly what the 'investigators' are claiming and assist the OP in providing evidence to dispute this.

It is always possible to provide this evidence in the build up to court.


No requirement to act now. Go along, listen, take notes and then act.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Like I said previously, this is a Evidence finding tactic.
Remaining silence is not an admission of guilt.
Its also no basis to claim that the OP is being uncooperative (although they will claim this to "scare" op into talking).


Asking for legal council once the interview commences will stop the IUC at that point (it will be rescheduled for a later date as so that OP can gain legal advice and representation).


Another option would be to remain silent, again I cant stress enough that this is not an admission of guilt, nor can it be seen as being uncooperative no matter how much they protest that you are being unco-operative.


Make notes, make a pre written statement and read from it do what you wish at the IUC.


One thing I cant abide by is people saying YOU MUST go along with what they say and answer THEIR questions because if you don't it looks bad on you, this is ill informed advice in my eyes as they are not out to be friends they are not having a friendly chat they are aiming to get circumstantial evidence against you to shut your claim down or use as evidence against you to prosecute you.


OP you must get legal advice from somewhere as mentioned in previous posts. but please don't go thinking you must co-operate with answering all their questions because if you don't youll look bad, you wont, exersizing your right to remain silent is an absolute right no matter how others think it looks upon you.

dippy3103

pmlindyloo wrote: »

It seems the problem here is the OP is not sure what exactly they are investigating - her ex living with her while she was claiming benefits, running a dog grooming business, or maybe both.

A legally trained person would be able to 'see through the trees' and find out exactly what the 'investigators' are claiming and assist the OP in providing evidence to dispute this.

If the o/p has a legal rep they will be entitled to pre interview disclosure. That way the o/p will go into the interview fully aware.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

dippy3103 wrote: »

If the o/p has a legal rep they will be entitled to pre interview disclosure. That way the o/p will go into the interview fully aware.

Legal rep or not the OP would be entitled if it wasn't a mickey mouse IUC conducted by civil servants at the JCP/DWP interview kiosk these people have the same power as you and me, they are not police or CPS therefore need not stick to the same rules or higher court rulings.


Pre interview disclosure entitlement is not applicable here as the OP hasn't been charged with anything by police. This is a JCP/DWP interview with a Fraud Investigator who is under no obligation to tell anything of his case make up/Evidence to the OP because he is a civil servant acting upon the secretary of states authority, unlike a police constable or prosecutor who took a oath to uphold the constitution and protect the queen as here:


I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law


If the OP then gets charged (by police or CPS) with anything the police or CPS will conduct their own IUC with the evidence gathered from the FI, and this is where the OP would be entitled to a PID.


At this stage JCP/DWP has no PID obligations to the OP they can merely say its related to XYZ.

dippy3103

thats not true. The IUC has to be conducted in accordance with PACE. The legal rep can be given advanced disclosure in order that they may take instruction from their client. Codes C & E of PACE apply the same as at a police station. The only difference is the investigator does not have any power of arrest.

Once the DWP have concluded their enquiries the file is passed to the CPS to prosecute. The cps do not conduct any interview, nor do the police.