undeclared income on universal credit

swiftgan

Hi, can anyone give some advice here.
I am currently on universal credit but have had limited capability to work up to 16 hours. I am currently on a 3 month full sick note. I suffer from depression, anxiety with chronic fatigue. I walk a couple of dogs each week that helps me a bit with my condition and receive a small amount of money. I haven't declared this as i thought i could earn it without my benefit being affected. My job coach provider has realised this and said i should be declaring it and will be done for benefit fraud. I am now worrying like mad as i thought it wasn't a problem with my health condition. Can you help with any advice on this?

IAmWales

I doubt she has said you will be done for benefit fraud, but she will have to declare the issue to compliance. How long has this been going on and how much are you earning?

swiftgan

Thanks for your reply, well she said it is benefit fraud and now im worrying. I earn £30 a week, and have just been doing a couple of months. I thought i did not have to declare it as being on limited capability with my health condition although now they say a sick note does not mean you have limited capability.

IAmWales

You should have declared it, but as far as I am aware you are within your personal allowance so you won't have been overpaid. (Someone with better knowledge of UC will confirm or correct that.)

They may call you in for an interview and ask for proof of income. They may apply a sanction [STRIKE]or civil penalty[/STRIKE] but they won't take it further than that.

Fraud requires intent. What you describe is a misunderstanding, and one that you were never going to gain from.

swiftgan

i have no proof of this income, its just cash in hand?

TELLIT01

If it was cash in hand you will need something in writing from the person who paid to confirming the amount and frequency of payment.

IAmWales

I've edited my above post, a civil penalty would not be applicable because there is no overpayment.

A sanction would only apply if you were given an administrative penalty or caution, neither of which are likely.

If they do make this into something more than a mistake, you should appeal the decision on the basis that there was no intent and you have gained no financial advantage.

tomtom256

IAmWales wrote: »

You should have declared it, but as far as I am aware you are within your personal allowance so you won't have been overpaid. (Someone with better knowledge of UC will confirm or correct that.)

They may call you in for an interview and ask for proof of income. They may apply a sanction [STRIKE]or civil penalty[/STRIKE] but they won't take it further than that.

Fraud requires intent. What you describe is a misunderstanding, and one that you were never going to gain from.

Benefit fraud does not require intent.

Forgetting to notify a change of circs can still you get you done for fraud. The only difference in charges is the dishonesty aspect.

If you were to be charged under the Fraud Act then you would need intent.

All they need to prove is that a change occurred and it affected benefit and you knew you had to report it or you failed to declare x on the claim form that you knew would affect entitlement.

Mersey_2

I Am Wales is correct.


In fact any criminal offence requires mens rea ("the guilty mind"), so tomtom256 is wrong in stating, "benefit fraud does not require intent."


The only fraud with a lower burden of proof is civil fraud (such as insurance), but that's merely 51% ie balance of probabilities - the alleged fraudster still needs to have knowingly or recklessly committed the fraud (otherwise those with dementia could be prosecuted).

paragon909

Anyone who is paying cash in hand will not be declaring this themselves, Gosh! And especially dog walking. What we talking £50 or to £1 or something....

Unless DWP send you a letter from compliance asking for an interview, Then don't worry or start assuming things!

tomtom256

Mersey wrote: »

I Am Wales is correct.


In fact any criminal offence requires mens rea ("the guilty mind"), so tomtom256 is wrong in stating, "benefit fraud does not require intent."


The only fraud with a lower burden of proof is civil fraud (such as insurance), but that's merely 51% ie balance of probabilities - the alleged fraudster still needs to have knowingly or recklessly committed the fraud (otherwise those with dementia could be prosecuted).

I would go and look at the points to prove for a change of circs offence. i.e. a change occurred, it affected benefit, the claimant knew it affected benefit and they failed to declare the change in the prescribed manner.

Where is the intent in that?

I do this daily and like I said if it was a fraud act offence then yes you would need intent and dishonesty, but for a change of circs offence I just need to prove that a change occurred that affected entitlement, the customer knew it affected their entitlement and that they failed to declare the change.

I don't have to prove that it was done on purpose (intent).

Benefit fraud is done on probability too, I only need reasonable doubt if I want to prosecute.