undeclared income on universal credit

parkrunner

tomtom256 wrote: »

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.

But in this case the client didn't know that.

dippy3103

There may be an overpayment, however if it's only a couple of months @ £30 a week you won't be "done" for any fraud. You might get a civil penalty of £50, but that's the likely worst case scenario

paddedjohn

Op, if dog walking helps you with your condition can you increase the amount you do and maybe make a living from it?

tomtom256

parkrunner wrote: »

But in this case the client didn't know that.

Have you interviewed them? OP has stated "I thought" yet all the letters etc they get states to notify "any changes to you're income " or words to that effect, as well as listing a few other changes. If it was to be a fraud case this would be used as evidence they knew it would affect, as the letters tells them, and it is their responsibility to read the letters.

Besides everyone knows that any income affects means tested benefits.

parkrunner

tomtom256 wrote: »

Have you interviewed them? OP has stated "I thought" yet all the letters etc they get states to notify "any changes to you're income " or words to that effect, as well as listing a few other changes. If it was to be a fraud case this would be used as evidence they knew it would affect, as the letters tells them, and it is their responsibility to read the letters.

Besides everyone knows that any income affects means tested benefits.

Your statement was very clear the customer knew it affected their entitlement, I happen to believe the OP thought it wouldn't. Plus another poster said the money may be within the allowance anyway so no overpayment, poster wasn't certain though. I do agree that OP should have informed DWP though.

patman99

It all depends on which benefit the op is claiming.

As they have submitted a sick note I would expect them to be on ESA.
If that is the case, they can earn up to £120 per week without it affecting their benefit.

Mersey_2

tomtom256 wrote: »

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.

(1) 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).

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

I've numbered your main two points for ease of reply.


1) That would be captured by being reckless, as I said above - although even above you in fact agree by stating, "the customer knew it affected their entitlement" re change of circs. You can't close your mind to illegality; but, intent absolutely is a requirement of all criminal offences. The two elements are the guilty act and the guilty mind. Indeed that's the first thing a first year Law undergraduate or copper is taught. [Otherwise those suffering from dementia or a temporary abnormality of mind could be convicted]


2) It just isn't. No criminal offence is "done on probability." I have no idea what you mean by, "I only need reasonable doubt if I want to prosecute." That's the test for a Jury during a Trial not for the police, CPS or any prosecuting authority. Reasonable prospect of securing a conviction, having regard to public funds & policy is the test.

annandale

If the OP has an in work allowance they can earn a sum of money before any deductions are made. It's not 120 a week on UC I believe.

Besides everyone knows that any income affects means tested benefits.

You are wrong. If someone has an in work allowance on UC and their monthly income doesn't exceed this it won't affect the amount of UC they get.

teddysmum

I hope the OP has insurance, as owners whose pets are harmed while in a pet walker's care can be quite demanding.

Stop_Watch

If she can walk dogs she can get a job!