Unintentional benefit fraud

Comms69

dippy3103 wrote: »

Ahhhh.

I do think it’s harsh to tell someone that they are facing a conviction when they have not even been interviewed about any alleged offence.

Why is that harsh?


Is it better to tell them it's all ok and not to worry, then out of the blue they get a letter inviting them for an interview in 7 days time?


Why not prepare people for the possibility and let them make the necessary arrangements?

pmlindyloo

It would be useful to know the ages of the two brothers and their work history.

£7000 for one brother means that the overpayment seems to be for a number of years.

It may be worth the mother getting the amount checked by CAB especially since the younger brother was in full time non advanced education at some point and the OP was on JSA at some point.

If the £7000 is for one brother then we are not talking about a few months.

I find this an unusual situation as I thought the LA wrote letters about other people in the household and whether they were working. They also get real time info from HMRC. Presumably that is why they knew younger brother was working.

Of course the mother could have had letters and ignored them and it doesn't excuse not reporting a change of circumstances.

Just a little intrigued by this.

WhenIam64

here's a little life tip:


Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

All these decades ... and I knew I'd missed something ;-)

You may be getting your "frauds" mixed up. There is civil where restitution is the remedy and criminal where there is a conviction. Each requires a different level of proof.

The phrase unintentional suggests the OP is looking at restitution as there is no intent to deprive the state of any money to which the beneficiary was not entitled. So far the OP is handling this well and is preparing to get the best outcome for themselves (as they may be dragged into it too)

As regards informing OP's of options, there is missing information so would not want to make predictions but there is enough information to indicate civil rather than criminal.

Comms69

WhenIam64 wrote: »

All these decades ... and I knew I'd missed something ;-)

You may be getting your "frauds" mixed up. There is civil where restitution is the remedy and criminal where there is a conviction. Each requires a different level of proof.

The phrase unintentional suggests the OP is looking at restitution as there is no intent to deprive the state of any money to which the beneficiary was not entitled. So far the OP is handling this well and is preparing to get the best outcome for themselves (as they may be dragged into it too)

As regards informing OP's of options, there is missing information so would not want to make predictions but there is enough information to indicate civil rather than criminal.

I'm really not.


The Op doesn't get to decide which course of action the state deems appropriate.


'unintentional' is only the opinion of a close family member. An investigator may decide it was deliberate.


I would counter it and say the lots of people who wouldn't be liable for prosecution, for example due to lack of evidence, talk themselves into it when IUC.

dippy3103

Comms69 wrote: »

Why is that harsh?


Is it better to tell them it's all ok and not to worry, then out of the blue they get a letter inviting them for an interview in 7 days time?


Why not prepare people for the possibility and let them make the necessary arrangements?

Oh tell them the worst case scenario by all means, but not as a definite outcome.

marliepanda

dippy3103 wrote: »

Oh tell them the worst case scenario by all means, but not as a definite outcome.

It says 'expect' not that it is a certainty.