DWP interview under caution

Danday

TELLIT01 wrote: »

There are no hard and fast regulations covering this as far as I know. It will come down to the considered opinion of the DWP investigators as to whether there is a realistic probability of their view being accepted by the court. Very simplisticly, if the two parties spend the majority of their time together, including overnight stays, meals together, sharing costs and bills etc they are likely to be considered to be a couple.

I do wonder then how it would work for those sharing a house/flat or even those living in a HMO. This reminds me of a couple who for many years lived together in a house that the guy owned. The DWP became a little suspicious when she produced a child down the line. She argued that her housemate and her could not be in any way said to be in a relationship - she told them that he was gay and was nothing more than her landlord and presented a rent book!!! She further refused to tell the DWP who the father was of her child. The DWP accepted this !!!! and bull story.

TELLIT01

Danday wrote: »

I do wonder then how it would work for those sharing a house/flat or even those living in a HMO.

In a house share or HMO there will be separate leases / agreements for each occupant. They won't have shared bank accounts. They won't be staying overnight but claiming to be living elsewhere. Anybody suspected of being in a relationship but claiming to be single will be interviewed, often in their place of residence. Very often people think they have been clever and hidden any trace of a partner but they are caught out one way or another in most instances.

Danday

TELLIT01 wrote: »

In a house share or HMO there will be separate leases / agreements for each occupant. They won't have shared bank accounts. They won't be staying overnight but claiming to be living elsewhere. Anybody suspected of being in a relationship but claiming to be single will be interviewed, often in their place of residence. Very often people think they have been clever and hidden any trace of a partner but they are caught out one way or another in most instances.

Ah the 'moral' police!! Assuming that those in a relationship don't have a joint bank account it would be extremely difficult for them to prove that a relationship exists between any residents of shared accomodation or HMO...

Comms69

danny0 wrote: »

Hello im seeking help or advise for someone i know who has been accused by DWP for allegedly living with a partner without notifying them i know however this is false. - Why are YOU advising, you haven't got a clue...
Said person did attend one of there micky mouse interviews under caution and they have very circumstantial to zero proof. - it's not micky mouse and given your attitude I suspect that she's talked herself into a prosecution...
there is an ex partner who goes round due to them having a child
but at no time is there any staying or living at the address. - Staying there would be fine, which is probably why she's now being prosecuted. They have evidence he is, and she's denied it. Not given a reasonable explanation e.g. he was helping care for poorly child, slept on sofa etc. or even we are in the early stages of reconciling, but he lives primarily at: X
to further help i advised the person to make a statutory declaration
stating that the partner never lived at th premises to be signed in front of a lawyer also the landlord has written explaining this is false. - How would a LL know? Again, your advice has been TERRIBLE!
anyways a overpayment demand drops through his/her letterbox at the tune of 6 or 7 grand.
Now i advised to appeal , however the fraud dwp department has sent a letter explaining that it has been sent to the CPS after they recieved the a request for a mandatory reconsideration some 2 months ago i think, they have recieved no letter that the mandate recon was rejected nothing from these dogs
my question is surely its under appeal they need to go through the appeal process or whats the point.
also since when is failure to notify deemed as fraud eg working and signing on the dole is acting fraudently - .... words fail me
is this not a civil matter - no, too bloody right it's not, its criminal
Could someone please help and give some pointers , template letters or is it possible to go down the strawman route its very complex im out of ideasit sounds to me dwp are ignoring any correspondance and just trying bully and intimidate ,
i have also looked on the getout of debt free
site but couldnt find any loop holes or defence advise against these dwp gangsters

thank you in advance for any advise you guys may have

Yes, stop giving advice and have your friend post the truth here instead!

Comms69

TELLIT01 wrote: »

With the amount of time you were spending there, particularly the overnight stays, it's virtually certain that the authorities would have deemed it to be cohabiting. You have done nothing illegal in that situation, but the girlfriend has by not informing the authorities of the situation. There are many couple who spend far fewer nights together, and meals together, due to work patterns but they are still couples and must claim benefits accordingly.

Many new couples would be doing exactly that and not be considered to be co-habiting.


It's not where you sleep (or who with!) that matters

Afraid_of_Kittens

For papers to be passed to the CPS the DWP must be very confident they have a water tight case.

The DWP can't afford to prosecute people willy nilly so only those that they have overwhelming evidence are prosecuted. It is rare for a case before the court to result in a not guilty verdict.

Rather than try and give advice your friend needs a good solicitor.

Nick_C

Afraid_of_Kittens wrote: »

For papers to be passed to the CPS the DWP must be very confident they have a water tight case.

The DWP can't afford to prosecute people willy nilly so only those that they have overwhelming evidence are prosecuted. It is rare for a case before the court to result in a not guilty verdict.

Rather than try and give advice your friend needs a good solicitor.

Not rare. Latest figures I could find indicate 83% of trials resulted in a guilty verdict. That's a lot of people being found not guilty.

TELLIT01

Nick_C wrote: »

Not rare. Latest figures I could find indicate 83% of trials resulted in a guilty verdict. That's a lot of people being found not guilty.

Maybe not rare but the odds are firmly against anybody who is taken to trial. I would suspect that a proportion of the 17% of the not guilty verdicts were down to poor presentation of the prosecution case.

DCFC79

Don't use any of these references:

DWP gangsters
Mickey Mouse interviews
and dogs

It wont help the person involved.

Nick_C

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Maybe not rare but the odds are firmly against anybody who is taken to trial. I would suspect that a proportion of the 17% of the not guilty verdicts were down to poor presentation of the prosecution case.

Absolutely. The test is "that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction".

I think the CPS do a pretty good job. But it's important that jurors don't simply think "he must be guilty of the Police wouldn't be prosecuting.