Income Support Overpayment

bestpud

overpaid1 wrote: »

how many times.. the money will be paid back. 0 income now so they will have to wait. i just want DWP to admit some mistakes.

@best spud - there is nothing to rumble. my change of address was not a tactical move. I phoned them up and changed as soon as I moved. The DWP received address change 8 months ago. Did they have to send my details off t NASA to get a calculation?

Did you actually tell them you were getting the student loan etc and fill in forms, as elsiebutt seems to have done?

You say you told them you were a full time student but did you actually tell them you were in HE and not FE?

If you did, then you can expect it to be written off, as it would be their error. Do you have any paperwork relating to your claim at all?

I was not saying you moved house to avoid paying (that is you making assumptions). You asked if there is a time limit and thus you were hoping when you started this thread that they may have exceeded it (of there was one) and it would therefore be written off? I said you likely hoped your house move would delay things enough that you could have it written off.

You cannot deny you were looking for ways you could legitimately avoid paying this money?

If you visit your local CAB, they will help you negotiate reasonable installments.

real1314

overpaid1 wrote: »

Q1. Is the fact that I declared I was a FT student to work-based interviewer from the DWP enough to say I didn't purposely withhold information and the overpayment is not an error on my part?

Q2. The IS have written to me in June 08 saying they want to recover in full £4,000+. 10 months after original enquiry. Is there some law on a time limit relating to overpayments?

Now, neither of your questions actually involve you saying "ok, I didn't tell them I had a loan and I will pay it back", which is what you are now claiming is your position. So let's admit that you didn;t tell them you had £5-10k of income you didn't declare? eh?

so, Q1. It would be, up to a point, but you didn't tell them about the loan. ou can talk all you like about information not being available ona website, but unless YOU declare your circumstnaces, YOU are liable. Do you really expect to keep £5-10k of extra money and keep a means tested benefit?

Q2 Yes there are time limits. Thet are a lot longer than 10 months. More like 7 years, or more.

Some posters may feel that some comments are harsh and even judgemental, but it's better to do that than put comments that could be taken as giving an ok to this srt of thing for people who may be going into this situation and don't know what to do.

overpaid1

bestpud wrote: »

You say you told them you were a full time student but did you actually tell them you were in HE and not FE?



If you visit your local CAB, they will help you negotiate reasonable installments.

Of course i told them it was in HE and no longer at college despite thinking student was umbrella term.

The time limit thing I wanted to know about was to call them out on it. because theyve taken so long and they havent even got the dates or figures right. I dont like the fact that they've sat on it for a long time and think thats OK. Many a time I have rang them to find out about something that was long overdue, and each time they were like, "oh yeah, it just got processed this morning". BS and I'm tired of it. i'm not looking to slip through net. I just want answers. I am not a person to just say "OK, dock my income. I've been overpaid, all my fault". I think its only fair that DWP admit they !!!! some things up before they take the money back.

@ Oldernotwiser - How are you condoning "double funding" in this instance?
I don't see how some are condoning that keeping an overpayment that someone was aware they were not entitled (despite telling the DWP time and again) is ok. Yes the overpayment was DWP's fault, but if the recipient knew the money wasn't supposed to be theirs, especially when it has been set aside should it not be put back into the system as I see many said in another topic?


In a nutshell, being knowingly overpaid and being allowed to keep money (despite fault)
OR
Unaware of being overpaid and money being demanded back?

I see some inconsistencies in your stance here.

real1314

overpaid1 wrote: »

In a nutshell, being knowingly overpaid and being allowed to keep money (despite fault)
OR
Unaware of being overpaid and money being demanded back?

I see some inconsistencies in your stance here.

Erm, no.

1. Being knowingly overpaid after fully informing DWP/Jobcentre of income and circumstances = not committed fraud.
2. Being "unknowingly" overpaid having not told DWP of a £5-10k student loan = fraud.

Personally I think there's a strong case for both being paid back. But you seem to think that not telling DWP of your loan is somehow ok, but what you have done is committing fraud. In many ways you are lucky they are not prosecuting you, although this may be due to the fact that you appear to have told them you were a HE student, they considered it a bit "grey".

Oldernotwiser

overpaid1 wrote: »

@ Oldernotwiser - How are you condoning "double funding" in this instance?
I don't see how some are condoning that keeping an overpayment that someone was aware they were not entitled (despite telling the DWP time and again) is ok. Yes the overpayment was DWP's fault, but if the recipient knew the money wasn't supposed to be theirs, especially when it has been set aside should it not be put back into the system as I see many said in another topic?

As far as I'm concerned, if the people who make the rules say it's ok then why should anybody else argue with it? Elsiebutts definitely told the JCP about her student income so the mistake was theirs.

In your case, as real1314 says, you never seem to have specifically told anyone that you had an additional £5/10,000 income coming in; you just assumed that they would know this and you now say that this makes the error DWP's fault. If you have written proof that DWP were told of your additional income and paid you anyway, then I'd agree that it's their mistake. You're saying that you told them that you were a student and they should, therefore, have known that this would involve you in receiving extra income and that's not a valid assumption.

You could compare it to telling them that a parent had died but just not happening to mention that they'd left you £100,000 in their will!

overpaid1

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're saying that you told them that you were a student and they should, therefore, have known that this would involve you in receiving extra income and that's not a valid assumption.

You could compare it to telling them that a parent had died but just not happening to mention that they'd left you £100,000 in their will!

So because the people who make the rules said its ok? No-one else should disagree? haha. I am concerned if you apply this to every rule-makers decision.

the money was overpaid knowingly and retained, so if it is of no financial hardship to the recipient it should be given back, should it not?

inheritance? completely different and not a valid comparison IMO. That would imply i told them a parent died, and expecting them to assume I was entitled to an inheritance.

I provided statements which showed payments going in of student loan.

If i was FT HE student (which i did tell them), that means i am entitled to a student loan, period. FT HE student = access to student loan, whether taken or not. so i think it is a valid assumption.
if i tell them I am working, they would assume I have a wage. They would stop benefit and ask for your payslips.



@real1314

i love your use of inverted comma's.
Fraud would be knowingly receiving overpayments despite 3k of other income. That's fraud.
Not "unknowingly".

at least you agree though that in terms of repayment both cases are eligible.

bestpud

overpaid1 wrote: »

So because the people who make the rules said its ok? No-one else should disagree? haha. I am concerned if you apply this to every rule-makers decision.

inheritance? completely different and not a valid comparison IMO. That would imply i told them a parent died, and expecting them to assume I was entitled to an inheritance.

I provided statements which showed payments going in of student loan.

If you informed them of all this, then why don't you have the paperwork to prove it, as Elsie clearly does? Your cases are clearly different because there is proof of what she informed them whereas, with you, there is not.

Plus, she repeatedly informed them of the problem and yet they failed to stop paying her. Therefore, she did everything she could to avoid the over payment.

You say you didn't know. That could easily be turned into didn't bother to check. Elsie did check, for herself, independently of the job centre! Given this was the same year, it seems odd she can find out and yet you can't!

If ignorance were a defence then every fraudster would have an automatic get out clause wouldn't they? The fact is you agree to inform them of every change and you did not do this via the proper channels, or take the trouble to find out your true entitlement.

If someone receives full HB, paid directly to their LL, and something happens with the payments (even though all the info is correct), the tenant is still liable - because it is their responsibility to check everything thoroughly and keep an eye on their rent statements to make sure the payments are being made correctly. That is the way it is!

You can disagree with the decision all you like. But you asked if you could do anything about it. That is different altogether. Rant away but don't expect everyone to agree with you and don't expect it to change your situation.

Unless you can prove you gave them the info and if you can, well you are home and dry, aren't you?

Oldernotwiser

overpaid1 wrote: »

If i was FT HE student (which i did tell them), that means i am entitled to a student loan, period. FT HE student = access to student loan, whether taken or not. so i think it is a valid assumption.
if i tell them I am working, they would assume I have a wage. "

But why would you assume that someone at the Jobcentre would know anything about student finance; unlike jobs and wages, it's not part of their role. Anyway it's not automatic that a full time student is eligible for a loan, you could be a postgraduate student or someone who was ineligible for further funding because of earlier study.

As far as Elsie paying back money that the authorities say she can keep, you must be daft. We're Moneysavers, not saints!

overpaid1

@bestspud .ignorance being a defence i see what your saying now. But it does happen. i should have perhaps dug a little deeper, but why would I when I though t it was ok to be having both. i presented circumstances to them buti didnt repeatedly try and contact them about it because i didnt know anything was wrong to be badgering them about..

@oldernotwiser
i still don't see rationale in you condoning elsies double funding.
Imagine if the government kept dropping £50 notes onto your doorstep every week and you were contacting them telling them, "look i shouldnt be getting this money, stop dropping it here" but yet they carried on. Eventually they bothered to look at at your letters and said "hang on here, we should have stopped sending money weeks ago" they then write to you and say, "although you were overpaid and it was our fault.,you can keep the money if you don't want to pay it back since you already have it, even though not part of your entitlement, really its up to you". the money's been stockpiled and therefore makes more sense to give it back. ridiculous.

this is not a simple case of finders-keepers oldernotwiser. but you are entitled to your opinion and i'll just agree to disagree.