We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
DWP commencing a DEA
Comments
-
I can't get my head round this!
If a court finds that only half the amount of overpayment can be proven then wouldn't this give the claimant evidence to appeal the amount of overpayment based on the court findings?
I do understand that the onus of proof is higher in a court than a civil matter but........
Sorry, if I am being completely 'thick' about this, just trying to understand0 -
pmlindyloo wrote: »You may be right, not my area of expertise.
This is what they say on the National Debtline link:
The DWP could take action against you in the county court to get their money back.
You will usually receive a claim form from the county court. This gives details about the debt and how much the DWP says you owe.
You can complete the ‘admission’ form if you admit the debt and want to make an offer to pay the debt in instalments.
If you want to dispute all or part of the debt, contact us for advice.
The court makes the final decision about how much you should pay towards the debt. As long as you keep to the payments that the court orders, the DWP cannot take most types of further action against you.
Just saying
Your quote refers to the County Court, which would be a civil case taken because the respondent has failed to otherwise pay. The OP refers to a court case for fraud, which would be at the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court.pmlindyloo wrote: »I can't get my head round this!
If a court finds that only half the amount of overpayment can be proven then wouldn't this give the claimant evidence to appeal the amount of overpayment based on the court findings?
I do understand that the onus of proof is higher in a court than a civil matter but........
Sorry, if I am being completely 'thick' about this, just trying to understand
You've answered your own question, the DWP would decide an overpayment on the balance of probabilities, a far lower burden of proof than a criminal court.0 -
IAmWales is correct. The court have sentenced on the lower amount as they felt the case became more clear cut then. The overpayment will stand & it's too late to appeal. As IAm says, it's to do with the higher burden of proof for criminal matters. The magistrates do not have jurisdiction to overturn the DWP overpayment.
So in a nutshell, they consider part of the overpayment to be cl 't error and the other part to be fraud.0 -
This is very familiar.
I'm sure I read a similar thread not long ago, where someone couldn't understand why a relative/partner was being asked to pay back more than a judge said they had obtained fraudulently.0 -
It's quite simple.
I live alone. I get single persons discount.
My boyfriend moves in with me. I forgot to tell the council for three months. I realise my mistake. I call them and I have underpaid council tax for three months. I have not committed fraud, I have made a mistake. I owe the money, but a court would not find me acting fraudulently.
Alternatively, after three months I receive a enquiry form, or a review form, or give the council additional information whilst still saying I live alone. I am now acting fraudulently. I receive a further three months single persons discount because I am acting fraudulently.
If taken to court, I would be found to owe three months due to fraud.
That does not mean that the first three months are 'forgiven' I still owe the money, I just did not commit fraud to gain that money.0 -
marliepanda wrote: »It's quite simple.
I live alone. I get single persons discount.
My boyfriend moves in with me. I forgot to tell the council for three months. I realise my mistake. I call them and I have underpaid council tax for three months. I have not committed fraud, I have made a mistake. I owe the money, but a court would not find me acting fraudulently.
Alternatively, after three months I receive a enquiry form, or a review form, or give the council additional information whilst still saying I live alone. I am now acting fraudulently. I receive a further three months single persons discount because I am acting fraudulently.
If taken to court, I would be found to owe three months due to fraud.
That does not mean that the first three months are 'forgiven' I still owe the money, I just did not commit fraud to gain that money.
That is the best explanation yet- spot on.0 -
-
thank you everybody. i really did not expect so much interest. all of your input is very much appreciated. Your time and expertise.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards