Desperate for help/advice/insight - incorrect allegation of benefit fraud (JSA) - Interview under caution in a few days

[Shel100]

I am sorry if this becomes a little long, but I will keep to the point as much as I can.

My wife and I are both 60, and I started claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in September 07 when self employment failed. There has not been any misconduct.

Yesterday I had a letter from the Fraud Investigation Service calling me for an interview early next week suspecting that I have “committed a criminal offence in relation to a benefit claim because of failing to declare capital”.

Also enclosed was a leaflet headed Formal Interview - Taped Interview Under Caution, setting out that I am suspected of committing a criminal act, advising who can come to the interview with me, should I obtain legal advice, what happens, that I will be cautioned, and more. It is simple and informative, and it may be unintentional but it is intimidating.

This is all a huge shock, and my wife is very very distraught, couldn't sleep all night, has been crying almost constantly with worry since the letter because we have never been in any kind of trouble before and the possibility of facing a criminal conviction or worse is beyond comprehension. I am trying to show strength.

Things are made even worse by not knowing what this is about. At least then it could be thought-through and a level of comfort put in place. These next few days waiting are going to be awful for both of us but the constant stress and worry will be almost impossible for my wife to deal with, which I find completely unacceptable. Part of that stress comes from the fact that our mortgage is being maintained by payment protection insurance, but this needs me to continue signing every two weeks so if that is suspended we lose our house.




My first - and natural - inclination was to simply go to the interview, answer their questions, and expect that it would then be resolved.

From remarks here however that seems to be very much against common-sense for all sorts of reasons. I gather for example that the interviewers will already have an end-game before I even start to speak, that there are certain pressures on them for results once something has reached the stage of being on record and therefore needing to be accounted for, and also that the importance of Solicitor/other advice is often underplayed in pursuit of that result.

I therefore feel very much the victim already. Despite being able to conduct myself well in business this is completely different and I am not sure that I will do well being interviewed.

The article posted elsewhere by JonCris, written by an expert in social security fraud, is enlightening but also very worrying because I simply have no hope of gaining an awareness of things mentioned there in order then to be able to use them in the interview.

One part states “the normal considerations about seeking sufficient advance disclosure and advising on silence apply” ... There are normal considerations?!?!! I would hugely welcome advance disclosure so that I can focus on what is needed!

I would welcome advice on silence too if it seems that innocence isn't enough of a defence. I assumed that it was, but with my eyes opened a little already I am not confident that that is the case and passages like this frighten me ... “The DWP's internal Fraud Investigator's Manual (FIM) emphasises the need to obtain admissions by the client during interviews under caution and how to obtain these - so legal advice is vital. There is strong anecdotal evidence that inadequate disclosure occurs and for DWP staff to tell clients that they 'don't need a solicitor' “



But ....

.... I don't know that I have enough time to do anything about it now! – the interview is on Tuesday and there is the weekend inbetween, and I have a million degrees of understanding that I need to pick-up in that time.

So to try and get inside the workings of all of this I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer for me.

1 - Can the interview be rescheduled? In fact I'd really rather not because I want this dealt with asap, but if I can't get ready in time can I rearrange?

2 - Does the fact that the letter says it is an undeclared-capital matter mean that that is firmly the case? From their general correspondence I am aware that Jobcentre letters are often constructed from standard paragraphs on a nearest-meaning basis, and what is said isn't necessarily reliably precise .... I don't want to be racking my brains over some possible capital-matter and then be quizzed about something income-related!

3 – Can DWP go in to Bank accounts without seeking permission? I have recently received two cheques from the insurance Co to be sent-on to pay the mortgage, and I am wondering if this could have been misinterpreted? I have also added £4000 to an account that didn't even exist when I claimed, a gift from family to cover emergencies and start to offset mortgage-shortfall because the insurance doesn't pay the full amount so there's an inbuilt arrears happening .... the insurance-cheques are in an account that is known about the other isn't. However, I am allowed to have up to £6K anyway without there being an issue I believe?

4 – My wife has two accounts in her name that are for other people. One is my mother's funeral-expense savings that she gives my wife a few pounds to add every so often and is I think at about £600 now .... the other is a money-box for my wife's circle of friends, who save for Christmas through the year and my wife is simply the name on the account and takes charge of depositing it every couple of weeks or so – there's about £500 in that one I am told. These are not 'capital' in any meaning of the word, being other-peoples money ... could this have been similarly discovered and misinterpreted?

5 – (in case it is an income issue really and not a capital issue as claimed in their letter) For that same group of friends my wife organises a get-together one morning a week to do some craft work together and chat and have coffee etc ... the materials etc that they need for whatever they have decided-on are bought by the group together and it goes through my wife's hands and she does the shopping etc for those things when needed. She also sometimes gets to pocket the change, or gets a few pounds from everyone for the time and trouble she takes. This is 3-4 hours one morning a week, isn't a job, couldn't be called more than pocket change every so often ... but would this be classed as concealment if it came to light? Wouldn't the over-16 hours start-point for notification still apply however as it is no more than 4 hrs anyway?

6 – Our son, at home before going to university in a few weeks now, had a job for a few weeks early in the year, though his money was especially to be saved for university so we didn't have any from him ... however the job didn't last anyway. Potentially a problem?

7 - My Mother – Father died years ago – occasionally helps out with £100 here or there for bills etc when it gets too much of a struggle – these occasional sums will be seen on my wife's bank statement because she shops with a credit card to help monitor/control expenses, and pays those off by transfers as she has on-line banking.

8 – My Mother also has been keeping up the rent on the office I used to work from when self-employed ... I have a mountain of stuff from desks and fining cabinets and all the other clutter, with nowhere really to put any of it, plus I have a work-day pattern to my life after this time and I can make use of what is there to get on with all the stuff that's needed in a jobsearch ... there's a good focus there for doing those things ...

9 – I have a number of credit card debts arising from the business collapse, and I get calls to the house occasionally wanting to see about increasing my payments. My wife wonders if a couple of calls that with hindsight didn't sound quite the same could have been the jobcentre/investigator checking to see if I was at home, wondering if perhaps I was employed again but hadn't signed-off. Could that have been possible? If so, then that's another potential for misassumption.





As you can see, I am completely clutching at straws trying to see just what has triggered the interview! ... I have not knowingly concealed any capital, haven't earned any either, ditto my wife. However, there will still be something that I will be required to explain, simply because it now exists as a report to be investigated.

I am totally at a loss, and beginning to despair because I don't know what I am dealing with nor how to cope given all the things there seem to be that can trip up even someone who has done little wrong.

I am very worried about not only what the issue actually is so that I can try and present a confident image and a sound explanation at the interview, but also about the darker side of that interview process that I may not respond to well-enough even with a perfectly innocent explanation for whatever-it-is.

With something clearly behind it however there is unavoidably a matter that will need to be satisfactorily explained. But that would have to be a moment of perfection in order for their system to write it off as a misunderstanding/error/whatever. Realistically this adversarial way of going along is not going to achieve the golden-glow outcome however, and with high blood pressure this is something I could really do without!

So please, I really need some steering in generalities and specifics if there is someone who has experienced this same interview, or has advised others, or from a base of knowledge can answer some of the questions I have asked above which might help me put additional pieces of the picture in place and try to stay ahead of the game when being interviewed in a few days.

And please, any advice at all that you feel particularly valuable, my entitlements, any how-to thoughts ... recommendations ... how to get prior disclosure would be a blessing!!

And if there is a Legal Professional reading who has experience and would consider acting for/with me and has an hour free on Tuesday afternoon, that would be so wonderful – I am in the Midlands.

Again, sorry for the length of this but we are truly right at our wits end, drowning not waving .... some comfort would be a welcome start.

Thanks ....

[Michael Browne]

I'm sorry that no-one has replied yet. Unfortunately I don't know the answer but this post will 'bump' your question to the top of the forum and hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will be along soon to advise you further/point you in the right direction.

[Conniff]

I haven't read all you post as yet Shel, but do you in fact have any capitol?
If the answer is no, then bank statements will show this and everything will be ok.
This is only the initial interview, and I don't think their letter should be headed like that, it is intended to intimidate and is wrong.

Will have a look deeper tomorrow if no one else has been up in the mean time.

Give that wife a big hug and reassure her that they are making it sound worse than it is.

P.S. Don't worry about the length of you posting, well written posts such as yours are never too long.

[Shel100]

Originally Posted by Michael Browne

I'm sorry that no-one has replied yet. Unfortunately I don't know the answer but this post will 'bump' your question to the top of the forum and hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will be along soon to advise you further/point you in the right direction.

Thank you Michael, and it would be lovely were some informed opinion to follow ..

... right now I can only think to visit the CAB tomorrow to see what avenues there might be to explore in-community, though I suspect little ground will be covered that way within only the couple of days that I have available.

There are, for example, no Legal Aid Lawyers in the small town we live in, so assuming that I can uncover one experienced in benefit fraud processes in the first place, having only tomorrow and then Monday to make an approach, cover the ground and be properly advised for Tuesday's interview seems to be somewhat of a stretch.

Your concern is appreciated, thank you

Shel

[Shel100]

Originally Posted by Conniff

I haven't read all you post as yet Shel, but do you in fact have any capitol?
If the answer is no, then bank statements will show this and everything will be ok.
This is only the initial interview, and I don't think their letter should be headed like that, it is intended to intimidate and is wrong.

Will have a look deeper tomorrow if no one else has been up in the mean time.

Give that wife a big hug and reassure her that they are making it sound worse than it is.

P.S. Don't worry about the length of you posting, well written posts such as yours are never too long.

Conniff - Thank you for taking a moment, and for the reassuring words. I have looked back a time or two but have only now been able to reply as I have been comforting a very distressed wife the best that I can and at almost 1.00 am she is now in bed asleep at last ....

No we have no capital outside what I have mentioned in my original post ... a few hundred between a couple of accounts, that £4K emergency/mortgage sum - that's it.

And there was even less in our pockets at the time of the initial JSA claim in Sept 07. The business-collapse pretty well wiped me/us out, which is why for example I have had to negotiate reduced payments with my credit-card issuers as even small balances were impossible to settle-out .. I am working slowly through those, though it will take a while.

And yes you would think this should be provable via bank statements, however SOMEthing has obviously floated to the surface that appears to break the rules and imply that it might be a deliberate deception ... either that or the question doesn't in fact relate to a capital-issue at all but something else ...

In fact I suppose that the undisclosed questionmark could even extend to a possible belief that at some time there was some undisclosed captal, rather than just having something squirreled away right now. This could possibly be inferred from the comment in their letter that states that I am suspected of having “committed a criminal offence in relation to a benefit claim because of failing to declare capital”. I really wish that there was prior disclosure and I had more than just conjecture to go on ...

Yes their letter is clearly intended to unsettle as there are alternative forms of words that are more natural. The leaflet sent with it has a similar unsettling effect.

I note that you say this is only the initial interview, however firstly there is only one chance to get things setting-off in the right direction ... and secondly, according to the expert's comments as posted by JonCris “The DWP's internal Fraud Investigator's Manual (FIM) emphasises the need to obtain admissions by the client during interviews under caution ..." ... so their agenda is for there ideally to be just one interview anyway.

And this is in fact borne out by that leaflet that I have referred-to, which sets out what form the interview will take. This leaflet says that I will first be cautioned, then a cassette tape will be taken from a sealed pack and put in to the recorder before me, then the interview will take place, after which the recording will be sealed and I will sign the seal, then it and any notes will be considered with a view to criminal procedings .... it really sounds very much a one-shot deal!!

And that is why I would dearly like there to be preliminary disclosure of what their basis for concdern actually is! Surely that is a right??? ... and also the ability to reschedule the interview for a later date if necessary as they really have allowed no time for me to take any steps in my own best interests.

It all seems very bully-boy and quite unreasonable, and if you are able to contribute anything positive at some point it will be most welcome indeed.

Thank you for the most kind words for my wife - she is still very distressed and emotional, it has been a bad day for her simply because of not knowing what this is all about yet seeng very real threats of criminal procedings none the less.

It is rather like being told that there is a huge weight hanging above you by a frayed thread, but the weight being invisible so you can't see how big it is and how squashed you will be, and with the thread invisible also so you know you wont see it break but don't expect to be able to dodge it anyway ...

Again, thank you.

[surprise]

I am no expert here but my daughter is and I emailed her your plight last night. This is her response
The dwp are known to be tough (but not always right!!) - not sure of the area you live in but in some areas they have welfare rights advisers or you could go to CAB who act on your behalf - of there is the law society - if you let me know roughly the area your in and I will try and find the right people to help you.

I have to go out now but I will speak to my daughter on my return if you still require further help.

Best wishes

[Shel100]

Originally Posted by surprise

I am no expert here but my daughter is and I emailed her your plight last night. This is her response
The dwp are known to be tough (but not always right!!) - not sure of the area you live in but in some areas they have welfare rights advisers or you could go to CAB who act on your behalf - of there is the law society - if you let me know roughly the area your in and I will try and find the right people to help you.

I have to go out now but I will speak to my daughter on my return if you still require further help.

Best wishes

Thank you very much, and especial thanks to Ms Surprise please.

I'd be ok with tough-but-right, but "tough but not always right" doesn't exactly instil confidence.

I have responded to you a little more openly in a PM that you should have waiting, though as I have said there I am perfectly happy for your Daughter's further words to be added here openly unless there is some personal or sensitive content involved ... either way I will be summarising in due course for the benefit of others who might come here later under similar circumstances themselves.

Thank you for the your good wishes ... moral as well as practical support is more valuable than you might expect.

[Esio Trot]

Originally Posted by Shel100

Yesterday I had a letter from the Fraud Investigation Service calling me for an interview early next week suspecting that I have “committed a criminal offence in relation to a benefit claim because of failing to declare capital”.

...

1 - Can the interview be rescheduled? In fact I'd really rather not because I want this dealt with asap, but if I can't get ready in time can I rearrange?

Quite a long post, and sadly I don't have time today to respond to most of the valid queries you raise.

I appreciate that part of you wants this over quick, but the interview is at short notice (deliberately - in my experience). You are not under arrest, so attendance is voluntary (though benefit is normally suspended until resolved). My suggestion is to write a reply saying that this letter was quite a shock, that you don't think that you have done anything wrong, but need more time to gather your paperwork.

Amongst other things, I run a small loans company. We have a few clients on benefits who have things like insurance payouts, family assistance etc. Although these sums are not "capital", because of the suspicious nature of any large sums as far as the benefits agency are concerned, we hold these sums in our client account and the customer gets a savings book to draw upon whenever they have the need.

If you do go on Tuesday, try to have a friend with you. It is normally a big boost to your confidence, even if they say and do nothing - particularly as there are normally at least two benefits agency officials present, and sometimes more.

Don't forget that this is an Interview under Caution (IuC). It is a serious matter, but has to be conducted under specific rules. Trouble is, those that are interviewing you know these rules well - it is their job. You do not, so are at a weakness - and this is the more so as you are on their territory.

As soon as introductions are over they will start the tape, caution you and ask if you understand. This is your opportunity to really put a spanner in the works - though you have to be prepared for some hard ball tactics. You can say "no" and then you can say that you have never been in this situation before so need to know what your legal rights and obligations are. Bear in mind this will really p1ss them off, as it will interrupt their plan. People are expected to always say yes, but most don't really understand the procedure and shouldn't say yes. They should then dig out a copy of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and allow you to read it (but normally they can't find it!!!). You can say that until you fully understand being cautioned, you won't be able to answer any questions.

If you decide not to do the above, there is a golden rule with any IuC. If notes ("contemporaneous") are being taken make your replies verbose and full. If a taped IuC, pause and think about the question and your answer and keep your answers as brief as possible. The reason for this is that notes take time and it gives you time when they are being noted down to keep your thoughts together; for a taped interview, unless you do pause and think about your answers, the interview can go at a very fast pace and it is easy to lose your train of thought - and can easily contradict yourself.

For a taped interview, one way to pace the interview is to make your own contemporaneous notes, or if you don't want to do full notes, précis each question and your answer. It is then much easier then to see where they are going with their questions.

Prepare yourself beforehand. All you really need is a sheet of paper and list in table form each account, it's purpose, large deposits made, balances, and so on. There is no need to take in all your statements, but if you are taking paperwork, rather than having just a sheaf of paper and statements, put these in a sectioned folder for each account.

As an aside, the last time I was on the receiving end of a Caution was when I worked on the railways in the mid 90's as a ticket inspector. My supervisor cautioned me as I put on my worksheet a train I had worked, and a few days later he noted that he had boarded the same train and didn't see me on it (I left the train due to a call of nature - and being the rush hour I couldn't be sure of the exact train I got on or off). I had great fun in this, though outwardly I was very calm and polite. It was a note interview, so he wrote down his question then asked me the question. I then wrote down his question in my notebook, and wrote my reply. I then read from my notebook my reply which he wrote down (bear in mind the replies were full and long). He then wrote down his next question. He got so furious he went bright red, and I thought he was going burst his stomach ulcer. Nothing he could do though.

[Esio Trot]

One extra thing if you do have the interview under caution.

Know the difference between open and closed questions. When a closed question is asked, often a one-word answer will suffice: "Is this your bank account?". "Who made this deposit?". An open question is asking for explanation: "Please explain why you opened this account?" "What are the terms of the insurance policy that paid this money to you?"

A closed question is often used when they think they have you. "So I am right in saying you knew this was wrong. Is this correct?" If you answer "Yes" then your goose is cooked, whether you are sure of their question or not.

SO, unless you are One Hundred Percent Sure of an answer, never say yes or no. Always qualify it. Things like: "I'm not sure", "Possibly, but I'll have to check my paperwork at home", "I don't think I meant this. Why do you assume this was what I said?", "I think you are reading too much into what I actually said", "I can't answer this until I have checked".

[stardust_john]

Can you take along a tape recorder yourself for your own records, or a little mp3 player, so you can make good record of you stating you have no idea what this is about and would appreciatte a full and detailed explanation of where this accusation has come from. Tell them that you would like a copy of any information they have which defames you for your own records as you are shocked by this allegation and would appreciate their cooperation.

Could put you in a feeling of control.

[Michael Browne]

See here:
https://www.advicenow.org.uk/advicen...under-caution/

and other related topics - before and after the interview etc on the right of that page

If you have no joy with the CAB try Community Legal Services Direct on

0845 345 4 345

How to handle an interview under caution 1

[sweetnsexyenglish]

I have recently had an interview under caution... I called Community Legal Advice on 0845 456 5989 who gave me advice and sent out information for me... I also read up on