Thanks for the update, and welcome back! If you can prove the job is still available to you, then you can get permission from Styal to vary the curfew hours - they are unlikely to refuse such a request because of the rehabilitation that working will give you. Give them a ring and ask - there's a specialist department for it (the HDC Department) that deals with this kind of request and you'll receive a favourable response, I think. Very, very well done on being able to keep your job - something that's normally very difficult when there's a conviction in the mix. If you need insurance (you'll find you're excluded from the 'main market' - read the T's and C's before signing up - they all exclude unspent convictions - even if the proposer is not the one with the conviction) then a company I found through UNLOCK (unlock.org) in Peterborough quoted some very sensible rates indeed and offered good value cover. UNLOCK is worth joining, too for support - every member there is in the same boat as you and there's a lot of advice there to help you get back on your feet. NACRO is also worth joining (both freebies), too - plenty of work-related support on there. Best of luck.

You're not looking at charges under S111 or S112, trust me. Not for what will be viewed as a 'repeat offender. You're looking at the prosecution putting forwards the Fraud Act 2006 from what I've read here, in my opinion. The "date" of the alleged offences is important, as is the date the claim started as to which one they'll try for. Penalties under the Fraud Act 2006 are quite a bit harsher and your friend will need a good barrister with knowledge of the benefits system.

That is an interesting point, but probably not one for open debate on a public forum! IMO no, but there are loads of rules and regulations around benefits and it's entirely feasible that the word "claim" could relate to ANY JSA claim recorded against your NI Number, not just the current one.

It is important to get some protection for yourself, as well - report these abusive and harrassing phone calls and don't let the bully win. Please report these to the Police. Entering "No Plea" was a way to get this to Crown, and get you some good representation. Make sure that representation has got Benefit knowledge and experience - this will become increasingly important going forwards, listen to them and take their advice. A criminal lawyer at this stage may work to your disadvantage. This needs specialist knowledge. I really do wish you luck. I feel for you, truly I do.

I'd go and take some legal advice if I were you - find yourself a lawyer with Benefits knowledge - ideally a Benefits Specialist lawyer. A "normal" criminal lawyer will lack the necessary knowledge to be able to assist you effectively. You need to find yourself said solicitor rapidly. They will not take into account any underlying entitlements (as the T/C will be called) - it's not in their nature to do so. You, and your lawyer, will have to raise this point with them and calculate the underlying entitlement. This is likely to make a significant difference to your alleged "overpayment". It might be prudent to get the rates of benefits for the years concerned (TC's weren't about in 2000, if I recall) and calculate your own underlying entitlement - it's likely to be fairly significant if you were only working a little bit and your 'partner' was unemployed. However, you have got a little bit of a sticky situation insofar as you have declared this work was "cash in hand" and not declared - that point will be picked up on by the Prosecution and they'll use that as additional evidence that the fraud was deliberate, pre-planned and long-term which will not look good on you in Court - especially Crown. The matters of the parasite and his actions upon you are fairly strong mitigating circumstances and need to be raised with your brief. If this is going to Crown (likely, with the alleged amount involved) then you'll be entitled to Legal Aid if you're on benefits and will most likely end up with a barrister to represent you. If there's any help or advice you would like from me, please feel free to take it offline of the thread and PM me - for obvious reasons I can't say too much on a public thread like this. Definitely, definitely get a lawyer - a good one at that. Soon.

..

Not sure on this point - in our scenario, we appealed immediately and the benefits were paid again. If they sanction you, appeal and this time use your evidence to support your case as to why your benefits should not be sanctioned.

Hi GinZ, please see my comments above in red.

I think the above is a very wise way of looking at the situation - normally I wouldn't advocate going off at the deep end like this - but it's evident to my eyes, viewed with the benefit of experience, that your particular CO is looking to take your case down a very specific line and that the situation is threatening to spiral out of control and start causing sleepless nights unnecessarily (if it hasn't already). This isn't about "scaring" anyone, or "misleading" them - it is about empowerment. The first step towards coping with any problem is understanding it and understanding what you are dealing with. The Internet and forums such as this one can be your friend when looking for information and advice - there are many "stickies" on different threads and in the posts that can provide valuable information, such as applicable benefit rates at the time, or information on how these investigations are carried out, to how to complain about unfair treatment, and links to further reading or resources. The more you understand of how the system works (that's currently trying to work against you) the easier you'll find it challenging the inaccuracies and unfairness in your case. It is, for example, quite telling in my opinion that the possibility of this being started as a "Fis" case suggests that the evidence gathering that has already gone on behind the scenes is to a far higher standard of proof than the Compliance stage - that's why I suggested getting a copy of everything and preparing to completely disprove, by provable fact and logical calculation that the error is not on your part. I am truly delighted that you have found my advice useful and sincerely wish you all the best in proving your innocence. To Jabba Jones : I respect your opinion and knowledge but acknowledge that you and I are looking at this situation from entirely opposing views - I as an outsider and who has experience of the 'customer-facing' environment, you from your equally valid viewpoint. I recognise that for every one of these appointments that you do read about on the internet that has gone wrong, there must be a hundred more that don't have any issues and by default therefore will not appear in threads like these, therefore a balanced view needs to be kept. Not all CO's are bad, but there's three people on this one thread alone who have had bad experiences with these staff in the past in terms of not necessarily rudeness, but a certain methodology to the questioning, which tends at times to gravitate towards abruptness and accusation. It can be seen how this abruptness and almost bullying behaviour could be construed as rudeness. Ginz : Please keep us updated.

Jabba, I appreciate your input and thank you for it. Understanding that there IS a difference between the two teams, I think it would be fair to comment that, based on what the OP has said thus far, the Compliance Team are digging around for information and are doing what they can to slant the available evidence against the OP. The OP asked for advice and people's experiences in this situation. I was giving the experience that I, and someone very close to me, had just a few years ago with these "Compliance Officers". I fully accept there are some officers who are diligent, thorough and will admit that mistakes have been made in paperwork when presented with the evidence, but on the flip side of the coin, the Officers that both the OP and myself have come across have been the polar opposite whom are assuming (and doing their damnedest to prove) "guilty until proven innocent". The other little "comments" that have been thrown in during the course of this investigation that makes it pretty clear in my eyes which way this "Investigating Officer" would like this case to proceed. Truly, I hope for the OP's sake that I am mistaken with my interpretation of the words and actions thus far, but it has to be said that absolutely no-one has come onto this thread attempting to defend the "Investigating Officer's" position and offering an alternative point of view from someone on the "inside" based on the facts that the OP has posted. I don't want to get dragged into an argument, either - it won't be helpful to the OP. I respect that you have a degree of knowledge and understanding, borne of your position, that I do not, however I am entitled to share my experiences of a similar situation with the OP as per her initial request - it is her choice as to whether to accept those experiences or reject them and seek assistance elsewhere. I recognise that some of my comments are likely to get a certain section of people's backs up considerably and I make no apology for that. Nobody's forcing anyone to read this thread who doesn't voluntarily wish to. I have already openly admitted just how much I (don't) trust ANY Government Department, least of all target-driven benefit-type Departments who are under enormous political pressure from "on high" to "produce results". My advice remains the same - the OP needs to ensure that she has every single shred of evidence she can get her hands on to prove her innocence and make absolutely sure that she has her facts straight, and her back covered - whether at the Compliance stage or further along the process. To the OP - thanks, I have received your PM and will review it shortly and respond to you by the same method. If there IS anything in what I have posted on this thread that you find "misleading" or "potentially distressing", I apologise - and, as I said, I truly hope that I have misinterpreted what has been said and done so far and when you attend the second interview, the nice lady that interviews you will see that all this has been a terrible mistake and she's wasted a lot of time and effort for nothing. Based on what's been said so far, though and the tone of the investigation to date, I suspect you'll have more chance of being run over by a Routemaster Bus whilst sitting indoors watching TV than that happening..........

So, in their eyes, you are already guilty of not declaring savings AND of "deprivation of capital" - i.e. "wasting" your savings to get your total below the limits permissible for benefits? That's definitely the way they're building their case against you. Obviously, I don't know your full situation - the key question here is how much savings are we talking about? You're saying that your savings were below £6k before you commenced your claim last year so that is an irrelevance - they will be focussing on the time(s) you were claiming but your savings exceeded £6k whilst you were claiming - ESPECIALLY if they don't think you'd declared those savings. Don't ask for the paperwork - it won't be forthcoming. In this sort of case, they conveniently "forget" or "lose" the request - particularly if it was an in-person request or a telephone call. S.A.R. (Subject Access Request) them and get a full copy of your file. Templates are available on this site or other equivalent sites on the internet (I've got one downloaded if you want a copy - PM me and I'll send it to you). It's a formal request with legal time-scales on reply, that they cannot ignore. OK, it'll cost you a tenner or so, but it'll be the best tenner you ever spent as it will show you everything on your claim file from day dot which, when reviewed by your good self, will show what you are up against and exactly what they hold on you - prepare to be shocked, though as to the sheer amount of information (right, wrong or otherwise) they've got on you. She won't get stroppy about not having the originals - she can't. I will repeat my earlier advice - only take copies with you, and do not let that original out of your sight unless it is to YOUR legal representative, should you get that far. This sounds like they've gone back a few years - for certain they'll have bank statements from this period, including showing this savings amount - and will be trying to make the "crime" fit the timescales - i.e. "Your honour, the accused claimed benefits from xx/2008 to xx/2009 and all this time she had an undeclared Bank Account with £y in it - look at our evidence - we can prove this". YOU, in turn, need to be able to refute this, with written evidence - "But, your honour, on xyzabc date, I DID notify the JC in writing about these savings - here is my proof of that, dated xx/xx/xxxx and the date I posted it to them was xx/xx/xxxx". You get the picture, I'm sure. Don't worry about justifying what you spent YOUR savings on whilst you were not working and not claiming benefits - as long as the figures aren't excessive (i.e. you blew a half-million win on the lottery in 6 months) and it would look to any reasonable person that you were supporting yourself with your own savings (I'd have thought a spending pattern of around £10k a year from your only means of support would not be seen as unreasonable) and not looking to the taxpayer to top-up your income then it is of no relevance to this case. They ARE trying to frame you. Be under no illusions. They are trying to frame you for your PREVIOUS claim, not this current one and by the sounds of it they've got enough "evidence" in their eyes to take it to the prosecutors. Get your facts together and be clear, focussed and remain calm - if you're sure you're innocent, and you can prove that innocence, then stick to it. Don't put words in this horrible woman's mouth or give her any extra "ammunition" (and, believe me she'll be digging for said ammunition during the interview) or "evidence" of your "guilt". Remember, she already believes you to be guilty. The key point here is PROOF. If you haven't got the paper trail from that long ago, then get it - lack of paper trail is what caused our problems - we couldn't PROVE what had been said or done so our situation turned against us very, very quickly and was not a particularly good outcome at the time. Lessons learned, and all that - I now keep duplicate copies of EVERYTHING and don't speak to any Government Department on the phone - not even if I'm recording it. All communication is in writing, delivered by a provable method (normally Recorded but occasionally I have been known to use Special Delivery) only. Yes, it slows things down, but it does provide a rock-solid trail of PROOF and facts that cannot be argued with later - that policy actually paid dividends only this year when we ended up in front of a Tribunal after a 13-month fight with the DWP and were successful.

I've got to be honest with you, in my dealings with these sorts of "investigators" a few years ago, I found them equally as obnoxious, arrogant and patronising as you have. They are, indeed, looking to frame you - from what you've said so far and the direction of their questioning, it's pretty clear which way they're heading with your case - especially as you've been so up-front with them already and given them what they see as "key evidence" and an "admission of guilt" - the confession of the fact that you had over £6k in savings. The mere, insignificant fact that you have declared those savings and can evidence that has already been missed by the "fact finding mission" that's already gone on behind the scenes and will be very conveniently forgotten if they're not reminded of it...... Give them what they ask for, but don't volunteer too much information - answer the questions truthfully and honestly, but stick to answering the question. Two ways of dealing with it next - one is to wait until they write to you and then write back, by Special Delivery, thanking them for their letter but, were they aware that you had declared the savings, and that you had proof that you had declared it - enclosing a copy of that proof? Second is to turn round at the end of the grilling (sorry, interview) WHILST THE TAPE IS STILL RUNNING and tell them that you have got proof of declaring the savings, and here it is (give them a COPY, not the original - never let that original out of your possession unless to your brief (if you get that far - if what you say is true, it sounds unlikely as their case will collapse when you provide your evidence). Personally, I'd wait until they wrote to me and then write back by a provable delivery method, thanking them, addressing/refuting their every point and sending a copy of the proof - that way there's a provable paper trail (tape machines aren't infallible, nor are the operators of them) - but that's just me. I'm afraid I've got too darned cynical over the last few years of dealing with pedantic Government organisations one way and another and wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them. I wish you luck, truly.

It's been some time since I updated this thread - my apologies to anyone that's been following it. Just wanted to update you all with the latest events. My daughter moved in with me in April, as I said above, and we managed, between us, to continue to keep her at her existing school (because they'd already entered her for the GCSE's there they wouldn't let her take them elsewhere so the coimmute became 2 hours each way by train). She left school at the end of June and managed to land herself a "job with training" before her results were even known - locally to us. When the results came through, she ended up with a total of 8 GCSE's, all at grade C and above which was a stunning achievement. She's now working towards an NVQ Level 2 in Business and Administration whilst working and earning that all-important money - OK, it's no great shakes at the moment, but from small acorns....... She has weathered this storm admirably and now has got herself into a routine of staying here/her boyfriends throughout the week, and attends work regularly (clearly her mother's influences did not rub off on her ). I am very pleased that everything worked out so well for her, and, of course it goes without saying, that I'm behind her, supporting her all the way.

My word, a fellow hemiplegic! Well, it's not me, it's my missus that has the hemiplegia - again, like you, from birth and, also like you, we're currently battling the DWP - she didn't get MRC though, they only assessed her for LRC.... Personally, SCOPE wasn't a lot of help - they are very much more for the cerebal palsic person - whilst they DO understand CP, what they don't understand is the consequence of that CP - the hemiplegia. We found that an organisation called HEMIHELP was able to give some more information, but even they weren't the "fount of all knowledge" that we were looking for. Don't, whatever you do, let your doctor fob you off that it's "hemiparesis" - we had that and it's now taking an enormous amount of time to get that decision changed and the correct diagnosis given. The biggest issue is the lack of knowledge (and, of course the lack of WANTING to increase their knowledge) on the medical professionals' behalf. You're lucky, in some ways, being able to walk - the OH is now in a mobility scooter for anything that involves going outside the house - indoors it is a walking stick required, plus we have a stair lift and wetroom-type shower with seat and grab rails in it. I am her carer, although I do work part-time hours in the office (finishing the day at home) to ensure that I can give her enough supervision and support without her being on her own all day (she stays in her chair playing computer games whilst I'm at the office to avoid the risk of falls - if she fell over indoors and banged her head on a door frame/wall/floor/door the consequences could be very serious indeed). If you want to talk further, I'm happy for this to be over PM if you wish - I'm happy to offer you some support and understanding of your condition and what might happen in the future - up to you. I've found plenty of information, one way or the other, on the web, but have also sifted through most of it to ensure that it's relevant. Hemiplegia/CP are understood far more "over the water" than they are in this country but you need to 'filter out' the "ambulance chasing" parts of these sites - in a lot of American cases, CP is caused by medical negligence at the point of birth but in this country that's rare - it's normally something happening "in the womb" that causes it. You state that you are "right hemiplegic" - by that do you mean that your right side is affected (thus making the area of damage in your brain is the left hemisphere) or that your right hemisphere is affected (i.e the left side of your body is affected)? Oh, and by the way - my OH turns 40 next year, so long-term prognosis with hemiplegia isn't the dire situation that "pure" CP can be. CP is a consequence of the stroke and the hemiplegia is a consequence of the CP. Why did you lose your DLA and the car? First things first, you should be appealing that decision, right now. Take it to a tribunal if needs be. Your condition is permanent, and you easily fit the eligibility criteria of 3/6 months. My OH was awarded DLA, indefinitely, in 1995! Going forwards, you could, with the right support from your partner, lead a fairly "normal" life - albeit restricted by the mobility aspect and the care needs that will generate, but there's nothing to stop you having children in the future (it's not hereditary) and leading a fairly independent life.

Too late...........