In March 07 I was called into an formal interview with DWP and Council Tax. I had been 'annon reported' as living with my boyfriend. I wasnt living with him and told them so. However, my benefits were stopped and they charged me with 2yrs overpayment. I appealed.
My b/f had had his own place for 1 year of that period. Then he had to leave his flat and rented a room in a house near me. The other occupant was subletting and no rent agreement was given. A month later my b/f was given notice as the house was up for sale. He lost his job at the same time so to save funds he moved into his mums, and also stayed p/t at the empty house next door to me that he was working on (tradesman).
DWP evidence:
* I have 2 young children and my b/f signed their birth certificates. I was already preg with child 1 when we met, and my b/f cannot father a child.
* The owner of the empty house denied my b/f staying there (he hadnt declared it) and on interview said he thought my b/f lived with me.
* The owner of the sublet house says they had not heard of my b/f.
They say that if my b/f had no fixed address then he must have been living with me, esp as he had accepted responsibility for the children...
The r/ship with my b/f has been unstable and 'on and off' for a few years, so I did not wish to commit to living together.
After they stopped my monies I accrued so much debt that I had to sell my home and move away. In the meantime they changed the decision / charge from 2yrs to 1 year.. phew! but I had moved. I was just told that a new decision had been made in my favour. Thinking I was cleared I got on with my life.
Then I received a summons to court for the amount owing for that 1 year!! I still wasnt living with him, so I have now appealed this new decision, but how do I cancel this court date in April?
What can I do? I have written to my MP and my welfare rights man is helping me fight, but says I will probably lose as 'on paper it doesnt look good'.. Help!!
A boyfriend is not necessarily classed as a partner for financial matters. The DWP have criteria for what constitutes a 'partner' but I believe I am right in saying that you also have some say. It is better to think of your boyfriend as financially seperate. If he is financially separate then he is not your partner. The problem is how exactly being financially separate is decided. But your relationship with your b/f might be seen as informal.
I suggest you make a claim for legal aid and try and get a solicitor involved. Admit nothing to anyone on the other side until you are sure of what information is relevant. Remember that anything you have admitted that is damning will probably be due to their underhand tactics and stress and confusion on your part!
The whole partner thing is used by the DWP to make life hard for those that it finds suspicious.
Court is not so bad a thing but you may need some time to prepare. Will you qualify for legal aid? Use the CLS website to find a solicitor near you or get the welfare rights man to help with this.
Ahh.. this is where there is conflict! The Advice/org leaflet for the DWP states that if he has his own place, pays rent, has mail delivered elsewhere etc then he doesnt live with you. The DWP assessors notes are quite different.. If you do any washing, have any meals, are 'seen as a couple' in public, are 'accepted as a couple', show any comittment etc then you are A COUPLE! where is the line between that and 'living together'?? Going off their guidlines I would be a 'couple' with most of my male friends!!
I am accused of living with him because he stayed at his mums and didnt pay rent, he didnt support me financially.. hell, he couldnt support himself! and he signed the birth certificates (proving commitment) despitite not fathering the children..
Legal aid?? We need to be on some benefits to apply for that. Its been 5 wks since we applied for job seekers and they are delaying things. I cant even afford to instruct a solicitor without that.
Welfare Rights have appealed for me. I have to get as many statements as I can in my defence. Thats embarrassing.. having to ask college collegues and friends to write a statement for me.. and I have written to my MP.
Court? Its magistrates.. Does that make a difference??
I had maliscious anon report that living with partner that appeared at same time as neighbour asked to borrow 500.00 and I said no. She said she was desperate and would cause me trouble if I said no. I apologised that I didnt have any money and she knew my ill health situation and asked her not to ask again. She later asked to use my drive for her extra cars and I said no, she said I would pay.
Now I have to say ive never lived with a partner and have mental and ill health and she is the same person who when pretending to help would take money off me to pay bills, that never got paid.
My neighbour who I considered my best friend said she would cause trouble. Following week I recieve calls from dwp and letters and I must say my paranioa took over and I lost the plot. That woman made me ill and what protection is there for anon reporters who deliberately report out of malice and lies, nothing.
I feel for you and just to let you know I was terrified of the dwp callers, who actually turned out to be lovely and helpful and in the end wanted to check I was getting enough money. They could no confirm names but as soon as I told her what had happened over the last few weeks, they said nothing more needs to be looked into, for gods sake I was just out of hospital and my neighbour had pinched my jewlery thinking I was too out of it to see her or notice, she just said you were imagining it!!
Sad thing is I cant trust anybody know. I hope your situation is sorted soon for you. Its not a crime having a boyfriend, you tell them that and is it possible malice might be the route of your trouble. I think we should have more rights to know who is making allegations, would you get that right if it went to court? I hope so.
Thankyou.. Yes, malice is the cause of this situation. It was an anon phone call that reported me, but it happened at a time when my 20yr old step-daughter had just got pregnant. She had been seeing her b/f for some time but he, and his family, wanted her to terminate and even resorted to bully tactics with her. She wanted to keep her baby and I gave her the support to do what was right for her. A month later I was hauled in!! The information they had could only have come from someone who knew the family. My step daughter later said that her b/f's mother had been asking questions!
This vicious woman now has a gorgeous grandson, and I face a criminal record! The DWP have no evidence as I was not living with my b/f, yet they seem intent on making an example of me. And apparently they can charge me on hearsay evidence alone..
However, I am now also contesting the amount they say I owe as I am advised that they should have worked out what I would have received as a 'couple' then offset the debt against this for a true figure of overpayment. This has not been done.
This has had me in pieces.. Its caused me serious issues of debt, I have lost my home and my dignity. I also now have a 4 week old baby, this has deprived me of bonding time and I cannot feed her due to losing my milk through the stress of it all. It has also forced me into a position where I have had to live with my boyfriend in order to put a roof over the kids heads.. I never wanted to live with him, and now we have relationship problems as a result.. What a bloody mess!
Read this it's written by an expert in the field & may help
Criminal law practitioners who know little of social security law are routinely acting for people charged with social security fraud offences.
My experience as an expert witness in benefit fraud prosecutions, and previously as a frontline adviser, has increasingly led me to feel that injustices are occurring because of the lack of independent social security law expertise in many criminal cases. This article will show how there are substantial risks that some defendants are even being prosecuted when they are fully entitled to benefits and courts are sentencing using inflated fraud figures. The tightening of legal aid spending and consequent specialisation are partly responsible. For example, the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) welfare benefits contract prohibits payment for attending interviews under caution except by criminal contract holders.
There is a common perception that benefit fraud is widespread and costly. Such attitudes can and do influence judicial attitudes and result in the questionable practice of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) fraud investigators being set prosecution targets as part of their performance-related pay. Seek expert help early on
The two most common benefit fraud offences are in sections lllAand 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (SSAA). Both involve knowingly or deliberately failing to notify changes of circumstances or misrepresenting circumstances in connection with benefit claims. One must therefore understand the rules of entitlement for benefits in order to know whether the failure or misrepresentation actually affects benefit entitlement. In other words, there are clear links between civil and criminal law - the former drives the latter. \nRv Passmore [2007] EWCA Crim 2053, Passmore was convicted of offences under section 111A (1)A because he had dishonestly failed to inform the benefit authorities that he had formed a limited company. The court held that no offence was committed unless the failure to notify actually affected entitlement and, as he had not drawn any income from the company, there was no effect on benefit entitlement and the convictions were quashed. The court also held that the benefit fraud legislation must be seen in the 'wider statutory context' of social security law.
Practitioners never cease to be amazed by just how weak benefits authorities' assertions of non-entitlement or of amounts overpaid can be when subjected to knowledgeable analysis. Investigations
Clients may seek help when they have been asked to attend an interview under caution. Here public funding can be a problem, but the normal considerations about seeking sufficient advance disclosure and advising on silence apply. 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'. The latter may have implications for admissibility under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the former may be grounds for silence. Expert social security law advice is needed to understand what should be disclosed, to check entitlement and to help assess mens rea.
Practitioners may wish to note the Law Society Criminal Practitioner's Newsletter of January 2006 on advising on silence at police stations, which indicates that in complex cases it may be appropriate to maintain silence and when a prepared statement is appropriate.
An investigation is often accompanied by suspension of benefit - this must not be used to compel co-operation and the matter must be put before a benefit decision-maker to decide entitlement one way or another within a reasonable timescale (excessive delay may be judicially reviewable). Suspension is also discretionary for most benefits. Benefit appeals
In any prosecution it is important to appeal against the decision to end benefit and any decision on benefit overpayment. Time and again benefit experts find that solicitors fail to do this or fail to in accordance with the regulations. Not only does this severely disadvantage the client, but it may also be negligent.
It is particularly important to ensure that the appeal is submitted in the correct format and within the statutory time limits - a maximum of one month after the date of decision. After one month, it is necessary to explain the delay and why the appeal has merits such as a reasonable prospect of success. There is an absolute limit of 13 months from date of decision. A referral to an expert should also be made to undertake representation at the appeal and to consider the possibility of LSC exceptional public funding.
Not only is the benefit appellate process the proper adjudicator of entitlement in disputes, but a successful appeal will usually result in any prosecution being discontinued. One must therefore wonder why the FIM states that DWP will seek to postpone any appeal hearing when a prosecution is being taken - there is no legal authority for this and it risks the courts acting on questionable evidence of benefit entitlement. Inflated figures
The amount of overpaid benefit is crucial to sentencing and the DWP's strategy to publicise significant fraud convictions. However, benefit overpayments are frequently incorrect - 67ao of them, according to the latest data published by the DWP. Thus there is a huge risk of courts being misled unless someone checks the overpayment. Even pressing for a detailed Breakdown of how an overpayment has been calculated may cause the benefit authorities to spot errors.
A common way for people who work while claiming to be detected is by data-matching between DWP and HM Revenue & Customs computers. Under section 71 of the SSAA, when the material fact of employment is revealed to the DWP, any consequent overpayment is not recoverable and should not be included in the figure presented to the court (see also the FIM). However, it may be weeks, even months before the evidence is put before a benefit decision-maker and the overpayment is therefore inflated by official error.
Another inflationary measure is to fail to offset underlying entitlement to benefit - for example, the client may have been overpaid but still be entitled to some benefit. This is a specific statutory requirement for income support and housing benefit.
Then there is notional entitlement offset - commonly when someone has been working while claiming or has not declared their partner. For example, someone may lose entitlement to income support if they work for 16 or more hours a week, but had they declared their position, they may have been entitled to tax credits. Because of recent welfare reforms, claimants are often better off doing this than working while claiming. The amounts of notional tax credits and other benefits payable while in work are very relevant for sentence because they show the true net loss to the public purse.
Similarly, underclaiming of other benefits (for example, because of disability) may be mitigation as well as reduce an overpayment.
DWP practice seems to be to not mention these points to the court or the defence. This is not helpful and can mislead the sentencer (who may well not be aware of the concept of not';-; in-work benefits and tax credits). Expert input is essential.
Given the moral panic about benefit fraud, criminal and social security law practitioners need to improve joint working in the interests of justice. History teaches us that unless the law rises above moral panic, the seeds of injustice come to flower.
These low lifes accussers should be named especially if it comes to court. Why dont they? protection issues, tosh. They seem more worried about having to go into the ins and outs of accusser integrity maybe?
The woman in my case now works for a care company for the elderly!!!!! going house to house giving care and I know what that means.
Thing is though, with this fraud phone line the accusers dont even give their names, they just phone up and make the accusations..so even the DWP dont know who they are! Its wrong that a life can be ruined so easily. I have not been a single mum thats sat on her arse sponging off the state.. I put myself through 4 years to get a good job and support my 3 children. And if I get a criminal record now all that will have been for nothing.
The government are a law unto themselves. I have written to my MP. I will fight on.. for now anyway!
Even if you live with your bf for 100 years that fact alone doesn't make him your partner. If you are scrupulous about paying for things seperately then it will be hard for them to prove anything.
DWP are proud of their conviction rate. Once they start they will probably fight tooth and nail to get what they want or they risk missing their targets.
Imagine a young man and woman living together. One is well paid, the other not. The DWP decide they are a couple and that the poor one can't get benefit. Does one sue the other for money to live on? This would be a stupid situation and the law, I believe, does recognise this dilemma.
The first thing all 'enforcement agencies' do is bluff like mad in the hope that you crack. The police do it with good cop bad cop. The DWP have to go at you because they have started now. Don't let them bully you.
You may qualify for some type of legal help. Certainly if they're trying to prosecute you should get something. Call the community legal service and ask. For appeal about DWP conduct you need the 'parliamentary and health service Ombudsman'.
Keep us up to date with what's happening! Fight the power! If you were not a couple then don't accept their ruling that you were. They cannot simply dictate.
Read this it's written by an expert in the field & may help
Criminal law practitioners who know little of social security law are routinely acting for people charged with social security fraud offences.
My experience as an expert witness in benefit fraud prosecutions, and previously as a frontline adviser, has increasingly led me to feel that injustices are occurring because of the lack of independent social security law expertise in many criminal cases. This article will show how there are substantial risks that some defendants are even being prosecuted when they are fully entitled to benefits and courts are sentencing using inflated fraud figures. The tightening of legal aid spending and consequent specialisation are partly responsible. For example, the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) welfare benefits contract prohibits payment for attending interviews under caution except by criminal contract holders.
There is a common perception that benefit fraud is widespread and costly. Such attitudes can and do influence judicial attitudes and result in the questionable practice of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) fraud investigators being set prosecution targets as part of their performance-related pay. Seek expert help early on
The two most common benefit fraud offences are in sections lllAand 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (SSAA). Both involve knowingly or deliberately failing to notify changes of circumstances or misrepresenting circumstances in connection with benefit claims. One must therefore understand the rules of entitlement for benefits in order to know whether the failure or misrepresentation actually affects benefit entitlement. In other words, there are clear links between civil and criminal law - the former drives the latter. \nRv Passmore [2007] EWCA Crim 2053, Passmore was convicted of offences under section 111A (1)A because he had dishonestly failed to inform the benefit authorities that he had formed a limited company. The court held that no offence was committed unless the failure to notify actually affected entitlement and, as he had not drawn any income from the company, there was no effect on benefit entitlement and the convictions were quashed. The court also held that the benefit fraud legislation must be seen in the 'wider statutory context' of social security law.
Practitioners never cease to be amazed by just how weak benefits authorities' assertions of non-entitlement or of amounts overpaid can be when subjected to knowledgeable analysis. Investigations
Clients may seek help when they have been asked to attend an interview under caution. Here public funding can be a problem, but the normal considerations about seeking sufficient advance disclosure and advising on silence apply. 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'. The latter may have implications for admissibility under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the former may be grounds for silence. Expert social security law advice is needed to understand what should be disclosed, to check entitlement and to help assess mens rea.
Practitioners may wish to note the Law Society Criminal Practitioner's Newsletter of January 2006 on advising on silence at police stations, which indicates that in complex cases it may be appropriate to maintain silence and when a prepared statement is appropriate.
An investigation is often accompanied by suspension of benefit - this must not be used to compel co-operation and the matter must be put before a benefit decision-maker to decide entitlement one way or another within a reasonable timescale (excessive delay may be judicially reviewable). Suspension is also discretionary for most benefits. Benefit appeals
In any prosecution it is important to appeal against the decision to end benefit and any decision on benefit overpayment. Time and again benefit experts find that solicitors fail to do this or fail to in accordance with the regulations. Not only does this severely disadvantage the client, but it may also be negligent.
It is particularly important to ensure that the appeal is submitted in the correct format and within the statutory time limits - a maximum of one month after the date of decision. After one month, it is necessary to explain the delay and why the appeal has merits such as a reasonable prospect of success. There is an absolute limit of 13 months from date of decision. A referral to an expert should also be made to undertake representation at the appeal and to consider the possibility of LSC exceptional public funding.
Not only is the benefit appellate process the proper adjudicator of entitlement in disputes, but a successful appeal will usually result in any prosecution being discontinued. One must therefore wonder why the FIM states that DWP will seek to postpone any appeal hearing when a prosecution is being taken - there is no legal authority for this and it risks the courts acting on questionable evidence of benefit entitlement. Inflated figures
The amount of overpaid benefit is crucial to sentencing and the DWP's strategy to publicise significant fraud convictions. However, benefit overpayments are frequently incorrect - 67ao of them, according to the latest data published by the DWP. Thus there is a huge risk of courts being misled unless someone checks the overpayment. Even pressing for a detailed Breakdown of how an overpayment has been calculated may cause the benefit authorities to spot errors.
A common way for people who work while claiming to be detected is by data-matching between DWP and HM Revenue & Customs computers. Under section 71 of the SSAA, when the material fact of employment is revealed to the DWP, any consequent overpayment is not recoverable and should not be included in the figure presented to the court (see also the FIM). However, it may be weeks, even months before the evidence is put before a benefit decision-maker and the overpayment is therefore inflated by official error.
Another inflationary measure is to fail to offset underlying entitlement to benefit - for example, the client may have been overpaid but still be entitled to some benefit. This is a specific statutory requirement for income support and housing benefit.
Then there is notional entitlement offset - commonly when someone has been working while claiming or has not declared their partner. For example, someone may lose entitlement to income support if they work for 16 or more hours a week, but had they declared their position, they may have been entitled to tax credits. Because of recent welfare reforms, claimants are often better off doing this than working while claiming. The amounts of notional tax credits and other benefits payable while in work are very relevant for sentence because they show the true net loss to the public purse.
Similarly, underclaiming of other benefits (for example, because of disability) may be mitigation as well as reduce an overpayment.
DWP practice seems to be to not mention these points to the court or the defence. This is not helpful and can mislead the sentencer (who may well not be aware of the concept of not';-; in-work benefits and tax credits). Expert input is essential.
Given the moral panic about benefit fraud, criminal and social security law practitioners need to improve joint working in the interests of justice. History teaches us that unless the law rises above moral panic, the seeds of injustice come to flower.
Hi Jon
I have just posted an update about my case on DLA Overpayment, I have been summoned to court next month under the Social Security act 112(1A) you seem to know alot about these cases and I was wondering if you may be able to help me ? I know it maybe long winded to go into detail here but if possible could you contact me direct if so I will give you my email or phone number ....Look forward to your reply just as a footnote there is a twist to this case that I cannot go into in public..... Best regards Paul
Well it seems they can still prosecute even with an appeal in process. They have summoned me to court despite my appeal with the welfare rights. I phoned them to adjurn the case and they laughed at me.. and also insinuated that because I do now actually live with my b/f that we must have been lying all along.. help, I am so scared. I wasnt living with him, but how do I prove it????
DWP alledged fraud. Co-habiting HELP!
Originally Posted by Goldlady
Hi, if you have involved your MP I think this is your best weapon.
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Reply With Quote
The Consumer Forums
Bookmarks