Shoelover
-
Posts
700 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Shoelover
-
For £900 you won't face court. It sounds as if they are treating this as a compliance matter. I suggest you ring the compliance officer & discuss it. Just because you have signed off, it won't go away. These things have a habit of snowballing if left. Sort it out and then move on. Hope the new job works out
-
Be very wary - Fake Phone Benefit Assessment - NOT DWP
Shoelover replied to Surfer01's topic in Benefits and HMRC
I hope whoever took your call logged it & reported it properly. For the reason you said- to make sure that others don't fall for the deception. How low can you go? Please don't be offended by this comment, but many people on benefits are very vulnerable & by definition don't have a lot of money. If indeed they are after their bank details as a [problem] then it's shocking. -
Be very wary - Fake Phone Benefit Assessment - NOT DWP
Shoelover replied to Surfer01's topic in Benefits and HMRC
I think you should report this to the DWP. It's probably just a lucky guess that you were getting benefits by the caller. I think the DWP should be made aware of this- they view this kind of thing as a security incident. -
The DWP no longer give cautions, if any action is taken then it's an administrative penalty or court. If you went to court for £2k then (unless you have relevant previous convictions) then prison is very very very unlikely- if you look at the sentencing guidelines for benefit offences, you may feel better. If you are interviewed under caution then I would recommend you ask for an appropriate adult- this is someone to look after your welfare at interview as you would be considered a vulnerable adult. Though I think you should cross that bridge if you come to it- people on here will be more than happy to support you. Nice gang here you know. The other possible outcome is that the case is dealt with as a compliance issue & there not be any interview. If that's the case, then I think it would be likely that you get a civil penalty, which is £50.
-
another compliance officer visit -** RESOLVED **
Shoelover replied to hollowman's topic in Benefits and HMRC
The chances are thats the end of it & they are satisfied it's malicious.- 39 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- compliance
- officer
- (and 1 more)
-
another compliance officer visit -** RESOLVED **
Shoelover replied to hollowman's topic in Benefits and HMRC
its probably just one of those things you have come up for review twice in a fairly short space of time. The chances are the officer is unaware of what an awful start to the year you have had. You could ring and ask if it can be postponed- don't ask don't get!!!! -
another compliance officer visit -** RESOLVED **
Shoelover replied to hollowman's topic in Benefits and HMRC
What would the basis of your complaint be? -
Without sight of the complaints policy the Council it's hard to give a timescale. Ten days Is fairly common. I would suggest that the O/P requests sight of the data match which initiated this action. Or failing that, that the council supply the details the match gave, with particular interest in the tax year the extract is in relation to.
-
Phrased the question badly.. What financial year is the data captured from ?
-
Depends where the error is and if it's human or a computer! O/p did they say which year these matches relate to? Was it prior to your claim?
-
I think you deserve an explanation at the very least. Without giving too much away, does your wife have a "common" name? In as much could there be someone else with the same name & date of birth.
-
When you write asking that it be dealt with under the complaints procedure. Have they explained what the data match said? Glad you got it sorted out
-
Oh & to add. My training has been provided by various organisations, but I first learnt of it when I worked for the (then) Benefits Agency .
-
I can't speak for standard, only my own training which is specialist, As an aside I went on a course last year which very much focused on diffusing anger & not escalating aggressive situations. That one didn't mention Betaris & his box, so maybe it's fallen out of favour. I doubt there is a hit squad taught to be harsh. I dare say those you refer to (and I accept they exist, they are just not the norm) should learn about it. Don't you think? I don't agree with you, but I can respect you as you are never personally abusive & at least read what's written before you disagree with it. How's that for a truce?
-
LW Have you considered going into politics???!! All joking aside. It saddens me that someone of your obvious intelligence feels that way. If everyone treated everyone the way they would like to be treated then the world would be a better place. One thing that I was taught in my interviewing training (most of my interviews are IUC's, but it applies in any situation) about Betaris Box. It's very very true - have you studied it at all? PS I don't want thanks or praise. I just want you to accept that we are not all bad!!! And neither are the advisers...
-
Thank you HB. I have seen people so so distressed by reading stuff on the Internet. If I can help counter their fears in relation to fraud matters (mainly) then I'd like to. People commit benefit fraud for many reasons & it's not always greed. Whilst I would never condone fraud, I have seen some people with heartbreaking stories that have done it out of sheer desperation. They are not bad people
-
I didn't have an issue with your draft letter. I take issue with you suggesting that staff are trained to wind people up. Not the case at all. The other thing I object to is the suggestion that we are all such terrible people, I have lost count of the number of people that have arrived at interviews petrified because they have read scaremongering on the Internet. I know of endless instances where staff have gone out of their way to assist people - above and beyond what is required of them. I don't know anything about UJM- I don't work in a job centre. Across the DWP & other benefit paying offices there are a diverse range of staff delivering a huge range of services utilising different skills. hoe can you lump us all together. FWIW I have spent over 20 years working in the benefit system. I have been assaulted at work. You do not hurt my feelings at all- your not important enough to me to do so. Hell I have had worse insults than flunky. How can you insult me, you don't know me. However, when you make sweeping statements such as you did, I will refute them. There is not any course or desire to wind people up. Why would staff do that? What possible gain could there be? If we are all such awful people, why are some of us on websites like this off the clock trying to help people? Who was it that said "integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking". Such as helping people and not expecting thanks or anything else in return: there are many valuable posters on here both benefit staff and otherwise. It's that wealth of experience and empathy that make places like this so helpful. So no, you don't hurt my "tender" feelings at all. But I will still counter your inflammatory statement.
-
Carers allowance overpayment URGENT help needed
Shoelover replied to lozzypop21's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Hi. 4 months overpayment of CA is not enough to land you in court. -
Exactly that^^^ If a member of DWP staff made a sweeping generalisation about people on benefits there would, rightfully, be uproar. Yes, there is training on handling difficult situations - concentrating on diffusing the situation. Fortunately, very little of my self esteem is invested in LW's opinion of me. End of.
-
I too am not on ESA or any other benefit
-
And me... I also pride myself on treating as others as I would like to be treated. As do the vast majority of my colleagues. I have to tell people things they don't want to hear virtually daily. I will always treat people with respect. Like others it's the tarring us all with the same brush that leaves me tempted to stop posting.
-
Antone is right. To make a decision on benefit the proof is required "on the Balence of probability". To get a conviction at court it is "beyond all reasonable doubt".
-
In any event, not all interest bearing accounts leave a credit foot print. I'm guessing they have a data match which suggests the o/p has interest bearing savings.
-
Has your wife ever had a loan account with Nat West?
-
They will just refer it back to the council.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS