Jump to content

Kouros

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Kouros

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. The "appeal" sometime near the end of August 2009 prior to the court cases ( Sep, Oct, Apr ) and was a farce. Generic chat about large amounts of benefits owed over a long time. Nothing specific like amounts or dates. It had the feel of an evidence fishing exercise by the DWP. I attended that "appeal" with a Court Summons in my hand for ten days later. The part I did not mention is that they paid Income Support while I was a full time carer for my father in my own home. So another issue is I should have received say £40 from *Carer's Allowance*. You see if the DWP is right th
  2. In July 2009 I was interviewed under caution for benefit fraud 2006-2008. I was divorced finally in July 2006. September 2009, the local Magistrate pinged the case to the regional magistrate. October 2009, the regional magistrate dismissed the case. April 2010, the County Court Judge said: "Not Guilty of any benefit fraud" November 2011, the DWP Debt Collection wrote to me to claim the amount of the benefit fraud. November 2011, my solicitor wrote to the DWP, you have waited nineteen months before raising the matter again and the fraims guidelines are for eighteen months. The rep
  3. It would appear I have a love letter from the DWP chasing the so called debt. Very annoyed by this as I have been through the court system on TWO occasions. The first the DWP case was dismissed, the second I was found not guilty. So next week it is off to see my solicitor, try to contact my MP. I think harassment is the actual phrase since the last court appearance was getting on for two years ago.
  4. Well it can be as income support is means tested. So the DWP benefit clerk found something called "Family Premium" The local council did not give me a council tax reduction even though I was unemployed and had converted property to support disabled father. When I pointed out that aspect the judges in both cases lost interest in what the DWP had to say. I only mentioned it to calm the nerves of the original poster that the DWP are currently fishing, including cases they have lost in court.
  5. I think the DWP are trawling their old database for potential get money from people. I had a call last night from the DWP debt agency at 8.35pm I laughed at them having had the case dismissed by one judge (2009) and then when the DWP went criminal the second judge (2010) found me Not Guilty. My "crime" ? carer's allowance and some sub-set of income support while caring for my paraplegic father full time in my home while also bringing up two daughters as a single parent.
  6. If I were you I would try to dismiss it from your mind. The kids dad does not live with you and a work collegue of his has confirmed this. The DWP are unlikely to put anything in writing even if you write to them. In my case the DWP failed to attend court in July 09, so I moved for a dismissal. The DWP opened the case a second time and a week before the second trial in April 10they informed the court (not me and not my by then solicitor) no evidence would be offered. They failed to turn up to the court for Mention hearing as they should have done when the matter was dismissed by the
  7. Four months after an inteview under caution the next thing was a summons to the magistrate court in my case.
  8. I 'won' or more to the point the DWP sent a letter to court saying they were offering no evidence. I turned up AGAIN, DWP did not turn up AGAIN, the case was dismissed and I was found not guilty as if it had gone to trial. All my expenses were repaid within fourteen days. Life is too short and I decided against taking the DWP to court for damages.
  9. Which they do with the signature on the benefit forms as a starting point. Still not seen what accusation of benefit fraud. Housing benefit? Income Support?
  10. If things procceed against you there are two levels *knowingly* and *dishonestly*. Medical records are useful when faced with the greater charge of dishonestly (section 111A SSAA 1992) to get it eased to *knowingly*. Pushing DV as a reason is not smart unless you can show the assault is *actual bodily harm* (missing teeth for example). It is better to understate this just imply that your partner was less able to cope with the needs of the child than yourself. Further the DWP should have checked any other benefit premiums based on the child.
  11. Fitz, I parted with £250 to a solicitor yesterday. I get the Daily Mail delivered so yup Page 19 has been cut out.
  12. How sickening is this: R v Bennett and Bond ex p Bennet 1908 [72 JP 362] A solicitor would be useful in terms of the contract Part 18 Declaration ... if appropriate my claim for Income Support will be treated as an application for child maintenance Part 21 What happens next If you are entitled to Income Support we will write to tell you how .... If you are not entitled to Income Support we will write to tell you why and what to do if you disagree with the decision You see the reason for the chat with the Job Centre was to tell them I now had residency of my dear little
  13. Fitz, Thanks up to a point. CAB pointed me at the form filling solicitor. CLAS and Community Legal Service Direct are not worth the effort they are state funded call center clerks. "Failing all else, I at least recommend paying for a half-hour consultation with a local solicitor." Well that is it as a 'rich' person I have to pay to defend myself from the state.
  14. Social Security Administration Act 1992 Section 111A The majority of cases are based on not reporting a change of circumstances to the DWP. R v Tilley, Times 5 August 2009 (CA Crim) The court considered the meaning of “allows” in s 111A (1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and held that it required a positive act on the part of the defendant for the offence to be committed. Accordingly if a third party knew of a change that affected the benefit of a person claiming income support, he would be guilty of an offence only if he dishonestly allowed the beneficiary to fail to re
  15. Exactly. Welcome to my world, I am back in court after the DWP failed to turn up for the trial. Like you I would pay a grand to be able to sleep nights.
×
×
  • Create New...