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 they should have to at least offset the £80 Income Support Payments with £40 Carer's Allowance (not means tested). They realised this at some point in 2007 and paid out as £40 Carers Allowance and £40 Income Support. I assumed it was like that to get the same amount as the statutory minimum support as by then my capital was now below £16,000. They argue, sorry about our mistake (£40 pw IS ) but we still want our mistake repaid. The amount in question is about £5,000 (total three years, without CA offset or IS should be paid because capital is *now* below £16000) but nothing will convince me that "right" would have been £40 Carers Allowance a week only. ( what am I a care home on the cheap then? ) when Income Support for a single person was twice that at the time and such people also do not pay Council Tax where as I was billed the full amount on my property ( 25% off for a paraplegic in your converted home ?? Carer's Assessment ?? ). If the DWP expected me to pay the builder in full before he started (so that I could cleanly claim means tested) rather than in stages then they are idiots. +++++ antone, yeah maybe hence the question but I think he meant EXACTLY what he said. Nobody (DWP or here) seems to know if a Criminal County Court Judge can also reach a Civil Decision at the same time. id6052, I do not need the Tribunal to be re-run that is in effect what the Independent Case Examiner is offering.

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 reply then was, civil and criminal are different. I am now waiting May 2015, for my Tier 2 letter stating "Final Written Response" having gone through Tier 1 in the last couple of months as according to the DWP no complaint had ever been lodged. ( I think my solicitor's letter in 2011 rather implies otherwise ) The Independent Case Examiner wants this DWP letter as well. As I understand it the DWP are arguing a "Not Guilty" at a Criminal Hearing does not also cover the civil side of things. Well maybe, and hence my post, but the thing is, according to my bank statements Jan 2006 to April 2006 there are no payments of Income Support as alleged. The assertion from the DWP is I had over £16,000 in savings and not entitled to any benefits. The money in the account was put there by my now late uncle and my now late father for the purposes of a property conversion by them to provide a bedroom for my wheel chair bound father. So yes the bank account in my name for a few months had a lot of money in it before paying the builder but not once the money had been paid out. The DWP have seen the conversion from outside of the property (2009). I have no problem defending the matter in a civil court ( not that the DWP have suggested that ), they have to date kept asking for the amount of their criminal case with no regard to the fact that they did not pay all they have asserted. I could tell back in 2010 the County Court Judge was far from impressed especially since he could not find all the alleged payments on my bank statements. So here is my question: Can a *Criminal* *County Court* Judge say "Not Guilty of *any* benefit fraud" and that is the decision or are the choice of his words misleading. A more advanced question is what if any evidence can the DWP bring back from a failed criminal case where all benefit payments ceased over seven years ago.

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.

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.

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.

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 judge as if I had been found not guilty. Two years of stress, sleepless nights and all that.

Four months after an inteview under caution the next thing was a summons to the magistrate court in my case.

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.

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?

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.

Fitz, I parted with £250 to a solicitor yesterday. I get the Daily Mail delivered so yup Page 19 has been cut out.

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 angels. When the paperwork finally got sent it wrecked the existing Carer's Allowance and took until to October to fix up as the summer was consumed with the CSA taking child maintenance from me in error. My thinking today is: to prepare the case, show it to a solicitor for an hour, re-write based on chat, show it again before hearing (second hour), get solicitor to do the court thing at the hearing (hours). As in putting my money where my mouth is The magistrate would then have to ponder, if this guy is guilty how come he paid for his solicitor¿

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.

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 report the change and provided that he had been active in some way in the failure. A transcript is available on the Bailii website at Tilley, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1426 (20 July 2009)

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.

lil miss stressedkouros ... have you sent me that to tip me over the edge?????? Do the sums. These Brent people are like £4000 to £6000 CONVICTED Housing Benefit fraud cases and get 100 to 200 hours community service and £75 costs. No sign of a FINE. R v Stewart and others (1987) is the basis for how much you suffer if found guilty. The splitting point is 10k inflation adjusted from 1987 so if you are facing £30k plus then oh dear ....

Angela Atkinson (48) of Stonebridge NW10 entered a plea of guilty to two charges of benefit fraud, contrary to s111A Social Security Administration Act 1992 at Brent Magistrates Court on the 6 January. Atkinson received a Community Punishment Order of 180 hours and was ordered to pay £75 towards costs after it was revealed that she had been claiming housing and council tax benefit since at least 2 May 2005 on the basis that she was a single unemployed person and that her only income was from Jobseekers Allowance. During this time she was employed as a full time Customer Service Officer with Barnett Homes Ltd (20/03/06 to 16/03/07). Working an average of 36 hours per week she took home a monthly salary of £1313.00. Despite being employed on a full time basis she failed to notify the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) or the London Borough of Brent about this employment and was overpaid housing benefit, council tax benefit and jobseekers allowance between 11 April 2006 to 12 March 2007 amounting to £6828.01. In another case Kerry Graham (34) of Broadfield Close, London, NW2 pleaded guilty to five charges of benefit fraud, contrary to s111A Social Security Administration Act 1992. She received a 100-hours community punishment order from Brent Magistrates Court on the 2 December 2008. She was also asked to pay £75 towards legal costs. Graham had been claiming income support, housing and council tax benefit since at least December 1998 on the basis that she was an unemployed single person and that her only income was money received from the Department of Works and Pensions. Information from the DWP showed that Miss Graham had been working for CPM Field Marketing and Deeset Confectionary Ltd from February 2005 to October 2006. Her earnings were anything up to £150 per week. The total overpayment of income support, housing and council tax benefit amounted to £4,079.49. In the final case, Adekunle Ogunnusi (42) of The Avenue, Wembley, Middx, HA9 entered a plea of guilty to seven charges of benefit fraud, contrary to s111A Social Security Administration Act 1992 at Brent Magistrates Court. Ogunnusi received a 52-week suspended jail sentence on condition that he commit no further offences whatsoever in the UK in the next two years. He was also handed 250 hours unpaid work over the next twelve months and told to complete a rehabilitation programme. Investigators discovered that Ogunnusi had declared that he was not related to his landlady, Arinola Yahaya of 35 Holland Road, London, W14 but investigators found that he was married to this woman. They have two children and were in fact living as a family at the address. He is also subject to a supervisory order over the next year and has been ordered to pay £1500 towards the legal costs at the rate of £100 per month. Adekunle Ogunnusi had been claiming housing and council tax benefit since at least 18 April 1999 on the basis that he was a single man in receipt of a low income. He declared employment with Genesis Flooring of Finchley Road, London, but investigations established that he was never employed with Genesis Flooring. The total overpayment of housing and council tax benefit amounted to £32,815.60 during the period April 1999 to September 2004.

As I have savings it appears I cannot get legal aid. There is no free advice available and of course my fifteen minutes went on filling the forms before the savings question.

"they said theyd make further enquiries, which took 7 agonizing months, and now im invited back for a 2nd interview, and so is my hubby (seperately) i cant beleive this is happening.. in a way i understand why they suspected us, my own little fairyland caused this, which is fairplay, but we didnt do anything wrong. seriously. " Damage Limitation: Do not attend the second interview without a solicitor. There is no reason you cannot say no comment to every question. Much easier when somebody is with you. As a general rule when there is no case they rely on you to create it for them. None of this is fun is it, my case was dismissed in court and the dwp have me going back to the local magistrate. Computers do not forget and this can go on for years. What is the accusation against you by the way?

I was impressed with the couple in the daily mail today. All sorts of stuff to the tune of £50k and they got to pay £2 a week .... Now I have gone down the solicitor route it is all the way. I hope the dwp lawyer can be talked out of it in two weeks. If not I am where i thought i was in july. I would rather expect a serious apology from the dwp for mucking me around with the stress of the delay. It really does make job hunting beyond what i can cope with, what with not having worked for half a decade

If you have responsibliity for a disabled person in your home you are entitled to 25% off the council tax. Not something the council likes you to know.

"....ending in an acquittal. There was no actual trial so it can be brought back to court. But the solicitor will be able to give the definitive answer." Yeah Fitz. I self represented during my divorce and 'won' residency so the whole court deal does not bother me and I know it is *not* what the solicitor does but what I do. The DWP will know shame after all where was the state when I had three people dependant on me. From 99 to 02 ( four years ) I pumped over £100k in income and corporation tax to the state so I am really hacked off.

No magic phrase was used back in July. I said "If I had failed to attend I could have been found guilty in my absence so surely the opposite is true" The magistrate agreed with that and said case dismissed. Neil Bateman has produced a paper for SSAA92 cases which I will be showing the solicitor on Monday at 09.00am If double jeopardy does not apply (Criminal Justice Act is aimed at rape and murder) as outlined in Magna Carta then I would like to know why not. The sickening aspect about this is the number of DWP employees involved along with me getting rightful legal aid. What are we doing? going after a full time carer of an old man who also had two dependant children at the time. It is obvious that if Income Support was overpaid then Child Tax Credit was underpaid. This is the pathetic Fraims computer system being operated by brain dead muppets. I have DWP paperwork that clearly states Income Support paid to you during the period you are due Carer's Allowance arrears (You do not owe this money - it has already been deducted from your Carer's Allowance arrears) It was a mistake by the DWP to record the benefit as IS when it should have been CA and by the time I received the correction paperwork Fraims had entered the world of the computer says "No"

Fitz, It does seem I pass the legal aid test based on my low annual income. I guess I shall go along to the CAB first. I am not really happy about using the system to deal with the system. My divorce took years and I really did not like my life being in the hands of others but I figure I have no choice. The whole thing strikes me as a waste of money.

Fitz, Former carer, I replaced my mother who died of a heart attack when she was refused respite. I nearly had a nervous breakdown four or so years later. My father (double incontinent paraplegic) was then taken into council care on health grounds (his mine my daughters). I have more than 16k of savings which means no free legal aid ? The dismissal is known to the court staff. Scousegeezer, The actual hearing is Thursday 22nd October 2009 11.00 am That *may* lead to the court case later but since one of my witnesses is a school aged girl cannot see them getting me in court before 21-Dec-09 ( being next school holiday )