This is just an update really on the last thread regarding my imminent court appearance for benefit fraud.I appeared at Mold Crown and was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.I had an exemplary probation report but to no avail.Thankfully I only had to serve 10 weeks in Styal, I was released last week on tag.What a nightmare.Now I have the problem that my job is still available to me (nights) but my curfew wont allow it so I have to claim benefits until I can return to work!!Im still in trauma and my poor family went through hell but it is over now Thank God.Thanks for your advicex

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.

Hiya CRH71,

I am prepping a letter of complaint and will show it on here (minus personal details) before I send it as I've never sent a letter to my MP before and don;t know if there are any protocols I don't konw about.

Do you suggest I send in my case notes at the same time as the letter which goes out to the compliance manager or send it separately?

 

You're writing a letter of complaint about the member of staff, not appealing your case.For this letter, your case notes don't matter. Keep the letter short, to the point and use bullet points if necessary. Focus on the treatment, manner of speech and the overall attitude and how unprofessional it was, and how it reflects poorly upon the JCP, rather than how it made you feel..

 

Will be on again once the letter is drafted. I am worried about how to keep it succinct (definitely not one of my strong points!) for the MP and yet with enough points for the CO manager to show the awful treatment from the CO I had.

 

Try the tips above - I always find the use of bullet points helpful to retain focus and keep matters succinct.

 

I really, really appreciated the support. Especially when it comes to points like not knowing whether the fuss will make my situation worse.

I have found, in the past, that it does, unless you know how to back it up with further actions if necessary. Knowing the process and being helped along by peeps like yourself allow me to remain calm and not worry too much about whether I am acting like an idiot.

 

Thanks every so much CRH71.

 

My pleasure

 

Edit: quick answer...

The original letter's opening paragraph states:

 

We need to see you in order to discuss the benefit we are currently paying you because a query has arisen on your claim. We need to ensure your payments are correct and it is essential that you attend this interview to discuss this matter.

 

Er, hold on. I just realised. This statement says they should only be investigating the benefit they are currently paying me.

So do they have the right and why are they investigating my prior claim/s?!

 

Do they have the right to do this when the letter states that it is only to do with the current claim?

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.

Thanks for your reply just telling someone has helped me.I do have a lawyer and have already been to the Magistrates Court but no plea has been entered because I am disputing the amount.,and yes its going to Crown Court.I only had cash in hand for a few weeks then went on the "Books""at work using my maiden name.I suppose secretly I hoped to be called in any time to sort this mess but I never was.I can get my details from work regarding how much I earned each year to find out about tax credits I was entitled to,my boss is fully supportive of me.I have been in touch with housing benefit overpayments because I have been told that my ex will be liable for council tax overpayment whilst he lived with me so that will decrease the amount as well.I still have limited contact with him and he is now making threatening calls to me and my place of work because I blame him for a lot of this and he knows that I will be revealing his abuse as part of my defence. so I am logging all this down.I dont know how to message you privately as it says I must have 15 posts but once again thanks for your advice CHR71 I will keep you informed privately as soon as I can

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.

lee100: When you say send them, do you mean via post?

I have a meeting for later this week to deliver them.

 

Please remember that she refused to give me any evidence in writing that I had submitted anything, or even anything to say I had attended the first meeting at all. I asked for it more than once or twice and even said it was quite unreasonable not be given anything as such.

 

How do I ask JCP for the relevant manager?

By JCP do you mean there is a head office i can call to get this info? Or do you mean the local office which I attend in person?

I would love to be able to be interviewed and not 'interviewed' by somebody else.

 

I am still going to prepare for the worst, however.

 

I have no no guarantees of anything, and ultimately, nobody would know the truth if I suddenly was made an example of all because I didn't know the relevant procedures/information to defend myself.

 

You wouldn't be the first, and I doubt you'd be the last - targets are targets and have to be met on an ongoing basis....

 

Oh, and I found the letter originally sent to me. Nowhere on the letter does it state it is a compliance interview. It just says I need to come in for an interview.

 

Any comments on there about a "doubt having arisen on your claim", or "Interview Under Caution"?

 

Edit (added):

I have an interview arranged for later this week.

I am intending to try to phone the JC I would attend to try to find out how to get somebody else.

 

Now, if I don't get a reply before I supposed to attend, then should I attend the original interview?

Or should I ring her to ask for it to be cancelled/postponed? If I did that how do I avoid potentially getting her back up by saying I want somebody else?

 

Just ask for it to be rescheduled as you are taking further advice.

 

Also, I am thinking of sending in the paperwork with what she requested plus my letters from spring 2010 showing I had obviously declared savings of 11.5K. Who should I send this to since I don;t want her dealing with it?

Also, I have some old current account statements showing I got a reduced rate (first one I can find is 92.60 for a fortnightly payment on 27.05.09). I am thinking of including a photocopy of this to prove I did in fact receive a reduced rate. Any suggestions on whether this is a bad or good idea?

 

Very good idea. Get all your facts together, provide a covering letter with them and then send the whole lot in (to the Compliance Manager) by Registered Post and get yourself a Certificate of Posting as well. Oh, and don't forget to print off the Registered Delivery signature on the RM Website and add it to your file.

 

Additonal edit:

 

I just found figures for 2009/10 benefit rates, and based on the max of £70.35 and what I was paid per week of £46.30. It would appear that they calculated that I declared just over £12K - this seems to tally with the savings records I have just received from the banks for that far back. Or in fact it may be that I declared a bit more than I had! But only a bit mind you. It does feel like the kind of thing I would have done, since my administration skills back then are not what they are now and I preferred to err on the side of caution.

 

Excellent work. Well found and well calculated. This evidence, along with copy bank statements showing the reduced payments going in is important to your case. This is the key point to your proof of innocence in this matter.

 

Should I print off the benefit rates thing I found and present it together with the bank statement showing I got only £92.60/fortnight?

 

I know I spent a bit of my savings each month from about June 2010 onwards which, had I kept informing the DWP of, may have meant I was entitled to more per week.

 

Would this help to show that I had no intention of claiming more than I was entitled to? and Should I show something for this? or just leave it until if/when it is questioned why i had declared all that money and then suddenly in Summer 2011 had no savings. Will it do any harm?

 

To a reasonable interviewer? No, it won't do any harm - in fact it would strengthen your case. However to her? It's likely to be ignored, conveniently.

 

This is in response to when I said I wanted many more meetings to prove my innocence and then she barked (it really was close to shouting): "There is such a thing as deprivation of accounts, you know!"

(Bear in mind that when I asked her what that phrase meant, she said it was what people did to hide their money - something which I now believe is misinformation).

 

It's only deprivation when it is clear that there was DELIBERATE intent to spend your savings to get them below the applicable lower limit (£6k) for means tested benefits. In your case, you can PROVE that the money was spent on day-to-day living expenses and not, for example, blown on a new car or foreign holidays. To have reduced your capital from £12k in 2008 to £6k (or less) in 2011 shows that the money was "trickled" out of your account (and was declared to them in the first place - you've got the benefit rates, calculations and bank statements to prove this) and therefore, unless there are sudden "peaks" in the amounts withdrawn (i.e. lump sums for a holiday, etc.) then it could be argued that the money was spent on day-to-day living expenses and improving your prospects for employment (as you have indeed stated yourself already).

 

I just want to make sure I am covered for anything and everything as I can foresee as a possible danger, as I've done my damndest best to be as fair and honest as possible during the nightmare that is being unemployed.

 

End additional edit.

 

 

So with this extra added stuff to show I did declared my savings and hence received a reduced rate (I started claiming on 10.08.08), I feel it's prudent to ensure I get some sort of evidence that I did indeed submit it at the forthcoming second interview. But since I was blankly refused receipts of any kind, then that's why I'm thinking of sending it via recorded delivery.

 

REGISTERED post, not Recorded. Recorded is no longer a guaranteed sign-on-delivery service (I've seen my postman "signing" for Recorded parcels that he's shoved through my door subsequently). Registered can be tracked via the RM Website and the signature can be printed off and attached to your copy of the letter to prove delivery to their offices. It would also be prudent to get a free "Certificate of Posting" from the Post Office when you send this evidence in.

 

But with not knowing to whom I should address it to, I would like any advice on how best to go about doing this.

Can anybody help pls?

..

Update: I have just rung the Complaints manager to cancel the meeting tomorrow morning. I said I would be taking advice (hopefully from CAG!) and would get in touch again with him as soon as I knew how best to take it forward. He was polite, and did say that of course I could and would be happy to help me once I got in touch again.

 

It's now dawned on him that you're serious about complaining and making them take you seriously. Most "chancers" would not have got to this stage as they'd be concerned about the manager reviewing the case again. I still think a complaint to their superiors, cc'ing your local MP would be a wise move given your treatment thus far. If nothing else, it will make the issue visibile at Higher Management level and may lead to re-training or an amendment to procedures and processes.

 

May I add that I forgot to mention from the previous phone call that he did state that the interview later this week must go ahead as if I didn't then my benefits would have to brought to a halt.

 

That's standard practice for them - and adds more weight to my thoughts that this is far more than a "compliance" interview.

 

I found this to be a bit harsch when I had just stated that I would be happy to be interviewed at the same time or even today were I to get interviewed by somebody else. I had asked to the effect on the interview and whether it would be postponed pending the outcome of the complaints procedure.

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.

I have tried to get through to the Compliance Manager for over an hour now. Firstly via the main number only to be dealt with switchboard who continually put me through to a deadline.

 

I finally decided to use the 'say no to 0870' website to see if that gave any numbers. It did and that's when I've got through to my local JCP and got a receptionist who was helpful.

 

I asked if he knew the name of the compliance manager and he said he didn't know but could put me through to the compliance team to find out more.

 

Thankfully he gave me the number and I thought I recognised it. I said I would call after lunch.

 

This gave me the opportunity to check. The number turns out to be the number for the lady with whom I'm dealing with already and wanting to change as my interviewer.

 

I obviously want to avoid speaking to the lady who has given me such bad treatment to organise getting somebody else.

 

Anybody got any ideas of how to get the desired result?

 

I will try putting 141 to block caller id ( I think this only works on BT) and calling. But a potential stumbling block is if they want my N.I. number before helping me with anything else...

 

To the best of my knowledge, 141 to withhold your number works no matter whom the telecoms provider

 

 

Update: called today just after 12pm:

 

After ages of getting put through to dead lines...

 

I finally used 'Say no to 0870' to get a more direct number.

 

Got through to sb helpful who gave me then name of the Manager and Deputy with their extension numbers (am I allowed to post these numbers and names here to help anybody else?)

 

Rang the manager after 2pm.

The manager informed me that is very difficult to change the interviewer and it is not something he would normally do.

 

I went on giving examples of what happened and how this was unfair. Eventually he came to the point and stated that no matter if I got interviewed by somebody else, it would not change the facts.

 

What facts? The fact that they've got some inconsistencies in their side of the paperwork and don't want to listen to your sequence of events and proof?

 

 

I said if it only involved the facts then I would be happy to be interviewed by the same interviewer I had. I really had to argue my points hard before he took me seriously.

 

He kept trying to go down the avenue of stating that he's being very reasonable by offering to attend the interview as an independent observer. He repeated this offer several times.

 

How can a manager be "independent" in this scenario? I think you're wise to be cautious.

 

I had already mentioned that I would go down the route of making an official complaint and include my MP if I did not get to be interviewed by somebody else.

 

He gave me the complaints procedure (which is to write a letter and give it to him!) and I asked how this would affect the appointment I had later this week with the lady. He said they are two separate issues and that the interview would go ahead as they are very busy.

 

In my eyes this is one issue - your treatment and false accusation and I feel you are correct in standing your ground with not seeing this horrible woman again.

 

He then offered to see me tomorrow morning regarding this and I should type off a complaint letter asap.

 

I said I would be taking advisement as to whether I should attend the meeting tomorrow as I preferred to do everything in writing.

 

Good for you. Given the treatment so far and the line of the questioning, it's prudent to only communicate in writing going forwards - it will remove the elements of interpretation and ambiguity from the equation. Facts only.

 

I did give my surname and the day on which the interview would take place (Was I stupid to do this?)

 

It appears he will do everything he can to avoid me being seen by somebody else. He even tried to say that it wasn't bad of my interviewer not to allow me to amend my statement before I signed by saying that they are not used to dealing with somebody as articulate as me. I responded by saying that shouldn't they be dealing with cases on a case by case basis? He said yes, but then argued how it wouldn't change the facts...

 

This is the whole point of all your post - what facts? It's evident, from what you have said so far that your version of the facts vary to theirs. In their eyes, clearly, you are guilty of deprivation of capital and of not declaring savings. From the facts you have given thus far you can refute that with evidence and should do so.

 

I would like to get my interviewer changed. Am scared of meeting him in person as I will have no evidence of what transpires.

Since it is quite obvious he is trying to block my reasonable requests I believe I may get bulllied/intimidated into coming to an 'arrangement' whereby I get screwed because I am creating a fuss.

 

The facts being inconsistent between the two sets of paperwork (yours and theirs) gives you every right to "make a fuss" - you have the right to put your side to the investigator(s) without being interrupted or spoken over and, should you not be able to do so, you have the right to terminate the interview and insist on contact in writing only.

 

What should I do next?

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.

This case is being dealt with by the Compliance team. It is not a Fraud investigation & you really should learn the difference between the 2 sections before giving misleading & potentially distressing advice like this.

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.

Hello everyone,

 

Im seriously hoping someone can help me- as I am pulling my hair out looking for support!!!!!

 

Back in 2009, I applied for DLA- and recieve the higher rate mobility, and middle rate care. I lost this back (along with my motability vehicle in July)

 

I have right hemiplegia (cerebel palsay), which ive had since birth (due to a stroke which I had to read in some medical records over the summer - apparantly my parents telling me "ive had it since birth" is the same as telling me i had a stroke)

 

I can walk, but cannot stand very long, can not walk long distances, prone to falls- and I also struggle mentally which I think is down to it also- but I really don't know, in the 19 years of my life I have recieve little support and guidance and it is really starting to distress me!!! :frown:

 

Scope and various other places are simply just ignoring my emails.

 

Anyway....i need to know the following:

 

*Has anyone gone to an assesment for adaptions for a car, got the adaptions, then gone back to DLA, and they have then given you a motability vehicle (with adaptions). Ie- did they change their mind now that you had adaptions and they sat up and actually NOTICED.

 

*Does anyone know of any support groups in the North West area for cerebal palsay? I want to know exactly how things can affect me, and exactly what I am intitled too.

 

Anyone in the same boat as me? I hope not, and hope it never happens to you

 

Its a shame some dirty, liers have to ruin it for everyone

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.

You can have both Joncris, in most cases they both compliment each other nicely.

 

I hope no one turns into a dribbling mess at the thought of low cut skirts and short tops.

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

Is there anywhere that I can look at the various criteria, please and make the judgement as to whether to proceed with the appeal?

I did try searching this site, but my skills must be rusty, as I didn't come up with any information!

Pretty sure you can. My mate opted for crown court, well, his solicitor did I think, he wants a jury as he is pleading not guilty.

It's all turned into a bit of a farce because the LA have accepted his over payment is now only 1k instead of 13k. Council tax he has now OVERPAID them. But the DWP are being more stubborn, but aren't they always.

I'm a bit nieve I didn't know magistrates had norml jobs

The main reason for a solicitor pressing for Crown Court is that the case being referred there will entitle the accused to Legal Aid - Legal Aid isn't always granted for cases going to a Magistrates Court.

That's my field!

I have to say, in Kent itself, particularly towards the coastal towns, the industry isn't particularly spectacular - there's a few jobs, but not a great deal.

Coming into North Kent, with it's proximity to London does open up the possibilities a bit - there's certainly more up here in North Kent in the industry and, of course, we're pretty close to Essex, where the IT industry seems fairly buoyant.

That said, moving lock stock and barrel from Plymouth does seem a bit extreme. Frankly, if I were in your shoes I'd stay put until I actually found a job in the area I wanted and then moved up for that purpose - I wouldn't come up here first then start looking for a job - living costs, being close to London are not for the budget-concious!

I understand that point about the OP's contract - my situation was the same - I'd bought mine in a High Street Retailer.

I just found it easier to go straight to Hotpoint, whom I found very helpful and efficient.

I didn't want the aggravation of going through the original retailer and being fobbed off left, right and centre to be frank, so I went "directly to the top" - working in Retail myself, I knew that's all they'd do, anyway.

I've been in the same situation as you - in my case it's a member of the household that's got the conviction - like yours, it is a little bit "sensitive".

All I did, under the "principle of utmost good faith" was declare the fact that a household member has a conviction and that I had insurance cancelled on me when this member returned to the household and invite the insurance company to advise the affect (if any) upon the policy within 28 days.

99.9% of them have been absolutely fine with it - the only ones that have asked for more information have been my car insurer (even though this person's not a named driver on the policy) and one of the pet insurers.

Your friend, actually being the insured and the holder of the conviction would be better advised going to a specialist broker (not sure if I'm allowed to name them on here but they ARE specialist criminal conviction brokers) whom he will find to be far more understanding and far more able to provide him cover.

Please also make your friend aware of the limitations placed upon him by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (this conviction will not be "spent" until a period of ten years has passed (dependent on the length of incarceration served - if more than a certain amount of time the conviction is NEVER spent - please be aware) whereupon he will have to declare this conviction until spent (min 10 years) PLUS another 5 years when applying for insurance.

I'll speak as I find, with Hotpoint.

I've got an Aquarius washing machine - like yours, a premium product and a reasonable expectation would be a sensible lifespan.

After around 16 months, mine failed with what turned out to be the inverter blowing something on the board and packing in. Hell of a bang when it blew and it also caused the RCD to trip.

I contacted Hotpoint, got through to a supervisor in the call centre and I have to say they were very, very good indeed. They came out and took away the old machine, exchanging it for a brand new one. No fuss, no aggravation.

I stayed polite with them, but remained assertive. No raised voices or stroppy letters - none needed.

When I was in this self-same scenario just last September, I paid my rent two-weekly in advance. It annoyed my LL, but covered me a bit because his mortgage co were champing at the bit to repossess.

As you're under the "new rules" (I got just 2 weeks notice....) it sounds to me as though you're being given proper notice (2 months) before you're evicted.

Personally, I'd NOT pay the rent, but keep it to one side. When you are evicted (which will happen) then work out how many weeks you are actually eligible to pay, less the deposit (you won't see that again from the LL) and pay that amount.

You'll most likely now find that your LL will become "uncontactable" - mine did, and still is.

Do you have dependants (children)? If so, get onto your local council and tell them you are "threatened with homelessness" - also, as advised, contact Shelter - their website has a wealth of useful information on this very subject.

Act quickly, to cover yourselves, please. This is not a pleasant, or stress-free situation to be in, especially not if you're the innocent tenants in the middle of all the wrangling. I speak from bitter experience.

All, if you can, some advice please.

My wife suffers with a condition called Hemiplegia.Essentially, this means she had a stroke before she was born and she has the physical disability of the stroke paralysis on her left hand side.

She has been awarded HRM, but LRC which, in all honesty has proved perfectly reasonable.

However, about 6-9 months ago, she suddenly started becoming much, much worse - her mobility decreased still further, and she now needs more care - at this stage mainly supervision (she's very unsteady on her feet - think of your "typical" octogenerians) but also she is now needing more and more help with everyday tasks such as dressing/undressing, personal hygiene, getting into bed, etc. Things have got so bad with her that I now come and work from home every afternoon from 2.30 so that I can pick our daughter up from school and physically be here in the house in a supervisory capacity.

My wife will not leave the house without being supervised, even with her mobility scooter.

We notified the DLA of the change in needs, and they have refused the increase. We appealed in writing and now have a Tribunal date and a pack from the Tribunals Service.

Any advice, please?

Bless you..... you sound like such a good dad.... Although all of this is bad timing for her (and you probably), it's nothing that the pair of you can't overcome by the sound of it. The 30-mile commute would be a nightmare, as well as expensive, but there might be other options rather than her living in a hostel....

 

I'm wondering if the school could release her to move in with you in April and then arrange for her to sit the same exams in a school local to you instead; as she would have already been entered for them. As students should all be sitting the same papers nationally, this is something worth putting to the school to see if they could arrange it. I work in a school and know that all kinds of things are possible..... and was just wondering if this might be a better option. I'm not saying it's definitely possible, but certainly worth asking about and/or pushing for, if appropriate.

 

I'd never even considered that would be possible! That would certainly solve a lot of problems - I'll put it to her and ask the school. Many, many thanks for that little ray of hope.

Microsoft Picture Manager (a freebie, I believe) can resize an image to any size you wish, then re-save it.