Estellyn: I guess my experiences have been with different law centres. Your own post makes a reference that perfectly illustrates why IUCs are, normally, more beneficial to the DWP / local authorities than to claimants (exceptions readily agreed). "...in case anything else comes out of the interview". That will rarely be in the claimant's interest. I would agree with the use of prepared statements and I also strongly agree that solicitors are often unhelpful in IUCs. Just to be clear, nothing in my posts is intended to convey that ANYONE, whether or not an advisor, should be trying to get claimants off the hook other than within the law. I have never done so and never will but I freely acknowledge using the law to the benefit of a client even if the outcome appeared contrary to what might otherwise be perceived as "fair". As Upper Tribunal Judges have pointed out, the law must be applied as it is, not as we might like it to be. Anyway, good luck to you. I will consider whether or not to continue posting.

Thanks for the second backhander - i.e. the inference that I am not an excellent poster. Simply put jabba, a late notification of a change in circumstances in not, in itself, even remotely close to satisfying the criteria for a criminal offence in the context of benefit fraud. In both HB/CTB legislation, the duty to notify a change in circumstances has no time limit. Under sections 111A and 112 (respectively) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, there are several limbs that MUST be satisfied in order for an offence to have been committed. So far, nothing in the info from the OP suggests such an offence has been committed. Even the provisions under The Fraud Act 2006, or The Theft Act, require rather more than a late notification to amount to an offence. My firm advice to the OP, in light of the wildly contradictory responses, is to get advice away from this forum, preferably from a welfare rights org / law centre that has someone specialising in social security law. It will soon become apparent whose posts are, legally, the most accurate.

Wow. So much for the olive branch. I couldn't disagree more strongly with this advice. It's basically saying "Even if you are entirely innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, give up and take whatever is meted out". No lawyer properly competent and conversant in both social security and criminal law would support such a response.

There is nothing in the law, currently, that means you HAVE to attend an IUC. Ask the council for the legislation - it will only have guidance or policy or procedure (none of which are the law). My suggestion, based on the info you gave, was that you should write to the Council asking them to put any questions to you IN WRITING. In other words, if the Council wants info, it doesn't need an IUC - it can be done in a letter to you. Doing it that way means you still have the option of attending the IUC afterwards, but it isn't compulsory. Just for info, it has quickly become apparent in responses to other posts I've made there will be other posters advising you to attend the IUC anyway. The decision will be yours based on which posted info you believe to be most appropriate.

*olive branch" Jabba, the tone of both posts shows you care and feel strongly - I do too. So, let's try and get it right between us. {edited to add}: Estellyn - experience outlined. Firstly, the one point I do agree with you on is that advice from a solicitor is not always best when it comes to social security law. It depends on whether the solicitor has a specialist knowledge in that area. If s/he doesn't, it's quite feasible for any input from a solicitor to be even more damaging. I would not say NEVER attend an IUC. Sometimes, especially where someone is entirely innocent ANDit's a straightforward yes/no situation rather than a judgement of facts, it can be positively helpful to attend an IUC. However, where judgement calls are required, I have lost count of the number of occasions where claimants, in all innocence, have made statements that can be presented by the prosecution in a way that *appears* damning in Court. Amongst many issues is that those conducting IUCs all too often have a lamentable grasp of benefits law. The trouble is, ridiculous as it seems, it is quite possible to "admit" to something when in fact there was nothing to admit to. For example, "Is "X" your boyfriend?". A: "Well, yeah..." and that gets seized upon as being evidence of being a member of a couple - to the exclusion of other relevant evidence and completely overlooking the legal definition of "couple" for social security purposes. There are other examples: "Do you own that villa in Spain?" "Yeah..." and the questioning then completely fails to establish whether it has any value or indeed whether anyone else is the lawful beneficial owner. Because criminal lawyers rarely have any depth of knowledge relating to social security law, this kind of crucial info can (and does) end up being ignored. Is it really that bad? Sadly, in my experience, it is. It shouldn't be, but it is. I have personally assisted in approximately 70 cases of alleged benefit fraud, including one in the capacity of being an expert witness. It is that experience, along with 20+ years within "the system", which leads to the advice offered. Could I be wrong in the case of the OP to this thread? Yes, absolutely. But, I advise in good faith based on the info available. Just for info, I am not a lawyer and have no interest in lining the pockets of solicitors. That said, legal aid is no longer a feather bed for a luxurious lifestyle (assuming it ever was) - certainly not in cases of alleged benefit fraud. With the reductions in legal aid that have already taken place, the amounts now payable to lawyers and experts has been slashed to a point where many have simply walked away as it isn't commercially viable to assist. When the next batch of cuts take place, many many people will have nowhere to turn to at all. There simply won't be the capacity.

It's very disappointing to note that within 10 posts, personal abuse rears its rather ugly and unpleasant head on yet another forum. "Stupid"? Please tell me this is not yet another forum where someone with relevant knowledge and substantial first hand experience is subject to this kind of post? If this really is the standard of response, I shall be happy to leave as soon as I have arrived - just let me know. Rather more importantly for the OP, I absolutely stand by my advice which was based on the facts stated. I do not offer the advice given lightly or without thought. The harsh reality is that attending an IUC on the basis of the info given so far is likely to be of little benefit to the OP. Also, to suggest that the "likely result" of failing to attend an IUC "would be the offer of an Administrative Penalty" is a gross generalisation. That *may* happen but it certainly cannot be described as "likely". It goes without saying in any case that if the person is innocent of a criminal offence, any offer of an AdPen should be firmly rejected.

I don't understand why you are being asked to an IUC. If the Council has questions, those can be put in writing. Further, the Council has, apparently, already made its decision so to ask FURTHER questions means either it doesn't know what it is doing or believes something more untoward has taken place. If the former, there is plainly no need to attend. If the latter, my advice would be to tread very carefully. Based on the info given so far, my advice is to write to the Council asking that any questions it has are put to you in writing. There is no legal basis on which the Council can insist you attend an IUC. If the crux turns out to be that you took too long to notify the Council of a change, it's worth noting that the legislation relating to the duty to notify changes (for HB/CTB) has no time limit. What would then potentially be relevant is the clarity of instructions within any letters the Council sent to you as to what changes you had to notify and when. I don't think you have to worry unduly at this time so long as you are careful and don't inadvertently say something in all innocence that unnecessarily opens the door to the Council. Why so cautious in this case? The wording in the Council's letter about Courts / Juries deciding the outcome if a claimant fails to attend an IUC is abhorrent. It is plainly intended, deliberately, to cause fear and is an unadulterated bullying tactic. As observed above, the outcome relating to benefit entitlement has already been determined - hence the overpayment. So, the only "outcome" that anything else can be about is whether a criminal offence has been committed. The Council should be transparent about that and it appears not to have been. Perhaps the Council in question needs to boost its conviction/penalty stats with a cheap (and wholly unwarranted) attempt to bully a claimant into accepting a caution? I don't know but, based on the info so far, I don't trust the motives of the Council.

Firstly, definitely ask for a "statement of reasons", expressly asking the local authority to explain how it has calculated particularly your earnings and tax credits. Further, ask whether any regard has been given to "underlying entitlement" in respect of retrospectively reduced tax credits. Make sure your letter is clearly headed "Request for statement of reason". Once you have the statement of reasons, you have 14 days within which an appeal has to be made (assuming there was less than this time left of the original one month appeal time limit when you asked for the statement). Even if you don't have time to get proper advice, simply submit a letter stating you wish to appeal against the decision of [date], the grounds being you don't agree with the calculation - that bare information is sufficient for an appeal to be legally valid. Additional grounds and submissions can always be sent later when you have been able to seek proper advice. The issue of an IUC is separate, even though it is plainly about the same matter. I have copied a paraphrased extract from another post I have made elsewhere: My firm advice is not to attend the IUC - there is no legal basis on which you can be required to attend, despite the DWP and local authorities often implying the contrary. If you do attend, my firm advice is to "no comment" EVERY question, including the most benign such as "Can you confirm "X" is your date of birth?". My advice about IUCs is because the ONLY person(s) that can intervene on your behalf is a lawyer. You are allowed to take friends, you are allowed to take specialist welfare rights workers but none of those can speak - only a lawyer can. Even with a lawyer, my advice would be (usually) to "no comment" and only offer a prepared statement along the lines of (if true!) "To the best of my recollection, knowledge, belief and understanding, I have not been guilty of any criminal wrongdoing". Prior to deciding whether or not you wish to attend, you *could* write a simple letter along these lines: Dear ... I refer to your letter requesting that I attend an interview. Having taken advice, I am asking you to set out clearly and transparently exactly what it is you intend to interview me about. This information will enable me to check any relevant records and prepare for the interview should I decide to attend. Yours....

This response is based on the (very) bare info provided so far and addresses the HB side of it. 1) The current appeal: A letter should be sent to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service office dealing with the administration of the appeal. The letter should be clearly marked for the URGENT attention of a District Judge, asking that a Tribunal hearing is arranged as a matter of the utmost priority due to impending eviction proceedings - any evidence to support this should be provided. My advice would be to offer to accept a "short notice" appeal (i.e. one that could be less than 14 days after you being notified of a date / time) - make sure details of any dates the appellant cannot attend are given. 2) In any case... if the claimant is, in principle, currently entitled, a new claim for HB should be made immediately. The local authority cannot refuse to process it simply because of the outstanding appeal (at least not legally!). I advise marking any new claim as being "without prejudice to any outstanding appeal" (plain english usage rather than legal meaning). In the event of the appeal being successful, the "second claim / award" simply becomes defunct and the original award replaces the "new" award. Nope, that doesn't mean double payment.... (er, at least it shouldn't!).

If any adverse benefit decision is made against you, the earlier advice to appeal should be followed - as should the advice to get help from someone familiar with social security law as they are likely to have experience in so-called "living together" cases and what is relevant or not relevant. An appeal should be made to a Tribunal irrespective of any other proceedings that may or may not be taken against you - the appeals process is an "as well as" must do, not "instead of" any defense against criminal proceedings. In the event of a prosecution, it is critical you instruct your solicitor to obtain the services of an expert witness familiar in social security law - irrespective of how much knowledge your solicitor *appears* to have. An accountant, or similar, is not an expert witness in these cases! Is the surveillance evidence admissible? This demonstrates one of the many quirks of law. For a First-tier Tribunal dealing with the "civil" appeal, pretty much ANY evidence is admissible, even if unlawfully obtained - there is legal authority on this point. It is then a matter of what weight should or should not be attached to such evidence. However, the law is very different for criminal proceedings and that is where a solicitor should be able to assist as this issue isn't specific just to social security. Increasingly, the DWP and local authorities are purporting to rely on "RIPA" (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) for aspects of investigations. However, for RIPA based investigations, specific procedures must be followed. If RIPA is being relied on, your solicitor should be expressly instructed to check if the correct procedures have been followed. If they have not, evidence may be inadmissible for criminal proceedings (even if the same evidence can be allowed at a Tribunal). As an aside, breaches of RIPA can leave the offending party subject to complaints (by you / your solicitor) to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Fingers crossed that none of the above advice will need to be considered.

Merely failing to notify a change of circumstances is not necessarily fraud in itself. The legalese is looked at first, then the substance of the case at the end. This is a long long post so coffee is probably a good bet.... Legalese: Firstly, was there a duty to notify the change? Under the law as it currently stands, the duty generally extends to changes that the claimant (and/or payee if different) might reasonably be expected to know might affect benefit. That test must be applied on a person by person basis. If a claimant can show s/he could NOT be reasonably expected to know a relevant change might affect benefit, or if s/he can show a genuine belief that the change didn't affect benefit (even if it did), there is no duty to notify the change. It should be noted that even if a claimant can meet this test, an overpayment could still be lawfully recoverable under benefits legislation. Obviously, the local authority could respond by pointing out that a claimant knows s/he is on a means tested benefit and therefore it is indeed reasonable for that claimant to be expected to know a change in income might affect benefit. But, the point is, it isn't just a case of "failing to notify a change = fraud". Secondly, even if there is a breach of the duty to notify a change of circumstances, that still doesn't mean a criminal act has occurred. Usually, but not always, the offences for failing to notify changes in circumstances are prosecuted under either section 111A or section 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Sometimes, prosecutions are sought under The Fraud Act 2006 and, less frequently, The Theft Act. In (VERY) broad terms, where a change of circumstances has not been notified, an offence is committed if: - there was such a change; and - there was a duty to notify that change; and - there was a failure to notify that change; and - the change is one that affects entitlement [this point is often overlooked, but is fundamental]; and - the failure to notify the change was either dishonest (s.111A) or done knowingly (s.112). It cannot be stressed enough that the above depends on all the facts and the content of this post must absolutely not be taken as covering all situations in relation to allegations of benefit fraud. For example, this post does not cover a situation where there was a misrepresentation of, or failure to disclose, a relevant fact at the outset of making a claim. Substance: Based on the info given by the OP, I'm far from convinced there is anything fraudulent about the situation. However, one point in particular needs clarifying. In the post, it is stated "Weve not been taking anything from the business..." but then goes on to say the company is paying you (and/or your partner) based on your accountant's advice. Simple question: Has any money been paid to you (or your partner) by the company? If the process is merely for accounting purposes and no money actually changes hands, then there is plainly no income. If the true situation is that no money has actually changed hands between you/your partner as individuals and "the company", my advice is to to get confirmation of that from your accountant and notify the local authority very straight forwardly that this is the case. In the letter to the authority, expressly state it is your honest belief you were, and continue to be, entitled to benefit. In turn, request that benefit is reinstated promptly or, in the alternative, request the Council makes a formal decision in order that you can exercise your lawful right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Note, if you have informed tax credits you are working when you are not, there may well be an issue with HMRC. However, the local authority does not have jurisdiction of tax credits although info may well be exchanged between the two bodies. One other point which may or may not be relevant: a local authority cannot ask for evidence not in existence - there is clear legal authority on that point. Whatever the truth, my firm advice is not to attend any interview under caution (IUC) - there is no legal basis on which you can be required to attend, despite the DWP and local authorities often implying the contrary. If you do attend, my firm advice is to "no comment" EVERY question, including the most benign such as "Can you confirm "X" is your date of birth?". My advice about IUCs is because the ONLY person(s) that can intervene on your behalf is a lawyer. You are allowed to take friends, you are allowed to take specialist welfare rights workers but none of those can speak - only a lawyer can. Even with a lawyer, my advice would be (usually) to "no comment" and only offer a prepared statement. IF you are prosecuted, make absolutely sure you do the following: 1) In any event, appeal to a Tribunal (don't ignore the time limits!) irrespective of any other legal processes that may be underway. This is not "instead" of any defense of criminal proceedings; this is an absolute "as well as". Any solicitor who fails to advise you of this, or says it isn't necessary should be avoided. The difficulty is that finding a solicitor with knowledge of social security law is not easy, so, see "2" below. 2) Irrespective of how knowledgable or otherwise s/he seems, insist your solicitor seeks the services of an expert witness familiar with social security law. Relying on an accountant to simply tot up any overpayment calculation is a complete waste of time but is very lucrative for the accountant. An expert witness (in social seciurity law) will be able to see if the local authority has followed the law relating to the decision relating to any alleged overpayment - an accountant won't have a clue. I hope that all the above at least helps to point you in the right direction. For personal reasons, I may not be able to respond promptly, or at all, to any further posts on this thread. NB: Just noticed something. If you / your partner are employees of a "company", you are not self-employed and the local authority should not be attempting to treat you as such.