Put yourself in the Council's shoes (they are ordinary people afterall). They will prob say that its not very believeable, which in fairness it isnt really..... Why wouldnt he live with his mum when he had nowhere else ? (assuming she has the room) All his paperwork went there, why not your house or his sisters or his girlfriends ? Does his new girlfriend claim SPD or Council Tax benefit or support ? - u could always get your mum to front it up and offer to pay the arrears (or get you brother to pay them). If you do dispute and the council does cancel the SPD the appeal would be to the tribunal

Why would you when you have nothing to hide ?The compliance officer will look at dozens of bank statements a day, they couldn't care less where you buy your undies, it probably wouldn't even register. What will register is a load of crossed out/ blacked out lines, they would raise questions and suspicions - its human nature. My advice is just show the statements - why not ?

As they get AA there would be no non-dep deduction in this case, son's income should be declared but would not be taken into account.Having said that over £34K would nil the HB/CTB anyway.If he's still got the money I'd put money on the fact that the LA/DWP will try to issue an admin penalty, which is a fine, rather than pursue a prosecution.

If you are on DLA care you could tell the council he is a friend living at your house, not a partner, and that you do not charge him any rent nor does he pay any. They would have to class him as a non-dependant but if you are on DLA there would be no non-dep deduction so it would not affect the CTB claim before 31/3/2013. It might from 1/4/2013 depending on your council's LCTS scheme but I doubt it.

Let me get this right. You got an IUC letter and immediately thought it was about this unorthodox business relationship. It turns out that it was actually about something which, it seems by your own admission, you failed to declare originally, presumably a pension or something ? You no commented at the interview and never mentioned anything about the large number of transactions into and out of your account. The LA are now going to use their authorised officer powers to obtain your bank statements which will show all the said transactions, not only that but they will get them for every account you have. You also hope that they will not prosecute you because you told them you have mental health issues….have I missed anything ? My opinion is that a 2nd IUC is a possibility, especially if they are reading this site! It depends really on the affect the non-declared income they now know about has on your claim. If it wipes out your entitlement all together then they might just go with that. I suppose it really will depend on how much money is going through your account. Regarding that how believable is your explanation ? They are at least going to speak to your partner, why wouldn’t they. I don’t understand why, if all is above board, the business partner would drop you in it ? Surely if there is no relationship they should be able to account for the money for their business ? Is your business partner a member of the opposite sex by any chance (any children involved), might they suspect he/she is your actual partner? What debits do you have from the account and who are they too? Who pays the bills ? Who has access to the account ? How do you pay the partner his/her money ? What is registered at your address in your partners name and importantly why? What is the business (es) ? And how many times do you think the LA will hear that a prosecution will affect someones health ? I’ll tell you….hundreds. You can provide some proof if its available but they might take the view that your health doesn’t stop you running a business, taking a decision not to declare something (making your claim false from the outset) and been able to manage your financial affairs ? Sorry but from what you’ve said I think you’re probably going to end up in court. A no comment interview can be as helpful to an investigator as a full admission. At the interview you had a chance to muddy the water with an explanation, you’ve missed that ship now.

"The worst thing will be that you have to pay the money back. As jadeybags says above, they don't want to waste money on prosecutions in cases like this, and you can confirm this by looking at the website. They go after people who are seriously cheating the system, not people like you. " Not strictly true though. From the information provided this looks like a text book LT case. Nobody on here can tell you what will happen, that is a decision for the authorities acutally involved in the case. I've read a lot a people saying things along the lines of "as he has no income you'll be ok". Sorry but not true either. You say he gets money from family and then say he has been disowned by his mum - doesn't make sense does it. If its his sister, brother etc who give him money - who are they, are they on benefits, do they have families ? are they millionaires ? where are they getting this money from ? How realistic is it to expect that he has no income at all ? Why doesn't he claim benefits ? Why doesn't he work ? They could easily used an assumed income for him, meaning you would no longer qualify for HB and CT support and put the onus on you to prove otherwise. I understand that people are trying to make you feel better saying you have nothing to worry about, i get that, but I think you need to take a realistic look at your situatiion. I would recommend sticking to the truth at the interview. You say he has no income and I'm not here to say that he has but if you go in saying he doesn't and the investigators have some proof that he does then they are hardly going to consider alternative options other than a criminal prosecution are they ?

SAR = subject access request ? If so they will not provide any information or details about an investigation.

"Also what is the worst that can happen because I would prefer a worst case scenario then anything good that happens is a bonus."You asked.... the worse case scenario is 7 years imprisonment.

How many people do you think go to a fraud interview and say the advisor told me it would be ok ? That doesn't wash I'm afraid, the answer will be that no advisor would tell you that. In theory the advisor could be asked what he/she would say if someone asked how many nights can my partner stay etc..... No prizes for guessing what the advisor would reply and it wouldn't be 3 nights a week would it ?The investigators will give your solicitor some brief disclosure before the interview - ie we want to ask about her partner and we have some documents to show etc... They are not obliged to show everything before the interview but tend to do so to aid the process. Your statements show the bills are paid and give the example of the rent - it would be you get HB as a single person.Perhaps a more pertinent question is what would your partners bank statements show ?

Overpayment under £2,000 with an full admittance would normally result in an administrative penalty these days.

"am slightly worried if they have pics though as we go to asda together n they might try and portray that in a way to suit them" - is that when he goes to buy his own shopping then, 2 trolleys etc.... ? From the information you've put on here then, in investigators terms, you're bang to rights, a near text book case of LTAHAW.

With all the current media comments and articles about “work-shy” claimants losing Housing Benefits etc., the April 2013 picture in reality is very different. The reductions in Housing Benefit are huge of course but potentially it is the Council Tax Benefit restrictions that will really impact (albeit differently across Local Authority boundaries). Why, after all these years, so many still do not realise that HB/CTB are in-work benefits?The biggest overall losers in percentage numbers are almost certain to be:a) those on low wagesb) those aged between 50 and pensionable age.c) owner occupier war widows /ers aged below pensionable age.This is because the following key issues all interact.Firstly, the under-occupation rules still apply to those who are in work and the calculation will tend to take them out of housing benefit altogether.Secondly, those of 50 plus (especially women) will tend to be in larger property in social housing because their children have left home and / or their spouses are deceased. Protection on death only lasts a year; many social landlords admit they will not be able to move affected claimants for many years.Thirdly, the impact of the Council Tax reduction schemes (known as Council Tax Support to many) is inevitably going to hit the low paid, whatever the Government is suggesting. Local Authorities struggled to get money owed from those in benefits under the Community Charge (Poll tax). With some draft schemes requiring a minimum of £5 per week entitlement to qualify being mooted, the loss will fall squarely on the employed in many areas. If the Government was hoping to reduce work incentives then this is potentially the best way to do it!Finally, the loss of a national disregard for working age war pensioners seems to have been missed by many. DCLG suggest that local Authorities can use local discretion (but NOT DHP’s) to mitigate this but with funding being cut so much, many may choose not to use any discretion at all for this group.The Council Tax Support position is extraordinary. With no Act in place yet and a requirement to have a full scheme consulted on, voted on and in place by the end of January 2013, English local authorities are coming up with a mixture of schemes, often based on what their IT and computer systems can do rather than on any other local factor. It is a complete mess by any standards.The earliest the Bill can get Royal Assent is 22nd October and that is dependent on no further challenges (a number have been tabled in the House of Lords).The media has suggested that the Government is reviewing its strategy, even at this late stage and may provide extra money to mitigate some of the impact of the changes. If this is true, then postponing the scheme for 12 months and retaining Council Tax Benefit for a further year would surely make a lot of sense.

Sorry to put another spin on it but look at from the other angle. He works away and comes "home" at weekends. His post, belongings etc at your house. Car, driving license, tax and inland revenue records all at yours. Why shouldn't he contribute to your household ? You say he buys his own food when he comes to stay at a weekend - not very plausable is it ?

My advise is don't do it - not worth it. You'll get caught, have to repay an overpayment, face a prosecution, potentially huge court costs and a possible custodial sentence. Who'd look after your child when you were banged up ?