Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About politenun

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I have not heard from them. I had the IUC on 12 May.
  2. I had my IUC today. I read out my statement at the start and the interviewer said it had covered all his questions and he did not have anymore to add. I went in with a solicitor, so that probably helped as well. As I still am on universal credit, which tops up my low wages, I qualified for legal aid. I think the advantage of preparing a statement is that you can gather your thoughts in your own home. I will still have to wait two weeks or so to hear the decision but I feel happy that I have been able to put my points across.
  3. Thanks for that chalkitup. I am hoping to have a solicitor there and if I do, they can ask for disclosure before the interview. I will read out the statement anyway and then if I can answer the questions with a solicitor there, I will.
  4. Hi I have prepared my statement now, which, if they let me, I will read out at the top of the interview and then I will listen to what they have to say. If there is no solicitor around I will give a summary answer to some of the points at the end. I have found out that I can get a tape of the interview but I will have to fill a form in. I called them and told them I would like a tape as that may change the style of questioning. One advice I read from a legal Blogspot was that you should not be intimidated.
  5. Hello again There is a legal blog site where a lawyer/legal adviser called [removed] has said in his second point that his advice to clients is to say no comment if there is no solicitor present. It is called [removed] and it is in the forums section. I am not very tech savvy and I am having a job trying to post the link. I am hoping to see a lawyer next week and I will go through everything and show her the statement I am thinking of reading out.
  6. Hi Thanks very much indeed for your responses. Particularly about the SAR. Here is the reference of the woman who was told one thing when she was invited to come in and another when she was there. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?463723-Interview-under-caution-allegation-of-working-whilst-claiming&highlight=ST24Mondeo Incidentally, I have been calling around trying to get a solicitor and when I told them that the fraud officer said I should not be too concerned about the wording of the letter he said that is a tactic they sometimes use. I am thinking of making a written statement at the end of the interview.
  7. Hi I worked and telephone the UC after two weeks. When I was on JSA, you had up to four weeks to report a change in circumstances. The woman I spoke to said that they would have known anyway as they have a "real time" link to HMRC. I tried to post a link to a woman who was asked to attend an IUC DWP for working whilst on benefits. When she got there, thinking she could explain it all, it turned out they were investigating her for living with someone and not telling them. There are many examples that I have read of people being told one thing and finding out they are being investigated for something else. This woman said they tried to bully and intimidate her. Other people have also said they felt pressurised and taking that into account and the general advice on a legal blog spot, I would rather just go there and listen to what it is all about. In the case of this woman, she appealed the decision and it was then that she had access to the details of the DWP investigation. It claimed that they had observed her partner leaving her house etc. on one particular week. She pointed out that she and her partner were away on holiday that week. The charges against her were dropped and she lodged a complaint against the DWP for misleading her as to the real purpose of the investigation. It is for this reason that I do not feel that a taped interview in itself ensures good practice on the part of the DWP. I am only allowed to send links after 10 posts but there are two legal blog sites I have come across were lawyers/legal advisers have said that it is best just to hear what is being said because of the tactics used by the DWP. When I claimed for UC, I was the third person in that area to claim and none of the benefit advisers knew what to advise me as they said they are still learning. I called the UC office three times and only one of them gave me advice that I understood to mean you can claim UC if you are working or not working and they will decide if they can give you an award. I am going to try and find out if the UC people keep a record of the phone conversations and if so, if I can use a FOI to prove that I acted on the UC advice. I am not sure how long FOI takes so by saying nothing and waiting to appeal, that should give me enough time to collect more evidence. I work long hours and my phone does not have internet access. So I am only able to reply when I get home in the evenings.
  8. Hi I read on a number of legal forums that you should only talk if you have legal advice as sometimes innocent people like me are stitched up. Apparently, they get a bonus if they "find" an overpayment. Also, I read that if you are on your own, they can be a bit more well, not bullying but they can create an atmosphere where people say yes to things without really understanding the enormity of what they have said. I was told by a universal credit person that you can work whilst claiming and they will check how much you have been paid each month by looking at HMRC. That is why I am a bit confused by what is being said. People like me are going in blind and then immediately expected to reply with a definite answer to things that could be more accurately given if we had time to take the evidence away and check. Also, I read that you can request a copy of the tape but I wondered how long this takes them.
  9. I have been asked to come to an interview under caution. I was told it was to do with allegations of working whilst claiming universal credit. What was odd was that I received the letter at the beginning of April, yet it was dated mid February. In the letter, it said that if I did not reply within 7 days of the date as posted, then they will assume that I am not attending and it will result in further action. When I called the DWP officer, he said it was just a mistake - but it seems a bit odd that a DWP fraud officer would get the dates so wrong. Also, he told me just to ignore the serious wording of the letter. I said it was a serious investigation, judging by the wording. I felt he was just trying to get me to come in, thinking it was not too serious so that I do not get legal advice. I feel this is a devious ploy. I am thinking of just saying no comment because I cannot afford for a solicitor to attend but I am afraid this will land me in more trouble. Also, I will ask for a copy of the tape at the end of the interview.
  • Create New...