Am I committing benefit fraud?

[yflad]

Hello,

 

I was diagnosed with schizophrenia in May 2008 and have been signed off since December 2007, receiving Income Support and Housing Benefit.

 

I have attended several interviews at my Job Centre where the lady suggested I do some form of voluntary work as a therapeutic aid to my condition.

 

I did not want to do voluntary work as it meant leaving the house, so instead I set up an online magazine about travel and food with the help of my friend. I used to work as a journalist when I was well, and I have a stockpile of articles and photographs. I wanted something to do in my spare time.

 

However, a friend recently commented that my online magazine contains my name and looks very commercial and warned that if the DWP and Housing Benefit found out, they could mistakenly think I was committing benefit fraud. An advertising agency has now linked to my magazine and their website is full of expensive advertising rates.

 

This has caused me a lot of alarm, as it looks like I am the editor of a luxury, expensive magazine with lots of ad revenue. When in fact, the whole thing is a hobby and I have not made a penny out of the business, as my bank account will prove.

 

However, I am worried that I am already being investigated. It is simply a hobby and although I would have liked to make money out of it, I haven't. If I did make money, I would have stopped my benefits immediately.

 

Does anyone know what I should do? I don't want to remove my magazine from the internet because it took a long time to create and has received many good comments. It has also been very helpful dealing with my condition as it has occupied my time and helped me be more creative.

 

However, I don't want to lose my benefits and be taken to court for suspected benefit fraud when, in reality, I haven't committed this.

 

Please help.

 

Many thanks

[fudged]

I can't pretend this is expert advice, no doubt someone with good knowledge of the benefit system will be along, but I think the simplest thing to do would be to ask the Benefit office.

If you can prove you're not making money, then you can prove you're not committing fraud. If you were advised to undertake some theraputic voluntary work, all you've done is take up that adivce.

Call the Benefit office and run it by them. At the very least they'll see you're being up-front about it. Common sense?

 

As I said, not expert advice, but I hope it helps.

[insyder]

Okay, expert advice from someone in the know and who owns a website...

 

An online presence does not automatically mean you are making money from it. They are not likely to stumble over your magazine but if they were then you could easily prove that you are not making any money from it.

 

Do you have adverts on your website?

Are you selling anything on it?

 

If those two are "No" then that's clear that you can't be making money from the magazine.

 

Links to websites that do make money means nothing.

 

Keep your website going. It's a hobby and you can prove it very easily.

[Zamzara]

I agree with what Insyder said.

[ErikaPNP]

No you are not commiting benefit fraud. Unless you actually benefit financially yourself from the website there is no fraud going on.

[yflad]

Hi,

 

I just wanted to thank everyone who took the time to respond - your help was greatly appreciated.

 

I have decided to continue with my internet project. I have been told by people that in the future they may advertise on my site, but if that does happen, I will obviously tell the DWP and the Council.

 

I am also going to write to the DWP and Council up front, just to tell them that I have an internet site which is a hobby but I don't make any money from it... I think it is better to be up front about it because at least in the future if a problem does arise, I will be able to prove that I have been honest and open with them.

 

Thanks again for your help and best wishes to you all

 

N.

[Surfer01]

You do not mention what type of benefit you are receiving. If it is JSA you have signed a commitment to be looking for work but if you are bilding a website then you cannot be actively looking for work. I would say it si a grey area. I almost fell into thsi category when i decided to do a course at the local college. I had to prove that I was still actively looking and availible for work.

[Zamzara]

You do not mention what type of benefit you are receiving. If it is JSA you have signed a commitment to be looking for work but if you are bilding a website then you cannot be actively looking for work.

I was diagnosed with schizophrenia in May 2008 and have been signed off since December 2007, receiving Income Support and Housing Benefit.

Nevertheless, if it were JSA having a hobby is not in itself incompatible with looking for work as well. You don't have to spend every minute looking.

[surprise]

You should also be claiming DLA with your condition. You should see a Welfare officer at your local council who will advise you whether you are receiving your full entitlements.

[JonCris]

I agree with all that's been stated..........however if they discover your running a website they will probably stop your benefit until you can prove your not receiving any kind of payment.

 

So I'm afraid the dilemma is yours do you or don't you tell them now. Only you can know if you will be able to manage if they do stop your benefits until you prove your situation

[insyder]

I agree with all that's been stated..........however if they discover your running a website they will probably stop your benefit until you can prove your not receiving any kind of payment.

 

No they won't. They can only suspend benefit if they have reasonable doubt or proof. The onus is on them to prove it, and they won't suspend your benefit just because you own a website.

 

I also agree with Zamzara. You need to be actively seeking work but you can do what you like in the evenings as long as you are proving that you are following the Jobseekers Agreement and looking for full-time work.

 

Surfer01 has come up against the part-time education problem which says that you need to be doing under 16 hours a week, it needs to be specified as a part-time course, that you need to be actively seeking and available for work and that you must give the course up in the event that a suitable job is offered.

 

Not the same as a hobby at all.

[JonCris]

Insyder clearly you & I live in different worlds because in mine the benefits agency will stop benefits based on the slightest whiff that there might be a fraud being committed.

 

Also unlike innocent until proven guilty in the case of the SS your guilty until proven innocent

 

Don't believe me then read the many threads of those who come here having unjustly had their benefits stopped.

 

My advice is tell them & that avoids any later misunderstanding...........but if they do that merely confirms my position

[insyder]

We do live in different worlds, JonCris.

 

The DWP (not the benefits agency) will not suspend a claim because someone is running a website. There must be reasonable doubt before they will even take up a case.

Edited February 16, 2009 by insyder

[JonCris]

Your work may involve the DWP but then so does mine albeit on a voluntary basis & I'm constantly confronted by victims of DWP almost daily where their benefits have been stopped until AFTER they investigate the veracity of the allegations or suspicions

 

Also if you have an interest in the system as you work in it do you not read the many threads on this & other sites where just such a thing has happened to claimants ............'Guilty' until proven innocence is the mantra of the DWP I'm afraid

 

They 'invite' claimants for interview under caution & without benefit of legal counsel advising the claimant that they don't need legal representation which of course is blatant nonsense & an abuse of process

[insyder]

'Guilty' until proven innocence is the mantra of the DWP I'm afraid

 

No, I think you're wrong. No-one I know thinks that.

 

Anyway, I'm here as a knowledgeable person to help people and not to argue with you.

[JonCris]

It's alleged that the DWP are even trawling through their own members of staff in an attempt to find those who's benefits they can stop based on the slightest excuse

[sweets-on-the-move]

hi need some advice made redundant on contribution based jobseekers allowence my partner is in part time employment 27hrs per week.advised not entitled to help with mortgage due to my partners hours d w p state that my partner is full tie as she works more than 24 hrs .cannot get tax credits as my partner works less than 30 hrs so for this she is classed as part time.mortage arrears acumalating im signed with a agencey for work .help advice welcome how do i aproach it

[ErikaPNP]

It's alleged that the DWP are even trawling through their own members of staff in an attempt to find those who's benefits they can stop based on the slightest excuse

 

 

"alleged" is the key word here.

 

Everyone has differing views on any public body, be it the DWP or the Local Authority. Some think it's the staff, not trained well enough, some think it's the staff ignoring the rules and regs and being generally difficult, abusing their powers, some think it's the customers saying something then backtracking, some say it's the customers blatantly lying or failing to provide info that is required/requested.

 

Either way a balance will never be struck with accusations flying around and each blaming the other. Guilty until proven innocent is not the mantra of DWP by any means, if you are working assisting people, Jon Cris then you would or should be aware of the courses of action the DWP should be following (which is not guilty until proven innocent), and if it is not being adhered to by a staff member, it should be followed up by way of a complaint to a senior member of staff within DWP. It may be the mantra of certain individuals but it is not the mantra of the DWP as a whole.

 

There are rules and regs set down in any job which should be adhered to, particularly when it is a public body and if one member of staff (or several) break away from the cart as it were, it needs to be brought forward (through an MP if necessary). I'm not saying it doesn't happen, (everyone knows of people who do not apply the correct procedures) I am saying it shouldn't happen and if it is happening to you or someone whom you represent it needs to be brought forward.

 

I myself have been investigated several times (not by DWP but the Inland Revenue - different body, same government) for tax credit fraud. Every time without cause or reasonable belief - I have no idea WHY to this day investigations have been carried out. In all cases I have provided all information requested of me and complied fully and in all cases I have had letters confirming their investigations to reveal there is nothing untoward going on. At no point during the investigation processes were my tax credits halted.

 

At the end of the day people have differing opinions on here as they do outside the forum, but we are all here for one of two reasons: To help others, and to help ourselves. Have a difference of opinion guys, but there is no point in arguing over who is right and who is wrong, that doesn't help the consumer unless there is fact to back it up and do something about it.

 

Incidentally, having a website does NOT in any way, shape or form constitute fraud unless finances are gained from the website or it is interfering with ones agreement to be available for work. Having said that, if the OP is upfront about it from the start it stops worrying about it later.

[insyder]

Thank you, Erika

[impossible princess]

Hi. I have been working as self employed with my soon to be X husband for the past 7 ish yrs within his business. I have NEVER had a wage neither going into my bank account or in hand ! i have now got a feeling that he has not pad his tax over this time and am wondering if anyone can help me as 2 where i will stand if he is reported an "done" for this. As i have not been taking any wage from him where do i stand in all of this ? help much welcomed

[impossible princess]

CAN SOMEONE HELP WITH THIS ??

 

Hi. I have been working as self employed with my soon to be X husband for the past 7 ish yrs within his business. I have NEVER had a wage neither going into my bank account or in hand ! i have now got a feeling that he has not pad his tax over this time and am wondering if anyone can help me as 2 where i will stand if he is reported an "done" for this. As i have not been taking any wage from him where do i stand in all of this ? help much welcomed

[JonCris]

erika in a perfect world I would agree with you But to my certain knowledge not only are your comments inaccurate they also ignore the evidence splattered all over forums such as this. Furthermore the miscreants I refer to aren't junior but very senior

 

Also if all's well can you tell us why claimants invited for questioning 'under caution' are always told they don't need legal representation or if charges are made they are under sec12 thereby denying the defendant rights to trial by jury.

 

& whilst your at it can you tell my why benefit claimants are prosecuted & convicted even where there is no loss to the Treasury in other words simply for claiming the 'wrong' benefits & not as claimed fleecing the system

Edited February 17, 2009 by JonCris

[JonCris]

& to continue In a recent case a benefit claimant was pilloried in the press for claiming benefits & buying a flash car

 

The money for the car was from a trust set up when he was awarded damages. He perfectly entitled in law to use the money to purchase capital goods & in fact had he done otherwise he would have forfeited ALL benefits to which he was entitled. Something that the press ignored because it doesn't make good copy and which the DWP made much of whilst knowing full well he wasn't commiting any offence OR abusing the system

[ErikaPNP]

Jon, I can't answer the why's, because the only person who can answer that is the person responsible for it.

 

My comments are not inaccurate thank you, if you read my post fully you would see that I stated quite clearly:

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, (everyone knows of people who do not apply the correct procedures) I am saying it shouldn't happen and if it is happening to you or someone whom you represent it needs to be brought forward.

The mantra of DWP is NOT "guilty until proven innocent" but some people interperet things to suit themselves and if someone in the DWP has done this in order to cast someone as guilty and not allowing them the opportunity to show their innocence, it needs to be dealt with as it is not the way the DWP wants things to work. It is therefore the mantra of certain individuals not DWP itself.

 

I do not for one moment deny this happens, everyone knows it happens and happens far too often than is acceptable, but that does not change the fact that a group of people incapable of performing their jobs correctly does not make everyone in the department incapable of doing their jobs correctly. I have come across many a person employed in the DWP who is a jumped up little jobsworth however I have also come across people who will go above and beyond what is expected to provide a customer with a high level of customer service, and would not label the DWP as a whole, incapable.

 

Senior Officials within the department as you mention are the worst breed, they are most usually the ones who have their fancy shmancy job titles rammed that far up their backsides that they don't concern themselves with the job in hand, they need to be brought to book, granted.

 

Exchanging arguments is not helping anyone here, nor is making the presumption that because someone does not agree with you that they are an employee of the department, and singling them out as the enemy (leaving them open to possible attack by other Caggers) when they have come here to help people. Someone with knowledge to the inner workings of a department does not automatically make them an employee. People in the Debt forum know the inner workings of DCA's and the regulations that are supposed to be adhered to. The majority of people posting there have never seen the inside of a DCA - they just happen to be educated on the subject, or perhaps have inside contacts like many of us do.

Edited February 17, 2009 by ErikaPNP
ooh, spelling mistake, naughty me!

[Zamzara]

I agree JonCris, the DWP fraud and overpayment departments are very different from the rest, and are notoriously much more anti-user.

 

There is a fantastic smackdown of the DWP in a decision by Commissioner Williams here.