My Experience of interview under caution for benefit fraud and the low tactics they will use to find you guilty

[ST24Mondeo]

I was claiming income support and housing benefit for myself and 4 children.I have 3 children with my ex husband.I then met someone else and fell pregnant with my youngest son.At one time me and the father of my youngest son did consider living together as a family.So he did get some of his documents sent to my house.But for reasons i cannot go into on a forum we decided not to live together at that time.

 

In january 07 i got a letter from the dwp telling me i needed to come for a interview under caution because i had failed to tell them about a work.At this stage i never thought about getting any advice about attending the interview because i had not been working at anytime so thought it was nothing to worry about.

 

When i went down for the interview it soon became clear that it was not about any work i was getting accused off living with a partner.The interview started by showing me a copy of my sons birth cert signed by me and his father.I would never have left father unknown or a blank space where the fathers name should be.I knew in years to come my son would see his birth cert and it was the right thing to do having his fathers name on it.They also had copies of my bank application,credit card application.etc They had copies of my sons fathers driving license car tax renewal etc.In 2004 they had received information that i was living with a partner.So they had 3 years to gather information and make there case against me..

 

I was shocked because i did not know they could get all this information about what i considered to be my private life.People should be made aware that when you make a claim for benefit your private life is not private anymore.I dont know how they expected me to defend myself at the interview when i was not told the truth in the first letter about what they where really going to interview me about.This is a tactic they use saying they want to interview you about one thing then when you get to interview it is about something totally different.

 

They know before you even attend the interview of how it is going to go because they are prepared for what way the questioning is going to be put to you.I was guilty in there eyes even before they spoke to me.The interviewer tried to bully and intimidate me to tell her what she wanted to hear.I was spoken to like i was the lowest sort of ****** she had ever seen.It does not matter that the interview is getting taped because if you admit to what they want to hear the tapes will never be heard be anyone again so they can say to you what they like.

 

Also the fraud investigators are on preformance related pay.The more people they get to admit there guilt the more money for them every month.It is in there intrests to get everyone that they interview to make a admission of guilt.

 

I was told at the end of the interview that a decision maker would look at the evidence and decide wheather a overpayment had been made to me.I said well how can this happen when you have got me down here under the pretense of interviewing me about a work.Then when i get here the interview is about living with a partner and i have not been able to give you evidence to show where my partner is living because i did not know i was going to need it.They then try to shift the blame to a decision maker and that its not up to them any more.But the decision maker will be making a decision on what the fraud investigators evidence.

 

A few months later i get a letter saying based on the balance of probabilities that i had received a overpayment of 40 thousand pounds income support and 24 thousand pounds housing benefit.On the balance of probability i could of been living with brad pitt but it was highly unlikely.I could not believe it i was sucidal.I had not been givan a chance to put my side of the story across and now i owed all this money.If had not been for my family i would have done something really stupid.

 

I decided to appeal this decision.When you do this you then get all the paperwork involved i had not been given a chance at interview to see the evidence it was just threats of we have this and that on you.They did tell me that surveillance had been carried out on my home for ten weeks.At no time over those ten weeks was any so called partner seen coming or going form my house.Or living with me.When i started going through the surveillance obs they had said over a certain week that my car had been seen coming and going from my home.I then realised that it could not be true because i had been on holiday that week.My car was parked at the airport for that week not at my house.The obs also stated that they where observing my house from a certain number in my street.You could not see my house or car from this part off the street.

 

I could not believe it they had signed sworn statments telling lies about my car.This is how low they will go to get a conviction for benefit fraud.There where other lies told in there evidence but this one week period was the one time i could prove that my car was not there and they had told lies.

 

I was given a date for my appeal hearing and i thought i will now have my chance to give my side of the story and tell them where my so called partner was living.On the day off the hearing the dwp postponed the hearing because they where now trying to proscute me.I now know they have no legal right to stop a appeal going ahead it is yet more off there tactics.

 

I decided to write a letter of complaint.I got a response saying they could not consider my complaint while there was criminal proceedings pending.I was very fed up this had been hanging over my head for almost two years with no one wanting to listen to what i had to say.

 

In may off this year i got another letter saying they where not going to proscute me and the case was closed.I thought that would be the end off it.I got another letter saying my appeal was going ahead now because i still owed them the money.Before my appeal i sent a letter to the panel to highlight that there had been lies told in the obs carried out on my house and other flaws in the dwp investgation.On the day of the hearing i was a nervous wreck.I had tried to get the help of a solicitor from the first interview but was unable to get one because you will not be given legal aid to help you with your case.I feel this is very unfair because dwp have all the resorces to make a case against you but you have none to fight them back unless you can pay.If i could afford to pay i would not be on income support in the first place.

 

At the hearing there is a legally qualfied member on the panel someone from the dwp and yourself.This was the first time in almost two years i had got to explain myself.Also got to say about all the lies that had been used to make the case against me.When the dwp got ask questions they just where saying no comment no comment.I could not believe thay they had made my life hell and treated me like a ****** for two years and they had no comment to make on there allegations against me.

The panel upheld my appeal and i was found not guilty.

 

I decided to make my complaint again to dwp about the way there investagators had handled there investagation into my case.Its funny when this time i was the one making accusations against dwp how differnt i was treated.My complaint is getting treated seriously to the point they drove out to my address and proved for themselves that investagator was lying when she said where she was sitting taking obs from.I also have proof that my car was parked at the airport when it was stated on the obs it was seen driving in and out for a week.

 

If i had off been found guilty of owing this money to the dwp all the local papers in my area would off had a field day my life would not have been worth living anymore.Now the tables are turned i will have my day in court because i can get legal aid for this.Or i will have them named and shamed in my local rags.I dont know why they felt the need to tell lies in there case on me.But this seems to be the way they go about doing there job.Then off course the mps passing the laws and giving these people the powers that they have are the lowest of the low themselves.Dont let joe bloggs away with anything but meanwhile we will have nothing but the best and put it down for expences.If this isnst fraud i dont know what is .

 

So if you have the misfortune to be called into your local office for a interview under caution be aware they will bully lie intimidate you any low down tactic they can use to get a guilty out off you.How many more people has this person who interviewed me told lies on and got away with it.Some people will admit to anything just to try and make it all go away.They will take a penalty or a caution because they cannot cope with the worry off it all.

 

Never ever admit to anything.

 

I understand the dwp have a job to do and they must look into things when a allegation is made.But they should treat people with respect and do the job to the best of there ability.Not tell lies on people or bully them into saying what they want to hear.

 

I cannot say much more on a open forum about the dwp.You never know whos reading it.My case is now in the hands of my solicitors.

 

Remember never admit to anything because if you do you dont know what lies have been used to make there case.You will not see all the facts of the case until you appeal and get all the papers.So beware.

[ErikaPNP]

 

A few months later i get a letter saying based on the balance of probabilities that i had received a overpayment of 40 thousand pounds income support and 24 thousand pounds housing benefit.

 

 

That's a heck of a lot - over how many years had they calculated this overpayment? How long had they been investigating you?

[ST24Mondeo]

This was a overpayment from my youngest son was born in 1997 until 2007 when i went for my interview.This was not a true figure they use over inflated figures to make it all look far worse.If i had off been living with a partner we would have got say tax credits if he was working.If i was with a partner and he was not working i would have had a underlying entitlement to benefit.They said due to records getting not kept they could only backdate the overpayment form 2003 until 2007 even tho they believed that i was living with a partner from 97 until 07

 

As i said in my first post i cannot put all the information of my case on here.I just want to let people know they will tell lies to make a case if they feel they have too.

 

They where investigating me from 2004.

 

You would think from 2004 until 2007 they would have got there facts right without lying.

 

I was just very lucky that i found out and i am able to prove that in my case they have told lies.

Edited August 17, 2009 by ST24Mondeo

[FitzWilliam]

A few months later i get a letter saying based on the balance of probabilities that i had received a overpayment of 40 thousand pounds income support and 24 thousand pounds housing benefit.On the balance of probability i could of been living with brad pitt but it was highly unlikely.

 

The balance of probability is no way to judge whether someone has done wrong, but is stupidly used by the DWP to decide cases such as yours.

 

They also, or course, decide on 'the balance of probability' whether or not someone should have their benefits suspended for supposedly not applying for a job.

 

The problem with the balance of probability is this. Let us say that the DWP, considering 100 cases of people supposedly committing benefit fraud, decide that they are all 75% likely to be guilty. That means that on 'the balance of probability' they will decide all those cases as guilty verdicts.

 

But if they are correct in assessing all those 100 cases at 75% - and let's assume they are - then they will, on average, correctly penalise 75 guilty people and wrongly penalise 25 innocent people.

 

That's the problem with 'the balance of probability', and that is why the DWP should decide cases, as is done in English courts of law, only if proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

I had a bad experience with 'the balance of probability' in a game of poker recently. I pushed all-in on the turn against a poor player who called with an inferior hand. With one card to come I was well ahead.

 

42 of the 44 cards left in the pack would win for me, and 2 would lose for me. My opponent got one of his two miracle cards to beat me and send me crashing out of the game.

 

That 'balance of probability' is okay for card games, where good players understand the odds, but huge life decisions such as whether or not someone has committed benefit fraud should never be decided like that.

 

Still, I'm glad you were not prosecuted in the end and that you've now got solicitors on the case. I look forward to following future developments.

 

Good luck!

[kinkyklee]

hi glad u r on the way to proving that the dwp are not capable of a standard interview or finding someone guilty.

im in this situation at the moment with a letter of complaint in to the dwp...was found not guilty at crown court and at the tribunal service...

but the dwp will not reinstate the benefit for the period that was stopped they are dragging there heals etc...anyway just wondad how do you take them to court as im wanting to go down that avenue in the near future,as they did the same to me ie-living with partner driving license,bills bank statements all of which was hearsay..any advice i will welcome

thanks

[ST24Mondeo]

As you know you are not entitled to legal aid to try and fight them with your appeal etc.

 

You need to go and see a solicitor because now you can get legal aid to make a claim in the county court.

 

They made my life hell for over two years all based on their investigators web off lies she made up.I still do not know why she felt the need to lie maybe to make a sloppy case look stronger.

 

When her boss went and said there is a serious complaint has come in about you she resigned.

Edited August 18, 2009 by ST24Mondeo

[ErikaPNP]

They are not required to prove a case "beyond all reasonable doubt" because that is something that is reserved for the Crown Prosecution Service or DWP Solicitors and prosecution division, in criminal proceedings. Had court action been taken against this lady then the CPS or DWP solicitors and prosecution division (SOLP) would have to prove the case "beyond all reasonable doubt" in court. As the decision makers within DWP are not prosecutors (decision makers are not required to posess any legal qualification) they are only required to base their decision on the "balance of probability". If they decide a person is "guilty" on the balance of probability, and the money they believe to have been obtained fraudulently is in excess of £2000.00, they then refer the case to DWP solicitors who will decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute. They will only do this if they believe there is enough evidence to secure a criminal conviction.

 

When considering the balance of probability, the DWP decision makers must consider all the facts before them, not solely the ones which scream "guilty" on the surface. They have to "scratch" the surface. Speaking metaphorically, they can't just look at the cover of the book, see the word "guilty" and make their decision on that. They must open the pages of the book and study the content. What is contained within is usually far more clear than what is shown on the outside. "the balance" is just that - the balance - they must consider all angles, not only the ones which point to guilty.

 

ST24Mondeo - there are a number of things that "jump" out at me here. The first is that they said the IUC was to do with working whilst claiming but this was not the true reason - to anyone else who thinks they are at the IUC for one reason and when there discovers it is for a different reason, you do have the right to leave the interview.

 

another thing is the sum - which is my reason behind my previous question. I calculated £40,000.00 overpayment of Income Support to be over a period of approximately 11 - 12 years using current benefit rates. Obviously the rates of previous years will be less which in turn would perhaps increase their overpayment period, which brings me to my next point.

 

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that they had this person who they believed to have fraudulently claimed approximately £64,000.00 total in benefit payments, yet they either did not refer the case to SOLP or did but SOLP decided to take no action. One wonders why that would be, given the sums involved. Could it be, perhaps that the "evidence" had very large holes in it? Could it perhaps be, that their "balance" of probabilities was not that well "balanced"?

 

Lastly are the "no comment", comments. Why in the world would that be an answer to every solitary question asked? Something is far from right here.

 

Now, folks who know me on here will know that round these parts I don't tend to partake in "bashing" whether that be Benefit bashing, DWP bashing or otherwise as it creates a bad atmosphere and interferes with the reason for the forum which is to advise people on their entitlement. There are people who come from the DWP in their own time here to genuinely help others - so I'm still not going to DWP bash as that would not be fair to the good folks who do spend their own time on here lending very good and very helpful advice to others - they are all very much appreciated and valued by the people they have helped, so this is not directed at them. I am going to "individual" bash.

 

YES!! I am going to bash!! I don't "bash" as a rule but nor am I immune to or ignorant of the fact that there are "bent" people in all walks of life. Be it bent DWP officials, bent Local Authority Officials, bent "coppers", or fraudulent benefit claimants they all exist. . . There are good and bad in all walks of life

 

It appears you have been the victim of such a "bent" person, and it is absolutely totally disgraceful and inexcusable. I really hope you get this sorted out properly. I hope the investigator(s) responsible are brought to book, if they haven't been already. But that doesn't make it ok by any stretch of the imagination, as they are employed to work "for and on behalf of" the secretary of state, who is ultimately accountable for all DWP goings on. I understand you can't say too much about it at the moment but please do come back and let us know when it is all over what the outcome is.

 

Not often I get all ragey but in this case, I am riled

[ST24Mondeo]

I twice questioned the overpayment fiqure they had give me but never got a straight anwser.I think this is because they where hoping to get me to court and have this huge amount to bring before a judge and make me out to be a big bad frauster.

 

As i said i understand these people have jobs to do but they should do them to the best of there abilty.The dwp have good powers now in the way they can tackle benefit fraud.Ie the information they can now get access to.

 

If on the day off my interview i had off admitted to any of the things that was getting put to me considering the amount off money.I dont think the outcome would have been very good for me or my children.

 

I felt sucidal and have been attending the mental health team.I dont know if the dwp realise the effect this has on peoples lives.

I think it is very unfair that someone can make a malicious allegation by way of a letter(as in my case) or phone call and someones life is turned upside down.I think there needs to be a better way of checking peoples right to benefit.People are only making these allegations because for some reason or another they do not like you.

 

The reason i was given that i did not face prosecution was because from i was interviewed 2 years had passed and there is a time frame between interview and getting you to court.I do not believe that this is true because off the sum off money involved.

 

I believe what has happened is i made a complaint that lies had been told in the obs regarding my house and car.I was able to prove this by way of photos and paperwork that my car was at the airport.The investigator boss went and said we have have recieved a complaint it is very serious.She said she would stand over the obs on my house.Her boss then went out to my street and proved for himself that she could not of been watching my house from where she said.He then told me he had grave doubts over the rest of her work on my case.

 

Went i went from my appeal the person representation the dwp i think had been told do not say anything because there is a complaint about the way this hole case has been handled.She would have been speaking against me using evidence from what they now knew to be a dodgy investigator.That is why i think she just kept on saying no comment.

 

When this investigator doing obs on my house for ten weeks.I think for a lot off the time she had said she was there but was not.Its also strange that when my complaint come in and was put to her at first she said she would stand over her work.Then when her boss said well i have grave concerns about your work she resigned.

 

That will not matter to me that she is not doing the job anymore.It is the dwp as a hole that i will have in court.I am glad she is not doing the job for the sake of anyone else out there who might have had the misfortune to meet her doing her job.

[ErikaPNP]

It truely is dispicable. The damage one individual can do to another's life with complete fabrications.

 

A while ago I was assisting a person who was being investigated (living with partner), and had the misfortune to have an over enthusiastic youngster, who I later found out was just out of training, spout absolute rubbish down the phone at me regarding the definition of "partner", "household", and "estranged". He didn't agree that "estrangement" and "household" are not defined in legislation and took a bit of a paddy when I told him where he could find his own departments' guidelines on it. He got a shock the next morning when I spoke to his manager. As I explained to his manager, I understand these matters must be investigated, however he had talked absolute rubbish, misinterpreted several guidelines and had I been a person less knowlegeable about the guidelines they use, the outcome may have been very different for the person being investigated. I explained to her that I was worried how many other cases he had misinterperated where other people may be more vulnerable.

 

I've also been investigated myself on several occasions for tax credit fraud, (again living with partner) and although I knew I had nothing to hide, and they did treat me with respect, and explained matters to me, and I provided all the information they asked for, and was found to actually not be receiving ENOUGH tax credit, it was a very degrading experience.

[kellyswon]

Hi MONDEO, i myself am currently going through similar what you have been through i was accussed of cohabitating back in april of this year and recently the decision makers have found me guilty on the evidence that the DWP presented to them but i have appealed against their decision, in the meantime whilst all this is going on my housing benefit has been stopped so my rent arrears have been adding up week after week, today i recieved a letter from the housing saying that they are going to seek possesion of my property, i called them and explained that i have been accused of benefit fraud and that i have appealed and am waiting the decision regarding this, i was told that i have 28days from the date of the letter or it will then be passes to the courts ,during your experience was your housing benefit stopped ? and what happened about your arrears etc: was you threatened with court? and how was it eventually resolved?

Also since july i have had to rely on crisis loans week after week to get by what sort of benefit did you recieve through all this when they stopped your money?

[ST24Mondeo]

I am sorry to hear the same thing is happening to you.I went and stayed with my family for a while when first it happened to me.I signed off income support because i knew my money was going to get stopped and i would lose my house anyway as it was private rented and the landlord would not let me live there with no rent getting paid.

 

Plus my mental health was not good with the stress of it all.

I dont want to seem as if i am down on men because im not but all too often it is the women who are left in this sitution with no money no roof over there heads and kids to feed.

 

Relationships are often very complicated for one reason or another.I have the attitude if you like it put a ring on it.I dont see why i should live with someone who is not prepared to marry me.Likewise it is hard when you have children finding someone who you can trust to be with them and who they also get on with.Living with a partner to me is someone who is there for you who keeps a roof over your head put clothes on your kids back and food in there mouths.Someone helps you pay your bill etc.I feel like your back is put up against a wall if you are seeing someone for a couple of nights a week are you meant to go down and tell them everytime you maybe have someone round for a coffee or to watch a film.Before your nosy neighbour for whatever reason assumes your living with him and tells dwp.You are still entitled to a private life.

 

I really am really wary now off having to take any money off the dwp because you are signing your life over to them.I was lucky i had my family to help me out.

 

The only thing i can say to you is now that you have made a appeal you should get all the papers that was used to make a case against you.Go through them with a fine tooth comb.This is when i found out that there was flaws and lies had been used to make a case against me.This could drag on for a couple of years as it did in my case.It is really unfair that you are sitting with nothing while they will drag there heels getting it sorted out.

 

It all comes down again to there stupid Balance of probability that you have been living with a partner.It really is not good enough when people have no money.They should have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt before they stop anyones money.Its also not fair that you cannot get any legal aid to help you try and help you fight your corner.

 

I am sorry i cant be off more help to you.The dwp are in a win win sitution no matter what.Even if you are found not to be guilty it is off no help to you now.

[kellyswon]

I wasnt aware i could get the paperwork of the evidence they have collected , i thought you could only do this if the case was to proceed to court.My solicitor has told me that there are 3 stages , 1st: the decision makers are presented with all the evidence from the DWP and they make a decision on it ie: guilty/not-guilty. 2nd: the debt management department then calculate what the overpayment will be. 3rd: their legal sector then have to make the final decision on if they were to take you to court they would have a good chance of getting a prosecution.My solicitor has told me that with all the evidence that they told him they had collected he doesnt think that it would stand in court as everything they have is paperwork ie: bank statements,wageslips etc.They have no surveilance.Mondeo did you actually recieve a court date to attend or did you appeal after the 1st decision was made?

[flowergirl66]

You poor people, sounds like you have been to Hell and back.

 

As i said on my thread regarding my ex husband he had the IUC today and the lady was very nice and repectful explained everything clearly and listen to what he had to say then explained that she thought it was unlikely that it would go any further and not to worry.

 

Sounds like they could use a few more like her on their investigation teams!

[ST24Mondeo]

After you are interviewed all the evidence they have on your case goes to the decision maker who decides on the balance of probability if you have received a over payment.( If You where a single parent or living with a partner)I dont think it takes to much for them to decide you have received a over payment because of this balance of probability.

 

After they have decided you have received a overpayment you will get a letter telling you the amount of overpayment.This is when you can appeal the overpayment decision.

 

You can ask to get copies off all the paper work they have used to make decision.This is your right to see this information.This info has to be made available to you so that you can make a appeal.You need it so that you can challenge them on any bits off it you think are wrong.When making your appeal you need to send any evidence that your alleged partner was living else were.

 

You should tell them you want to have a oral appeal this is your best chance of winning your appeal.

On the day off my appeal it was postponed because the dwp decided that they where going to try and take me to court and this over rides the appeal process.Even though they have no legal right do do this.

 

The dwp decided they where not going to proscute me.So i never received a court date.The reason they give for this was because they had only so much time from my interview to get me to court.I think i explained this in my other post.

 

I still had to attend my appeal for my overpayment.But my appeal was upheld that i was a single parent. I dont see how when they do not have a strong enough evidence to take you to court they an still say you have received a overpayment but this is the way the system works.I explained about this in my other post as well.

 

You need to see all the evidence they have asap.Only then will you be able to move things forward.Remember they are not going to tell you the best way forward to help yourself.You are going to have to do this yourself.

 

They can try and prosecute you but then things change it is not the balance of probability anymore.It is beyond all reasonable doubt.So they need to be very sure off all there facts before they go down this road.

[Swift Eater]

Forgive me if i come across agressive here.

If the police were to interview you for an alledged crime wouldnt it be sensible to have a solisitor preasent ?

Surely the lesson to be broardcast here is to have a solisitor when been interviewd by any authority.

Should this have been the case half of your troubles would not have arrisen.

[ST24Mondeo]

You are not entitled to legal aid for as interview under caution.So all through interviews and appeals you will not get any help to fight your case.It is only when it becomes a criminal matter you will be able to get a solicitor.At interview you can have someone with you for moral support but they cannot speak on your behalf.So a solicitor cannot help you at this stage even if you could get legal aid.You could of course speak to a solictor before interview to seek there advice on the matter.

[flowergirl66]

You are not entitled to legal aid for as interview under caution.So all through interviews and appeals you will not get any help to fight your case.It is only when it becomes a criminal matter you will be able to get a solicitor.At interview you can have someone with you for moral support but they cannot speak on your behalf.So a solicitor cannot help you at this stage even if you could get legal aid.You could of course speak to a solictor before interview to seek there advice on the matter.

 

This is not strictly true unless things have changed since your first IUC, my ex partner had a IUC yesterday and was advised by CAB to get a solicitor to go with him which he did and the same solicitor was there to to support 3 other people who also had appointments, his case was sorted there and then but the solicitor told if that if they had decided to persuse him then he would get help.

[ST24Mondeo]

I was interview in january 2007.I dont know if things have changed since then but i was advised at the time that knowone else could speak on my behalf at the iuc.

 

If you are getting income support and not entitled to legal aid for a solicitor i dont know how you are meant to pay for one to attend with you.

 

I could not afford the 120 pounds a hour my current solicitor charges.

 

Now that i have made a complaint about the dwp all i get out off them that would not happen now.when i point out things they have done wrong in my case thats the anwser i get oh that would not happen now.

 

I dont claim to be a expert in social security matters.I can only comment on my experince with them and how they have treated me.

[Swift Eater]

Please look in to this mattor of IUC and getting a solisitor, you will find I are right, you can obtain leagal aid for this interview.

There is a link online to a solistor who deals with such cases.

 

Remember anything you say will be uses against you.

 

Simple answers are 'I do not know what you are talking about' 'Can you fully explaine ' 'This is not true'

 

However if you do have something to hide, you have been caught for benifit fraud you must suffer the consiquences.

[kk3852]

My understanding is that you are not entitled to legal aid for a solicitor if unless the interview is at a police station.

 

S24T is quite correct that at an IUC you can have someone with you for moral support but they are not able to answer the questions for you. You are the person who is under investigation and you are really the only person who can tell the absolute truth - and that is the only reason for an IUC - for the truth to be told.

 

Its not to force people to say they are guilty when they are not. There is a whole load of scaremongering on these forums. The investigators have some evidence which may point to a certain set of circumstances and they are there to get at the truth. If they give you a hard time it could be that the explanation that is given doesn't make any sense.

 

Try to give an excuse and they will have heard it all before - tell the truth and its obvious that you are doing so - have a solicitor by all means if it makes you feel better. It doesn't make the slightest difference to the way you are treated and what questions are asked.

[scousegeezer]

KK3852, I beg to differ regarding the solicitor. As I understand it you are entitles to have representation for any criminal matter under "legal Aid" rules. An interview under caution is part of a criminal investigation, therefore you can have representation with you. The solicitor is there to advise not answer the questions for you. He will advise people in such circumstances as this, who do not know any of the rules of the "game".

 

Mondeo- Have you still got all the papers for your case. If so have a look to see if the "bent" investigator has made a statement under criminal justice rules ( in other words a formal statement on a formally printed statement form). If she has , ask you solicitor to consider the question of perjury. Under the law, you only have to make a formal statement and INTEND it to be used as evidence and INTEND it to be presented to a court of law. Then the question of perjury and pereverting the course of justice has been fulfilled. The statement DOES NOT have to be used - just INTENDED.

 

Cheers - Scousegeezer.

[ST24Mondeo]

When you are first interviewed even though it is under caution it is not a criminal investigation at that stage.The decisions made on your entitlement to benefit at this stage are made on The Balance of probability.(Wheather you were living with a partner or a single parent).It is not beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Swift Eater to be fair i think i know more about this than you.It happened to me.You are not entitled to legal aid for a interview under caution at your local dwp office.It is not until it becomes a criminal matter that you will receive legal aid.

 

I think if you read my post correctly i have nothing to hide.That is why i have made the posting on this site so there will be no consciences for me to suffer.Also i think in your own words you are coming across as aggressive i was willing to let it go in your first post but not a second time.If you have nothing constructive to add sometimes its better to say nothing at all.Just to make it clear to you I have been wrongly accused of benefit fraud.

 

K3852 is right that you are not entitled to legal aid for a solicitor unless a interview is held at a police station.

 

I have just found my interview letter it clearly states.

 

The social security agency will not help with the cost of legal advice or for the solicitor or legal advisor to attend the interview.

Edited August 21, 2009 by ST24Mondeo

[ST24Mondeo]

scousegeezer the investigator has signed a statment the day before my interview in fact.

I declare that this statement consisting of 5 pages each signed by me is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and i make knowing that,if it is tendered in evidence at a preliminary enquiry or at the trail of any person,i shall be liable to prosection if i have wilfully stated in it anything which i know to be false or do not believe to be true.

signed *****

I think my solicitor is going for personal injury in my claim.

Edited August 21, 2009 by ST24Mondeo

[flowergirl66]

I was interview in january 2007.I dont know if things have changed since then but i was advised at the time that knowone else could speak on my behalf at the iuc.

 

If you are getting income support and not entitled to legal aid for a solicitor i dont know how you are meant to pay for one to attend with you.

 

I could not afford the 120 pounds a hour my current solicitor charges.

 

Now that i have made a complaint about the dwp all i get out off them that would not happen now.when i point out things they have done wrong in my case thats the anwser i get oh that would not happen now.

 

I dont claim to be a expert in social security matters.I can only comment on my experince with them and how they have treated me.

 

I totally understand that your experince was your's alone, but i am just pointing out that you CAN take a solicitor and my ex husband did not have to pay, he got the advice and the solicitor through contacting THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ADVICE WEBSITE. on how to handle an interview under caution and it clearly states that you should take a independant advisor or a solicitor to attend with you.

 

If somebody is worrled or nervous then having one in room interview might be of reassurance to them and they can also take notes for you so you have somthing to refer back to and tell you if they have a strong case against you or not i think most people would find this helpful.

 

My concern is that somebody may read your post and because of what you said think they cant take a solicitor or advisor with them when they feel that it would be helpful so not even try to contact one and stuggle on alone.

 

I am not having a go at you i just want people to be aware of what help they can get if they think they need it, i sincerly hope that you get the justice you deserve as i think what you were put through was disgraceful.

[ST24Mondeo]

Flowergirl 66 I appreciate what you are saying that someone could read my post and think you cannot take a solicitor with them.When i was interview i could off taken a solicitor with me but i would not off received legal aid to do so.I was on income support with 4 children and could not afford a solicitor.

 

Your husband was lucky he could find one to attend the iuc with him and he did not have to pay.Where i live the only options is the cab and they are under pressure trying to deal with the amount of work they have coming through the doors every day.Also knowone there knew enough about social security law to advise me.

 

To be honest i did not feel i was able to get any help to try and fight my case.I was just lucky that i found holes in there case against me and was able to fight back.

 

My main point in all this is to make people aware that they should not be forced into a corner and admit guilt to try and make it go away.People need to be aware that in some cases the investigator will do whatever it takes including telling lies to make a case.