Interview under caution

[shopping list]

Ive had a letter to say the dept of working tax and county council want to interview me under caution.. im slightly confused as to what exactly and im pretty sure it is my abusive violent ex partner of 18 years, a long story, but he is trying his best to force me and the children out of the house we brought! he left 18 months ago and never pays for his children, mortgage and has stolen nearly £10,000 from me which my soliciter id dealing with, i am finacially broke so, instead of being on income support, got a job of which ive just started, tax credits top this up, other than being in debt i have no reason to worry about the interview (But i am) the only thing ive done is to sell some belongings on ebay from my house as i had a clearout??? thats the only thing i can think of???? but definatly no regular income or cash in hand jobs and no fraud has been committed, the only thing that concerns me is the fact they will stop my working tax credit?? im on the brink of being reposessed and am struggling to make ends meet (exactly what my ex wants as hes trying sooo hard to force the sale!!!) and what to do and and say in the interview...thanks in advance for any replies

[reallymadwoman]

Sorry this is outside my experience and I'm reluctant to make any suggestions as it's such a potentially serious situation.

My reply will bump you up to the top of the forum and hopefully someone else who can help will spot your thread. If they don't - say by tomorrow morning - hit the red triangle at the bottom of your post and ask the site team for help.

[Jack Daniels]

Is there a telephone number on the letter that you have received.

If there is it may be worth a call to see if they will give you any indication to what this is all about. If you explain the effect this is having on you they may give you a clue. I cant see it being about selling things on Ebay unless you have sold loads.

If your ex has give them information they would just not go on his say so, they would have to have evidence to support the accusations.

Is it a joint interview by the L.A and Inland Revenue

 

Here is a link

http://static.advicenow.org.uk/files/IUC_Final-1571.pdf

[reallymadwoman]

If your ex has give them information they would just not go on his say so, they would have to have evidence to support the accusations.

 

They can and do investigate any allegation of benefit fraud and an awful lot of those are made anonymously. Even where there have been a number of obviously malicious reports, they still investigate.

[ErikaPNP]

An IUC requires stong indicators of benefit fraud. If there were a mallicious allegation, they would first seek to find if there was any truth in the allegation by performing cross checks of what the allegation entails. If they find nothing or bits and pieces which could suggest fraud but not concrete evidence, the compliance team take this on and contact the claimant asking them to either provide documents, come to see them informally, or visit the claimant informally. If they find something which is a clear indicator of fraud, they refer this to the Fraud Investigation Service who dig deeper, source evidence and then perform an IUC.

 

When it gets to the stage of an IUC there is always evidence or what appears to be strong evidence of fraud. At an IUC the following can happen:

 

Advise the claimant of their rights during the IUC, such as the right to silence, and advise the claimant that the IUC will be recorded.

 

Determine whether the claimant understands the conditions of receiving their benefit. For example, they are aware of the requirement to inform of a change of circumstances, ect. During this stage they may show you your claim forms and the declaration you signed

 

They will put the allegation to the claimant, ask several questions and ask the claimant for their opinion. During this stage, the claimant may say something which blows the whole theory apart - a reasonable explanation which shows fraud has not been commited, and all the evidence is purely cirucumstantial

 

If the claimant denies the allegation, at this stage evidence may (but not always) be placed before them, to gauge a reaction, and a further opportunity to explain. Again at this stage, the claimant could say something which would blow the "evidence" out of the water.

 

A claimant is not required by law to attend an IUC, they do not have to say anything whilst they are there if they choose not to, and can leave or ask for a break at any time.

 

An IUC is not always the scary thing it is made out to be, some are purely information gathering exercises. Some people are invited to an IUC as they suspect someone else of fraud and are calling in the third party as a possible accomplice to the fraud. And yes, some are just there to implicate a person. They will also assess the motive for fraud. Desperation or greed, for example, and whether the claimant was fully aware of what they were doing. Just because they have evidence that does not mean that the evidence is clear cut. A lot of the time the evidence looks very strong, it gets to the IUC and there is a perfectly reasonable explanation behind it.

[MIKEY DABODEE]

They can and do investigate any allegation of benefit fraud and an awful lot of those are made anonymously. Even where there have been a number of obviously malicious reports, they still investigate.

 

I agree with the above but would they have to have more evidence then just an allegation, to do an interview under caution

If not then thats a worry

 

Erika on the ball

posting at the same time

[shopping list]

Hiya thanks for your replies, i fail to see it as anyone else, because the simple answer is i have not been working!! so why would anyone want to shop someone in they know who dont work???

[loopinlouie]

You could print off what you sold on ebay to prove it was only domestic clear out incase thats the issue raised when you attend, then interview would be concluded easily enough. If mallice try not to worry it does your head in, its destressing that a person would want to hurt you but youll get through it if youve done nothing wrong.

[looby_lou]

Can i just ask you to clarify something.....you mention working tax and county council.

 

Which department is the letter from? I have in the past attended a IUC and it was to do with housing & council tax benefit. If it is relevent i will share my story

[shopping list]

Hiya it a letter from the county council, re income support, council tax benefit, it believes that i have been fradulently claiming, i have only been on income support since feb as my ex stopped paying the mortgage and left me in serious debt, was in fear of being reposessed so i went onto income support to have help until i sorted myself out and got a job, i certainly have not worked or been out to work, so it will be interesting to see what exactly ive done wrong? although im pretty scared about the whole thing!

[looby_lou]

I was 38 weeks pregnant when i had to go and it was scary. Mine was to do with maternity allowance that i'd apparantly not declared which effected housing & council tax benefit.

 

I went, it was really daunting as it is all very official - its taped (like you see on TV in police stations) - you have to sign the tapes etc.

 

They just tell you what has been said and then you have to reply and thats it - you will then get a letter once they've assessed your answers either telling you of the outcome or requesting you go for another one.

 

Mine was that i'd been overpaid £800 and that i had to pay it back - i offered £10 per month and it was accepted.

[janieski]

an IUC.

 

When it gets to the stage of an IUC there is always evidence or what appears to be strong evidence of fraud. At an IUC the following can happen:

 

thats not entirely true, I had an IUC last week, went in, My solicitor asked for disclosure, and I was told it was two things, both in my ex's name which he used my address but was taken from teh time he did live here, it just rolled over, one was credit check agency, which turns out does do checks on 'previous address's' if you have moved in last 3 years, so of course that would show up on a person credit reference check, you have to put that down any address's you have lived at if its under 3 years, the other was a miscommunication to do with a form filled out this year, the department didnt read the covering letter stating that i am to soley take the application on on the yearly update, my ex passed the application over from his name into mine, seems they didnt do this and I didnt know, I forgot to check they did it correctly. So no they dont have to have evidence to call you into a IUC,because mine was the most stupid of evidence, yet I got called in, I went and was treated as a liar from the start of of the tape running,I have never ever been talked to like this before, I had questions and questions thrown at me re my ex, even was asked why does he see my son?? what they trying to say, he shouldnt come to his son home to see him?? he should see his son on the street then?, my interviewer was a nasty piece of work, I had to call the interview off 20 mins in, I couldnt take any more, I am planning on making a statement with my solicitor next. I hope it goes well for you, but dont go alone, get legal help.

[Nickypicky]

Hi - although I am not involved in investigating council tax or benefits fraud, I do have to undertake interviews under caution, and I would give you only a couple tips in order to come out the other side relatively unscathed:

 

1) do not feel pressured to speak quickly to answer a question - if you need to think about your answer to make sure you're getting it right then say so

 

2) if you feel like maybe you have done something wrong and are being painted into a corner, you can stop the interview any time you decide you need legal advice and they are legally REQUIRED to stop the interview immediately until you've had the chance to talk to someone

 

3) above all, be honest and truthful, even about silly little things - some interviewers will try to trap you and if you've lied once, anything else you say after that will be suspect.

 

The whole point of an interview under caution is to get the facts, whether they point towards your guilt or away from it.

[ST24Mondeo]

When i got a letter to go for a iuc the letter stated they wanted to interview me because they believed i had been working while claiming income support.I was not worried about attending because i had not done any work in the period of my claim.

 

When i then attened the iuc it was not about me working at all.The whole interview was to accuse me of living with a partner.So beware the letter they have sent could say one thing then when you attend the interview it could be something else they really want to interview you about.

 

Regards st24

[looby_lou]

thats not entirely true, I had an IUC last week, went in, My solicitor asked for disclosure, and I was told it was two things, both in my ex's name which he used my address but was taken from teh time he did live here, it just rolled over, one was credit check agency, which turns out does do checks on 'previous address's' if you have moved in last 3 years, so of course that would show up on a person credit reference check, you have to put that down any address's you have lived at if its under 3 years, the other was a miscommunication to do with a form filled out this year, the department didnt read the covering letter stating that i am to soley take the application on on the yearly update, my ex passed the application over from his name into mine, seems they didnt do this and I didnt know, I forgot to check they did it correctly. So no they dont have to have evidence to call you into a IUC,because mine was the most stupid of evidence, yet I got called in, I went and was treated as a liar from the start of of the tape running,I have never ever been talked to like this before, I had questions and questions thrown at me re my ex, even was asked why does he see my son?? what they trying to say, he shouldnt come to his son home to see him?? he should see his son on the street then?, my interviewer was a nasty piece of work, I had to call the interview off 20 mins in, I couldnt take any more, I am planning on making a statement with my solicitor next. I hope it goes well for you, but dont go alone, get legal help.

 

I agree, it is an awful experience - you really feel guilty even though you know you aren't. Think that is how it works - make you feel like a criminal and you'll break. I was informed at the beginning i could stop the IUC at any point but in that environment i felt that if i stopped it it was like an admission of guilt.

 

I have never been under pressure like that before and it was horrible.

 

Didn't want to post that as thought maybe the person conducting mine was having an off day etc but it seems its the norm

[ErikaPNP]

As I said, they need to have evidence or what appears to be evidence of fraud.

 

They had what appeared to be evidence, an indicator of potential fraud which turned out to be completely circumstantial.

[ipodtouch]

Hiya thanks for your replies, i fail to see it as anyone else, because the simple answer is i have not been working!! so why would anyone want to shop someone in they know who dont work???

hi anyone going for an iuc must take a solicitor it is worth it!!

They have to disclose all the evidence they have on you to your solicitor if you go on your own they do not disclose the evidence,

and tr ad make you lie or catch you out!!!

It's a cat and mouse game for them and the questions are trick ones,

when they ask you about other peoples buisness say i do not know or you will have to ask them yourself.

They are out to hang you and the surveilance they have is sometimes someone just being outside your house in the middle of the night so they will say there car was parked there allnight he must of been in there they are trying to make you think they was parked there 24/7

also when you apply for credit watch what you put on your application i had an iuc for having a partner stayover but now they are trying to say i am working aswell because i put it on a credit card form i dont know if that will stand as proof in court......