Interview under caution

[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.

[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.