Will she go to jail?

[sar2004]

Has she admitted to the investigators she committed fraud?

If so, when did she admit to it (Immediately at the IUC on arrival, during the IUC, after the IUC, after more than one IUC)

Is she did admit it, what did she admit to? Did she disclose anything that they didn't present to her? For example, if they only gave the impression that they knew about one year, did she admit the rest or not mention it?

How much is the overpayment?

Over what period was the claim fraudulent?

How many and what type of charges is she facing?

If more than one, how many has she so far admitted to investigators and what ones?

What is the nature of her employment?

 

 

Apologies I do not know the answers to all of these.

But I will answer what i do know

-She was never actually asked in the IUC if she comitted or knew she committed fraud. She was asked about work and earning and answered honestly.

-I believe that there was a letter mentioned she sent outlining change incircumstances that was referred to in the IUC. They did not have this present and said they would stop the interview and get the rest of the file and invite her back at a later stage.

She heard nothing until her court date came. In with the court papers and evidence stuff she said they have a copy of her letter!!!!

-There are also other documents showing she contacted them some 3 times in all giving details of salary change - even SHE had forgotten she had done it yet they have it all there.

This at least shows she attempted to tel them things had changed.

-even after the IUC they paid her CA AGAIN!! and there is a copy of an email she sent saying words to the effect "ive had an IUC, im not entitiled please STOP paying me with immediate affect" This is included in THEIR evidence file.

 

So what im trying to say is that although wrong there is some evidence that it was not done on purpose.

 

-Im not sure of time and amount but I know it is one charge and I know she is already paying it back. Jail means money back for them surely that is a factor although.....im no solicitor.

 

-Employment is now full time in an IT company. I think she goes into companies and sorts their IT set up. Sorry im not clearer but it is not what you would call a position of responsibility.

 

Yes she has me but she hasnt told her other half - I have told her she needs to sit him down, tell him and then we can help her get legal advice.

[jadeybags]

Poor lady

So it makes no odds to them that she has tried letting them know about the change of circs?

She does really need to tell her partner doesn't she.

I would be terrible on a jury, I feel too sorry for people!

I'm 99% sure the LA still had my housing benefit worked out wrong AFTER my review & over payment was worked out, & I am not just talking a few pounds either. I cancelled my claim before my new award letter came but I asked a CAB person what the wording meant on the award letter, & they still had me down for something I told the compliance officer I haven't been getting for years! So they either do these things to set people up, or they are completely stupid at times & lack communication in their dept. My 16 yr old son says the latter! But I thank the lord I cancelled my claim when I did.

As I would still be being over paid now..

[scaredtodeath]

Hi, when i went to court i worried myself stupid over it being in the local paper, i live in a small place with a crappy paper lol with mostly ads so was convinced it would be, well it wasn't....so theres hope x

[sar2004]

HI all

 

Just want to say thanks for all the private messages I printed them off and took them round

 

She told her other half and he was not mad just upset she didnt tell him sooner and has had to worry about it all without him!!

He said the irony is that for part of the time she totally forgot his hours were reduced and he was earning a pitance as a hotel porter so chances are HE would have been entitled to it anyway and even though it is viewed as "fraud" the household was no better off!

They wont take that into account in court I am sure but just goes to show.

Solicitors appointment next week so hopefully some clarity. I have said she is better to prepare for ALL possible outcomes really.

[jadeybags]

HI all

 

Just want to say thanks for all the private messages I printed them off and took them round

 

She told her other half and he was not mad just upset she didnt tell him sooner and has had to worry about it all without him!!

He said the irony is that for part of the time she totally forgot his hours were reduced and he was earning a pitance as a hotel porter so chances are HE would have been entitled to it anyway and even though it is viewed as "fraud" the household was no better off!

They wont take that into account in court I am sure but just goes to show.

Solicitors appointment next week so hopefully some clarity. I have said she is better to prepare for ALL possible outcomes really.

 

If at times they didn't have more 'out the public purse' than they were entitled to, as they so like banging on about, it should make a difference in court shouldn't it. Although I have a feeling you're right, it wont.

Unfortunately these days it's all about being a skapegoat where benefit fraud is concerned, a detterant to others.

Drug dealers wont be sent to prison soon though apparently. And they get cash in hand. Go figure...

[SueP1944]

Has this not been mentioned? I can't find a reference to it. But as she is pleading guilty before the Magistrates, it is a strong possibility that the case may be sent to Crown for sentencing by the Magistrates. Crown having more powers to sentence more harshly, also have the power to reduce what a Magistrate may impose.

 

I have been out of this for years but I thought that you could elect to go to Crown instead of Magistrates and know that at least you will get a fair hearing of the mitigation by an experienced Judge instead of somebody that sits a couple of times a year as a Magistrate and runs a pub full time!

 

I know that if ever I was charged with theft and fraud I would sooner take my chances with a Judge than a Magistrate. I know too many of them and how they think!!!

[jadeybags]

Has this not been mentioned? I can't find a reference to it. But as she is pleading guilty before the Magistrates, it is a strong possibility that the case may be sent to Crown for sentencing by the Magistrates. Crown having more powers to sentence more harshly, also have the power to reduce what a Magistrate may impose.

 

I have been out of this for years but I thought that you could elect to go to Crown instead of Magistrates and know that at least you will get a fair hearing of the mitigation by an experienced Judge instead of somebody that sits a couple of times a year as a Magistrate and runs a pub full time!

 

I know that if ever I was charged with theft and fraud I would sooner take my chances with a Judge than a Magistrate. I know too many of them and how they think!!!

 

Pretty sure you can. My mate opted for crown court, well, his solicitor did I think, he wants a jury as he is pleading not guilty.

It's all turned into a bit of a farce because the LA have accepted his over payment is now only 1k instead of 13k. Council tax he has now OVERPAID them. But the DWP are being more stubborn, but aren't they always.

I'm a bit nieve I didn't know magistrates had norml jobs

[CRH71]

Pretty sure you can. My mate opted for crown court, well, his solicitor did I think, he wants a jury as he is pleading not guilty.

It's all turned into a bit of a farce because the LA have accepted his over payment is now only 1k instead of 13k. Council tax he has now OVERPAID them. But the DWP are being more stubborn, but aren't they always.

I'm a bit nieve I didn't know magistrates had norml jobs

 

The main reason for a solicitor pressing for Crown Court is that the case being referred there will entitle the accused to Legal Aid - Legal Aid isn't always granted for cases going to a Magistrates Court.

[jadeybags]

The main reason for a solicitor pressing for Crown Court is that the case being referred there will entitle the accused to Legal Aid - Legal Aid isn't always granted for cases going to a Magistrates Court.

 

Oh I see, that's interesting, yes he has a legal aid solicitor, seems a good one, I spoke to him about my benefit problem. He also has a barrister? I'm thick, whats one of those? But apparently that one doesn't do letters?

He must think he has a good chance if he wanted to take him on do you think?

His situation is he wasn't given the right info by DWP staff at the time (years ago) that he could only keep 17k from the sale of his house for 6 months when his girlfriend walked out on him & their 2 year old son. To buy another house. He had the money longer than that & also wasn't told he could apply for an extension on the time. The council said at his IUC that the savings limit was 17k too. So if they dont know! But the council have recently accepted he would only have been over the upper capital limit for 1 month if it had all been done right, because he would have had to pay 600 a month rent & feed him & a child, which would then have qualified him for some income support, passporting him to full housing benefit, but DWP aren;'t budging at the moment.

Edited April 9, 2011 by jadeybags

[id6052]

jadeybags

 

has the DWP carried out a diminution of capital calculation for the purposes of the overpayment, if not, your brother should request that they do

[jadeybags]

jadeybags

 

has the DWP carried out a diminution of capital calculation for the purposes of the overpayment, if not, your brother should request that they do

 

It's a friend that's in court for the benefit fraud, brother is in court monday for something else, not benefit related.

I dont think the DWP have done a diminution of capital, they wont even consider it I dont think. So i'm not sure what'll happen there. The council did it eventually, but it took at least a year & a few letters to them to get them to do it.

[45002]

If its any help, not everyone takes notice of the local papers and would possible not notice a case as nearby neighbour.

 

 

Maybe people take more notice of the Internet !

 

This person http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com/ loves using the Internet

[jadeybags]

Maybe people take more notice of the Internet !

 

This person http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com/ loves using the Internet

 

The person that writes those really does have an unhealthy obcession with benefit fraud huh? lol

 

Ark at this bit...

Benefit thieves should have to repay twice what they've stolen, and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have. A confiscation order should be automatic and immediate.

 

Wouldn't it be great if life was this black n white & the money fairy visited these people everyday who haven't got benefits anymore, to feed their innocent children, or do they think the children should be hauled away from them & put into care even? geez....

Edited April 9, 2011 by jadeybags

[sar2004]

Little update:

 

Im minding the little one while she goes to solicitor tomorrow afternoon.

 

She told me there are "mistakes" in the paperwork evidence that the DWP have supplied to the court.

It seems they sent her a form a year ago saying that they RECEIVED her letter detailing change of circumstances but wanted to confirm the amount of salary but they also went on to say that the form was never returned. She said she did not get it and I do believe her but the real query is that during the IUC the man told her they had NEVER received such a letter but they state they sent her a form about it???

There is also a copy of the letter in the documents - however no date stamp so although she dated it they have not date stamped receiving it so no proof when they got it - they state they only received the copy after the IUC when they asked her to send a copy but everything else in the pack has a date stamp???

 

She said they have copies of all correspondance she has ever sent them and that a person looking through it would see she had updated them on various change of circumstances over the years so its obvious she does make the effort.

 

The other thing is there is a typed transcript of the IUC and in that the man says they will end thr IUC to look for the letter and then ask her in for another one to discuss - but they never did. No second IU, no opportunity to explain, no chane to explain circumstanes or anything - seems very unfair to me.

 

She is going to ask the solicitor about time limits of the charge as well. It is one charge under 112(1a) of the act and I do know there are some time limits but not sure what they are. I do know her interview was 13 May when they had evidene (wage slips etc) but the date of court is 25 May - over a year.

 

All very interesting!

[sar2004]

Oh and also that even after she asked them to stop paying her and after the IUC they STILL paid her CA. SHe checked her bankacount and contated them via the DWP website and they even inluded a copy of that.

So - they tell her she isnt entitled and STILL pay her!!!

 

Seems very unfair to me

[jadeybags]

Sure is, but also not suprising, trust me. And as for them sending letters to ask for info, they tried that one with me. At the IUC she showed me a letter asking for another pay slip & asked if I had 'got one of these' I said if I had got that letter I would have done as asked because you would have stopped my benefit if I hadn't! To which she said not always.

Well, it actually said on the letter they can stop your benefit if you dont supply the info they want within a month. And a woman at work had just had her benefit stopped the week before my IUC because she wasn't quick enough to supply her 2nd payslip. I told the investigating officer about that & said I wished they had done that with me, as then this mess up wouldn't have gone on!

Oh & carrying on paying your friend AFTER they knew she wasn't entitled it yet just another case of failing in their duty of care to her...

[sar2004]

**Update**

 

Well I watched the little one while she went to the solicitor and I will start by saying what a nightmare that was - how she stays sane is a miracle to me...I just could nto look after a child like that its really hard work!

 

She was very quiet when she came back from the solicitor - its all getting too much I think.

He has told her that it is a summary offence (I dunno what that means) and as such regardless of her plea it will stay in the magistrates court.

He said that prison is very unlikely given her circumstances and he would be looking for a conditional discharge if she was found guilty as she would likely loose her job and that was not in anyones best interest especially DWP as they would not get their money back.

He has commented that the copy of the letter informing them of her change of circumstances has no date stamp yet copies of other documents do have a date stamp.

He said it was very poor that they suspended the IUC to look for the letter on file and told her they would invite her back to continue yet they never did and he said that would not look good for them.

He said the fact she had no previous convictions, steady employment and was already repaying the money would show she had good character.

He said that the charge was failing to notify of change of circumstances and it would be wrong for her to plead guilty when she was not.

 

He said that she does not have to appear in court and that they would represent her to give her not guilty plea and they could then agree trial dates when she would have to attend.

He said the only negative thing is the DWP will say that she made up the letter and sent the copy much later but that to prosecute someone it has to be "reasonable doubt" or something like that and it is their word against hers - its not for her to proove her innocence but them to proove her guilt etc.

 

Now she is still so negative. She is scared stiff of a trial and doesnt think she is strong enough. Wish there was something I could say.

[whitecraig_wizard]

We all get frightened and scared of the unknown and often paint the blackest things.

 

She is very lucky to have your support, along with everyone here too.

 

Best wishes

[sar2004]

Well she did me a huge favour many years back and thats what friends do isnt it! Sadly I cant make it all go away.

x

[Jonny_J]

Well I'm no Lawyer, but I do know a few people who have a fair amount of experience in court proceedings. I thought that what your friends solicitor has said to her sounded fairly positive to be fair. Magistrates courts are very limited as to the severity of the sentences that they can impose, and it sounds to me like they have gone for a lesser charge, failing to notify of change of circumstances, instead of a fraud charge. This would suggest that they thought that they wouldn't be able to secure a conviction on fraud. Again, fairly positive under the circumstances.

 

Your friend needs to look at all of the positive angles. In my view, she is a victim of circumstance, and as such deserves a chance to put this right rather than being pilloried over it. She's paying the money back, and it would cost the state a disproportionate amount of money to send her down.

[jadeybags]

I agree, I think it sounds quite positive now, although it still shouldn't have got as far as court if she tried notifying changes in my opinion.

[achvour]

=Jonny_J;3370124]Well I'm no Lawyer, but I do know a few people who have a fair amount of experience in court proceedings. I thought that what your friends solicitor has said to her sounded fairly positive to be fair. Magistrates courts are very limited as to the severity of the sentences that they can impose, and it sounds to me like they have gone for a lesser charge, failing to notify of change of circumstances, instead of a fraud charge. This would suggest that they thought that they wouldn't be able to secure a conviction on fraud. Again, fairly positive under the circumstances.

 

For what it is worth, if she had been charged under the Fraud Act, her case would almost certainly go to the Crown Court for trial. The sentence for an offence under that Act can carry a prison term of 10years +.

 

She would have had to appear at Magistrates for a Committal Hearing.

 

I know of one case that had a considerable amount of mitigation involved as well as the option to show that another benefit could have been claimed instead which would have reduced the amount down by 2/3rds. The DWP/Police refused to consider any set off!

As it was, it was sent to the Crown Court because he was charged under the Theft Act for obtaining money by deception. To avoid a lengthy trial and avoid the risk of being found guilty, he pleaded guilty to £12,000 deception for working and claiming.

No previous, excellent character, young twins, only his salary coming in, and would lose his employment and ability to work in that industry ever again - sent to prison for 12 months + 2 years Probation, costs and had to pay back the £12,000. He actually served 8 months, but spent the rest of his life (he was 37 at the time) on benefits, and low status employment earning minimum wage.

They had to sell their home to pay the £12,000 which left them broke, destitute and homeless!

 

She is one lucky lady!!

Edited April 14, 2011 by achvour

[sar2004]

Well it isnt a done deal yet by far.

I think the reason she has been so scared is hearing all the horror stories like the one above but Ive also been doing a lot of reading and for every one like that there are plenty more where someone has been charged with multiple counts, amount is over 20K, no job so cannot pay it back, previous convictions etc and they end up with a lenient sentence so it is very hard to predict.

Im guessing the solicitor knows the magistrates well in the area so will have a feel for how this will go.

He also said that it is for the DWP to prove beyond a doubt that she did not notify a change of circumstances and they cannot do that - innocent until proven guilty and all that.

It also seems the lesser charge is becuase for a period of time she claimed she WAS entitled not that she has never been entitled (think that makes sense)

 

She does not feel lucky. She is depressed, stressed, ashamed, cannot sleep and loosing weight at a rapid rate so I guess not eating as well.

 

Be interested to hear from anyone in a similar position who has attended magistrates trial - just because I never knew there could be a trial in a magistrates at all so am really curious.

 

x

[jadeybags]

For what it is worth, if she had been charged under the Fraud Act, her case would almost certainly go to the Crown Court for trial. The sentence for an offence under that Act can carry a prison term of 10years +.

 

She would have had to appear at Magistrates for a Committal Hearing.

 

I know of one case that had a considerable amount of mitigation involved as well as the option to show that another benefit could have been claimed instead which would have reduced the amount down by 2/3rds. The DWP/Police refused to consider any set off!

As it was, it was sent to the Crown Court because he was charged under the Theft Act for obtaining money by deception. To avoid a lengthy trial and avoid the risk of being found guilty, he pleaded guilty to £12,000 deception for working and claiming.

No previous, excellent character, young twins, only his salary coming in, and would lose his employment and ability to work in that industry ever again - sent to prison for 12 months + 2 years Probation, costs and had to pay back the £12,000. He actually served 8 months, but spent the rest of his life (he was 37 at the time) on benefits, and low status employment earning minimum wage.

They had to sell their home to pay the £12,000 which left them broke, destitute and homeless!

 

She is one lucky lady!!

 

That was a long time ago. Things have moved on since then. That person was charged because of their gross income when it should only have been there net income taken into account.

Bad representation in court too obviously. And the police raided their home, that would be rare to happen these days, unless someone refused any contact with DWP when prompted. Not usually a police matter. Obviously we only know one side of this story.

My sis worked in the over payments dept of DWP years ago, & I told her about this case, she thinks there must have been a bit more to it. Like them possibly ignoring the DWP when they contacted them for instance. Who knows.

I read about a guy that ignored them numerous times, then got arrested at the airport when they got back off their holiday, which the tax payer had paid for.

Sar, my friend is going through court at the moment, he's been for the initially court appearances, it's supposed to start in june, 2 day trial, which was originally 10+ k for housing benefit & 13k DWP. Nearly 2 years later since it all started the council have accepted the notional entitlement argument & agreed he only owes them 1k now. DWP are stubborn, they aren't having any of it.

But his legal aid solicitor is good, so hopefully all will end up ok ish at the end.

 

ps.. his is in crown court, which he says he chose, I thought for certain amounts it was a done deal it would be in crown court, but he definitely says he chose that because he wants a jury because his argument is he consulted the DWP at the time & was given the wrong information.

As you say, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

My brother is attending magistrates court for a non benefit related charge at the moment, which would normally go to crown court, but he has been ajourned until june & apparently will have a district judge at magistrates, not a magistrate. Could that be the case with your friend?

District judges are solicitors, judges, rolled into one & tend to do the more complex cases.

But I think sentencing is still restricted at magistrates, although they can refer them to crown for sentencing if they think it deserves a harsher sentence than they can give. If found guilty.

Edited April 14, 2011 by jadeybags

[achvour]

That was a long time ago. Things have moved on since then. That person was charged because of their gross income when it should only have been there net income taken into account.

Yes that is corect. The DWP took it that he earned what the invoices said, not what net profit he made.

Bad representation in court too obviously. And the police raided their home, that would be rare to happen these days, unless someone refused any contact with DWP when prompted. Not usually a police matter. Obviously we only know one side of this story.

The only contact with the DWP was to confirm his signature on all of the giros he cashed. The rest was done quietly by trying to get statements from his customers. No one would say anything bad about him or confirm anything.

I presume the Police got involved at the request of the DWP because they were getting absolutely no where. He was never interviewed by the DWP.

That's why his home was raided, to take all his files etc to gather evidence against him.

My sis worked in the over payments dept of DWP years ago, & I told her about this case, she thinks there must have been a bit more to it. Like them possibly ignoring the DWP when they contacted them for instance. Who knows.

I read about a guy that ignored them numerous times, then got arrested at the airport when they got back off their holiday, which the tax payer had paid for.

Sar, my friend is going through court at the moment, he's been for the initially court appearances, it's supposed to start in june, 2 day trial, which was originally 10+ k for housing benefit & 13k DWP. Nearly 2 years later since it all started the council have accepted the notional entitlement argument & agreed he only owes them 1k now. DWP are stubborn, they aren't having any of it.

But his legal aid solicitor is good, so hopefully all will end up ok ish at the end.

 

ps.. his is in crown court, which he says he chose, I thought for certain amounts it was a done deal it would be in crown court, but he definitely says he chose that because he wants a jury because his argument is he consulted the DWP at the time & was given the wrong information.

As you say, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

My brother is attending magistrates court for a non benefit related charge at the moment, which would normally go to crown court, but he has been ajourned until june & apparently will have a district judge at magistrates, not a magistrate. Could that be the case with your friend?

District judges are solicitors, judges, rolled into one & tend to do the more complex cases.

But I think sentencing is still restricted at magistrates, although they can refer them to crown for sentencing if they think it deserves a harsher sentence than they can give. If found guilty.

 

I will agree it was terrible representation. He was persuaded to plead guilty as it was thought that the jury would never understand it. Why set off was never demanded I don't know.