DWP won't reinstate benefits

[gina11x]

Hi i was accused of benefit fraud which i did not do. My appeal was turned down and i was prosecuted, i pleaded not guilty and was sent to trial however 4 days before my trial the prosecution discontinued with it due to receipt of further information and the case was dropped. Now the DWP are saying this wasn't their decision and their original decision still stands and they will not reinstate my benefits to cover the period of time. So it seems i still have to pay the money back even though i did nothing wrong and was willing to go to court over it.

I am so confused has anyone else had this happen to them.

[honeybee13]

Hello Gina. I was just passing and thought I'd let you know someone's listening. I don't know the answer to your question I'm afraid, but I expect someone who does will be along soon. I can see why you'd think this is unfair.

 

My best, HB x

[loopinlouie]

Have they said what receipt of further info they got which halted the trial. I presume it was in your favor obviously and therefore you would think depending on that you have cause to get back money.

 

However thats my two penneth but no expert. If you can give any further info about what info they told you that had it dropped, the experts can help xxxx

 

ps. Bet your glad the case was dropped:)xx

[loan_ranger]

Hi Gina,

IMHO you should make a complaint, here's some good independent advice on how to proceed correctly (from "Public Law Project Information leaflets 7"):

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/documents/ComplaintToPartPBs.pdf

 

...and here's the DWP's own page regarding complaints:

Complaints and appeals - DWP

 

Regards, Paul.

[antone]

The DWP makes benefit decisions, it does not decide whether or not a prosecution goes ahead in court. That's the job of the CPS/Procurator Fiscal. The DWP will present evidence saying why it believes there should be a prosecution but, ultimately, it's not up to them.

 

So it seems that the authorities have decided that prosecuting you is not worthwhile, and that tends to happen because they don't think such a prosecution would succeed. You don't say what the further information was, but presumably it pointed towards your innocence.

 

That, of course, would be your innocence of the crime of benefit fraud, but it doesn't necessarily mean you haven't been overpaid benefit. It's just that not every overpayment is the result of a prosecutable crime on the part of the claimant.

 

The DWP is correct, therefore. They didn't make the decision not to prosecute. That doesn't mean they're right in denying you benefit or in seeking to reclaim money already paid, or that there's nothing you can do about it. But basically, the decision about whether or not you are entitled to benefit is different from the decision about whether or not you should face a criminal trial.

 

At this point, I'd have to suggest that you seek advice from sources more reliable than an internet message board. That's not a comment about the posters here, who are friendly, knowledgeable and helpful, but it's just too complex an issue for anyone here to give reliable advice.

 

Your local council may offer a Welfare Rights service and if they do, that may be your best free option.

[loopinlouie]

Seconded, welfare rights are gems xx

[gina11x]

Hi thankyou all for responding, my solicitor had previously tried to get the prosecution to drop the case at an earlier hearing, however they refused to do this and said they would go to trial, so i have no idea what the further information was that made them reconsider. I saw my solicitor a wk prior to them discontinuing the case and gave him my evidence to prove he was living elsewhere, and he photocopied everything and took a statement from me. So i'm not sure whether any of this played a part in them discontinuing the case or if it was something else. All the DWP will say is that all it means is the prosecution decided there was not enough evidence for it to go to court, and not that they have changed their minds and as far as their concerned on the balance of probabilities i was living with him, so i still have to repay the money. My solicitor just said to ask them if i can make an out of time appeal and reappeal against the original decision however he doesn't do appeals, and when i asked them they said i could only do this if i have something new to appeal with. So i really feel like i'm hitting my head against a brick wall now.

[gina11x]

The DWP makes benefit decisions, it does not decide whether or not a prosecution goes ahead in court. That's the job of the CPS/Procurator Fiscal. The DWP will present evidence saying why it believes there should be a prosecution but, ultimately, it's not up to them.

 

So it seems that the authorities have decided that prosecuting you is not worthwhile, and that tends to happen because they don't think such a prosecution would succeed. You don't say what the further information was, but presumably it pointed towards your innocence.

 

That, of course, would be your innocence of the crime of benefit fraud, but it doesn't necessarily mean you haven't been overpaid benefit. It's just that not every overpayment is the result of a prosecutable crime on the part of the claimant.

 

The DWP is correct, therefore. They didn't make the decision not to prosecute. That doesn't mean they're right in denying you benefit or in seeking to reclaim money already paid, or that there's nothing you can do about it. But basically, the decision about whether or not you are entitled to benefit is different from the decision about whether or not you should face a criminal trial.

 

At this point, I'd have to suggest that you seek advice from sources more reliable than an internet message board. That's not a comment about the posters here, who are friendly, knowledgeable and helpful, but it's just too complex an issue for anyone here to give reliable advice.

 

Your local council may offer a Welfare Rights service and if they do, that may be your best free option.

Hi so would this not mean that if i am innocent of benefit fraud i would have been entitled to the benefits i received, you are completely right in what you are saying as this is what they are saying to me, i am just really confused.

[loan_ranger]

Seconded, welfare rights are gems xx

Me too, I agree. When HB buzzes in and agrees then I'm sure that we'll have made it unanimous.

[honeybee13]

Do you mean me? I haven't had dealings with Welfare Rights myself, wish I had. They sound excellent.

 

HB x

[speedfreek]

Hi so would this not mean that if i am innocent of benefit fraud i would have been entitled to the benefits i received, you are completely right in what you are saying as this is what they are saying to me, i am just really confused.

 

Think of it as being split into separate stages.

 

Stage 1 do we think that a fraud has been committed?

 

If yes then this leads to

 

Stage 2 ask for payback of over paid benefit and if warranted pass for prosecution.

 

What happens in stage 2 does not automatically effect the original decision made in stage 1.

 

So although the prosecution has been dropped their original decision has not changed therefore you are still in stage 2 and will be asked to pay back the overpayment.

 

What you now have to do is try again to get the original decision (in stage 1) overturned and for this as antone has suggested you should get expert help from welfare rights.

[ErikaPNP]

Hi Gina. The decision of the prosecutors is entirely seperate from and does not affect the decision of the DWP because they both fall within seperate categories of law.

 

The courts haven't decided you are innocent; the case against you has been dropped which does not equate to a verdict of innocent. The case has not been proven either way as it has not been heard. When prosecuting a person for a criminal offence, regardless of whether it is benefit fraud, assault, or murder the prosecutors have to consider the code for crown prosecutors. This code looks at "tests" to decide if the evidence is strong enough to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If they agree that the evidence is strong enough, they then consider the part of the code which looks at whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute. If they decide that it is, then prosecution proceedings will commence. If at any point the prosecution become aware of evidence which could threaten a "realistic prospect of conviction", including evidence which would prove guilt but is excluded by law of being disclosed in court proceedings, they must consider whether or not to proceed. If the information is damaging to the point that they no longer have confidence that the case can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, they will drop the case. That appears to be what has happened here.

 

A case being dropped does not prove innocence, it simply means that the evidence they have is not strong enough to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

 

In account of the overpayment, this falls within civil law where the standard of proof is much lower, on the balance of probabilities. Even in cases where a criminal prosecution goes ahead and the court finds the defendant innocent, they have found them innocent of the criminal offence of fraud. That doesn't mean that a person was not overpaid, it just means that the money was not proven to have been obtained fraudulently.

 

The DWP can still legally pursue the overpayment.

 

As regards your appeal, don't ask them about this over the telephone. Appeal in writing. As long as you are within 13 months from the decision that you were overpaid and the case has not been to tribunal already, you can submit a late appeal. You need to provide reasons why the appeal is outwith the one month time limit so it can be decided if your reasons are sufficient for being late. They say that you have nothing new to appeal with. What about the information supplied to the prosecution which made them drop the case against you? If it has taken until now for them to become aware of this information then that is "new". Your solicitor should be able to find out for you what that evidence was, and you may be able to use that in your appeal.

[gina11x]

Hi Thankyou everyone i am going to see an advice center who deals with benefit problems because this is certainly more complicated than i can deal with and thought it would be.

[gina11x]

Hi Gina. The decision of the prosecutors is entirely seperate from and does not affect the decision of the DWP because they both fall within seperate categories of law.

 

The courts haven't decided you are innocent; the case against you has been dropped which does not equate to a verdict of innocent. The case has not been proven either way as it has not been heard. When prosecuting a person for a criminal offence, regardless of whether it is benefit fraud, assault, or murder the prosecutors have to consider the code for crown prosecutors. This code looks at "tests" to decide if the evidence is strong enough to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If they agree that the evidence is strong enough, they then consider the part of the code which looks at whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute. If they decide that it is, then prosecution proceedings will commence. If at any point the prosecution become aware of evidence which could threaten a "realistic prospect of conviction", including evidence which would prove guilt but is excluded by law of being disclosed in court proceedings, they must consider whether or not to proceed. If the information is damaging to the point that they no longer have confidence that the case can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, they will drop the case. That appears to be what has happened here.

 

A case being dropped does not prove innocence, it simply means that the evidence they have is not strong enough to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

 

In account of the overpayment, this falls within civil law where the standard of proof is much lower, on the balance of probabilities. Even in cases where a criminal prosecution goes ahead and the court finds the defendant innocent, they have found them innocent of the criminal offence of fraud. That doesn't mean that a person was not overpaid, it just means that the money was not proven to have been obtained fraudulently.

 

The DWP can still legally pursue the overpayment.

 

As regards your appeal, don't ask them about this over the telephone. Appeal in writing. As long as you are within 13 months from the decision that you were overpaid and the case has not been to tribunal already, you can submit a late appeal. You need to provide reasons why the appeal is outwith the one month time limit so it can be decided if your reasons are sufficient for being late. They say that you have nothing new to appeal with. What about the information supplied to the prosecution which made them drop the case against you? If it has taken until now for them to become aware of this information then that is "new". Your solicitor should be able to find out for you what that evidence was, and you may be able to use that in your appeal.

Hi it is not within 13mths from their original decision as they never procescuted me until 12mths later so does this mean i wouldn't be able to appeal again now as it's 18mths since the decision was made. In my iuc i was never asked if i had anything to support what i was saying, i do have lots to support this do you think this would be classed as new information.

[ErikaPNP]

I'm afraid the law would prevent an appeal tribunal in that case. There is an absolute time limit set on appeals of 13 months. The tribunal service cannot accept an appeal after this time.

[speedfreek]

I'd like to point here I have absolutely knowledge of this so this is a bit of a longshot & leftfield suggestion!

 

Would it be worth getting somebody to go through this with a fine toothed comb to see if there is any reason whereby a complaint could be raised.

 

i.e. due to the DWP not following procedure or a mistake on there part?

 

As in theory the compensation would probably be the amount of benefit.

 

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here. It was just a mad though I had so have no idea on the practicality or merit of this suggestion.