Confused about fraud!!!

[id6052]

because benefit fraud is a criminal matter the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is a lot higher than the overpayment issue (balance of probabilities)

[jadeybags]

There are 2 different things going on

 

1) have you been overpaid? this is a civil matter which you can appeal to a tribunal over - the tribunal have the power to decide whether you have been overpaid and whether the overpayment is recoverable from you

 

2) have you committed benefit fraud? this is a criminal matter and can go 5 ways off the top of my head: -

a) no case to answer

b) case to answer but no sanction action applied

c) case to answer, caution applied

d) case to answer, administrative penalty applied

e) case to answer, prosection pursued

 

If you win your appeal, the fraud case normally collapses

 

If you lose your appeal, then any of the options in part 2 could be possible, you should bear in mind that whether you are found guilty or not guilty of benefit fraud, you would still owe the overpayment

 

Is this right? The person I know of that was found not guilty of 45k's worth would still have to pay it back then? At least there is some justice then!

Although, what if someone refused to pay it, DWP would have to take them to court for it, then they provide proof they were found not guilty? How does DWP then enforce payment?

[leemack]

Is this right? The person I know of that was found not guilty of 45k's worth would still have to pay it back then? At least there is some justice then!

 

 

They wouldn't have to pay it back if the tribunal also agreed that the boyfriend was living with his family - in that case there would be no overpayment.

[jadeybags]

They wouldn't have to pay it back if the tribunal also agreed that the boyfriend was living with his family - in that case there would be no overpayment.

 

Ah darn. I guess that'll apply to them then. His family didn't bat an eye lid perguring (sp) themselves in court. His dad & brother anyway. His mum is my mums best friend, although she didn't have to give evidence, just the dad & brother did. But the mum was saying they didn't even have anything to show for all the money! Just designer clothes for the kids & a couple of holidays. The whole system seems to be the wrong way round though doesn't it.

[id6052]

jadeybags

 

whether there is an overpayment is a matter for the tribunal

 

whether fraud has been committed is a matter for the court

 

they can come to opposing decisions, for example, if the case was 60:40 against the people you mentioned - then they would be expected to lose an appeal to a tribunal (based upon balance of probabilities) - but would be found not guilty in court (based upon beyond reasonable doubt)

 

in that case, they would still owe the money, even though they won their court case

 

alternatively, if the case was 40:60 in favour of the people you mentioned - then they would be expected to win an appeal to a tribunal (based upon balance of probabilities) - and be found not guilty in court (based upon beyond reasonable doubt)

 

in that case, they would not owe the money

 

does that make sense?

[id6052]

Is this right? The person I know of that was found not guilty of 45k's worth would still have to pay it back then? At least there is some justice then!

Although, what if someone refused to pay it, DWP would have to take them to court for it, then they provide proof they were found not guilty? How does DWP then enforce payment?

 

They would be enforcing a civil debt, which stands irrespective of the outcome of the criminal case.

[jadeybags]

jadeybags

 

whether there is an overpayment is a matter for the tribunal

 

whether fraud has been committed is a matter for the court

 

they can come to opposing decisions, for example, if the case was 60:40 against the people you mentioned - then they would be expected to lose an appeal to a tribunal (based upon balance of probabilities) - but would be found not guilty in court (based upon beyond reasonable doubt)

 

in that case, they would still owe the money, even though they won their court case

 

alternatively, if the case was 40:60 in favour of the people you mentioned - then they would be expected to win an appeal to a tribunal (based upon balance of probabilities) - and be found not guilty in court (based upon beyond reasonable doubt)

 

in that case, they would not owe the money

 

does that make sense?

 

I think so. I guess there is no way of jo public knowing if a tribunal upholds the over payment then. Although I cant say I have heard any mention of them having to pay it back.

You & id6052 seem to be saying different things though?

[jadeybags]

They would be enforcing a civil debt, which stands irrespective of the outcome of the criminal case.

 

Hasn't a court of law said they weren't guilty of the offense that related to that over payment though?

[id6052]

Hasn't a court of law said they weren't guilty of the offense that related to that over payment though?

 

 

i will give you an example

 

joe bloggs is working and earning £100 per week, he is also claiming housing benefit of £60 per week

 

in october 2010, his earnings increase to £110 per week and he does not notify the council of the increase as he thinks he only has to notify changes when the council requests info from him

 

the council find out in april 2011, they reassess his housing benefit back to october 2010 and it reduces to £53.50 per week

 

this results in an over payment of 26 weeks @ £6.50pw = £169

 

they decide to prosecute (unlikely for such a low amount). the judge believe that he did not act dishonestly and it was just a mistake in not declaring the change - he would be found not guilty of fraud

 

however he appeals the overpayment, the tribunal accepts that he did not do it on purpose, however the overpayment would still be recoverable as he contributed to the cause of the overpayment

Edited April 2, 2011 by id6052

[id6052]

if you win both the tribunal and the court case you owe nothing

 

if you lose the tribunal case, but win the court case, you owe the money, but you have not committed fraud

 

if you lose both, you owe the money and you will get a separate penalty for the fraud offence e.g. a fine/community service/curfew order/etc

 

if you win the tribunal case and lose the court case, the law is an ass, this should not happen - however it can occasionally happen if the court case precedes the tribunal case, in which case you should appeal the court case on the basis of winning the tribunal

[xJTx]

There are 2 different things going on

 

1) have you been overpaid? this is a civil matter which you can appeal to a tribunal over - the tribunal have the power to decide whether you have been overpaid and whether the overpayment is recoverable from you

 

2) have you committed benefit fraud? this is a criminal matter and can go 5 ways off the top of my head: -

a) no case to answer

b) case to answer but no sanction action applied

c) case to answer, caution applied

d) case to answer, administrative penalty applied

e) case to answer, prosection pursued

 

If you win your appeal, the fraud case normally collapses

 

If you lose your appeal, then any of the options in part 2 could be possible, you should bear in mind that whether you are found guilty or not guilty of benefit fraud, you would still owe the overpayment

 

 

I couldn’t tell you if I’m honest.

I have been IUC for fraud, after hearing nothing for so long I called the interviewing officer and he said they had decided an overpayment had been made and would write to me ASAP.

The letter I got says its an overpayment due to me not telling them about someone moving into/out of my home, doesn’t give specifics.

I have no idea what’s going on, sorry, I’m not being very helpful.

[id6052]

I couldn’t tell you if I’m honest.

I have been IUC for fraud, after hearing nothing for so long I called the interviewing officer and he said they had decided an overpayment had been made and would write to me ASAP.

The letter I got says its an overpayment due to me not telling them about someone moving into/out of my home, doesn’t give specifics.

I have no idea what’s going on, sorry, I’m not being very helpful.

 

right so if they have decided you have been overpaid, as soon as you get any decision letters, ask them for a statement of reasons for their decision - then decide whether you wish to appeal to the tribunal

 

it sounds like they are still in the process of calculating the overpayment, once they have worked out the amount of the overpayment, they will decide whether they will take any further action

[xJTx]

right so if they have decided you have been overpaid, as soon as you get any decision letters, ask them for a statement of reasons for their decision - then decide whether you wish to appeal to the tribunal

 

it sounds like they are still in the process of calculating the overpayment, once they have worked out the amount of the overpayment, they will decide whether they will take any further action

 

Should I get on and do this now (with the one letter I had) as you stated earlier and then wait on any others and repeat this every time?

I’ve checked on the letter and nowhere does it use the actual word “fraud” only “overpayment”

[id6052]

yes, you need to start the process of appealing the overpayment

[xJTx]

Thank you so much for your help (everyone on here)

I’m sorry I’m so clueless, I know it must be frustrating me asking a question then double checking the answer with you, but this has really knocked my confidence and got me questioning everything I say and do.

[jadeybags]

if you win both the tribunal and the court case you owe nothing

 

if you lose the tribunal case, but win the court case, you owe the money, but you have not committed fraud

 

if you lose both, you owe the money and you will get a separate penalty for the fraud offence e.g. a fine/community service/curfew order/etc

 

if you win the tribunal case and lose the court case, the law is an ass, this should not happen - however it can occasionally happen if the court case precedes the tribunal case, in which case you should appeal the court case on the basis of winning the tribunal

 

 

Yep, that makes total sense now! Good way of explaining it.

I was lucky they didn't prosecute me then really, although mine including council tax was just under the 2k. And I didn't appeal the overpayment as it was there as fact, I did everything I was asked when I put in my claim, their staff didn't ask me for more info that they should have done, & they based my claim on insufficiant evidence. But to win an appeal it was said on here that I would need to prove thatI didn't realise I was being overerpaid.

Me not reading award letters & trusting what their staff told me over the phone would have looked ridiculous wouldn't it. And I hate putting things off, would rather deal with it when it happens.

I have since found some old award letters & it does say weekly earnings 70 per week. Not the 100 that the first award letter said based on my work contract they have. They changed my benefit after I gave them my first payslip, which was not a full month. But even the 70 a week I would have thought was them taking 35% off or whatever it is they allow you over a certain amount. And my months run on of full benefit confused things even more.

Anyway, it was all double dutch to me & I basically accepted that I had been paid what I wasn't entitled to, so it needed paying back. Not fair on other claimers otherwise is it.

At least they decided to take no further action so I didn't have a penalty or prosecution.

I wouldn't have paid a penalty though, already decided that after the interview & obviously wouldn't have accepted a caution.

[id6052]

jadeybags

 

bit late now, but from scenario you describe, i think you should have appealed

 

not sure if you would have won or not, but would definitely have been worth a punt

[jadeybags]

jadeybags

 

bit late now, but from scenario you describe, i think you should have appealed

 

not sure if you would have won or not, but would definitely have been worth a punt

 

Most people said that too, but a couple did point out that I should really have noticed. At the interview under caution I did state to the lady that I would need to understand their award letters really. She did do a lot of head nodding, & when I mentioned wondering now if the person that worked out my claim was someone they dragged in off the street, she did have a smile on her face. But she waited until the taped was stopped before saying she sgreed about the mess up.

But it doesn't change the fact I had been given what I wasn't entitled to. And it's not rhe DWP, it's the council, so we still have to pay for their mistakes.

I accepted that, but wont claim from them again. Not as long as I can help it anyway. Have upped my hours at work starting next week & can manage. I am now wondering what I was spending my money on before! It aint what you got it's what you do with it for sure!

[watchinginvestigation2011]

Jadey, you talk a lot of sence, hope you do well xx

[jadeybags]

Jadey, you talk a lot of sence, hope you do well xx

Thank you I just wish I knew then the little I do now, back when I first started working after being on income support. I would have made sure they had done it right & not been so nieve, but we live n learn! And I believe everything happens for a reason, this kerfuffle was my time to stand on my own 2 feet basically.

[xJTx]

Glad it all worked out for you in the end Jadeybags, its such a stressful thing to go through. Hearing about any happy endings (weather simular to my case or not) is always nice.

Good luck in the future.

[jadeybags]

Glad it all worked out for you in the end Jadeybags, its such a stressful thing to go through. Hearing about any happy endings (weather simular to my case or not) is always nice.

Good luck in the future.

 

Thank you x

[xJTx]

Hi again, Just an update really….

I’ve had all my decision letters back now and (of course) am appealing them all (god only knows how long that could take)

None of the letters themselves say you committed fraud now pay up, but they do say I’ve been overpaid and will need to pay back all the money that’s owed (near £20,000) in instalments.

I don’t know if that’s a good thing (it doesn’t say fraud) or a bad thing (they obviously think I’m in the wrong) but at least I have something to appeal against now.

I have also spoken to my ex who has said that two of the people he stayed with have been in touch with the job centre and confirmed he stayed with them for at least some of the time that’s being questioned, I can only hope that helps.

Does anybody know what happens next? I understand how to appeal (and have written in via solicitor to do so) but where does it go from here?

Thanks again for everyone’s help

[xJTx]

Well I’ve spoken to my solicitor and he’s informed me that prison could well be on the cards, not what I wanted to hear!!!

Still I’ve asked him to help me appeal, which of course he’s happy to do and the letters have gone off.

I’ve had one reply saying that they’ve looked into the decision and nothings changed so they’ll prepare for appeal and notify us of the date when they know it.

There has also been 2 statements given to the DWP from people my ex stayed with whilst he was of NFA. It doesn’t cover the whole time, but a good part of it.

I’m trying to stay positive and not let this effect my children, but its becoming harder by the day. I’m terrified my solicitor has given up and accepted I’m going to prison, or maybe preparing me for the worst (either way it feels awful)

Please someone help me, I’m worried the only light at the end of this tunnel is an oncoming train

[jadeybags]

I think your solicitor is maybe just wanting you to be aware prison CAN happen. But it's unlikely. My friend that's in court in june for a similar thing has also been told the same by his solicitor. Yet my brother is in court again soon for a non benefit related thing & his solicitor has told him community service at most, but his is more likely to end in prison! So I dont know how these solicitors work half the time.

Good luck with the appeal.