Interview Under Caution at JCP - advice wanted

[FitzWilliam]

I have been called to an Interview Under Caution by JCP and would be grateful for any advice. The interview is at my local jobcentre on 10 Feb 2011.

 

A letter came this morning from JCP Fraud Investigation Service saying, ‘we believe there are grounds for suspecting that you may have committed a criminal offence in relation to a benefit claim because of failing to declare capital.’

 

I do not know what this is about – I have certainly not gone over the JCP capital limit of £6000 – but other events may give a clue. In Nov 2009, someone falsely alleged to the local council (who pay my housing benefit) that I had received a large sum of money in my late father’s will which I had failed to declare.

 

A year later, in Nov 2010, a lady from the council came to my house to conduct an informal interview about this. I showed her the will, which shows that I received no money (my father left his entire estate to my step-mother for the term of her life, and my brother and I will inherit it upon her decease).

 

 

The lady seemed entirely satisfied that I had done nothing wrong; in fact, it was pretty obvious to us both that I was the victim of a false rumour. I have just phoned her and she says that there is no record in the case file that the council have contacted JCP over the matter.

 

My theory therefore is as follows. In Nov 2009, some malicious gossip told my local council and JCP that I had inherited lots of money that I had failed to declare. The council took a year till Nov 2010 to investigate, and JPC have just got round to their own investigation.

 

Does anyone have experience that may help? The following questions spring to mind.

 

1. Is it common for allegations of benefit fraud to take up to 14 months before an IUC is called by JCP?
   
2. Has anyone else had an IUC for allegedly ‘failing to disclose capital’? Was it similar to what I have been describing?
   
3. Are JCP likely to have acquired copies of my bank records? (These will consistently show much less than £6000 in savings, in the last three years never more than about £2500.)
   
4. If JCP suspect you have earned money without declaring it would they express that as ‘failing to declare capital’? (I suspect not; probably something like ‘failure to declare earnings / income’.)
   

* * *

 

 

The only other thing that I can think of is that last year I sold some old books to the local second-hand bookshop and I made some money at a car boot sale. Are these things that I have to declare? I would not have thought so.

 

All help and advice appreciated.

[FitzWilliam]

P.S. to the above.

 

I got a leaflet with the letter called 'Formal Interview - Taped Interview Under Caution' (CI 1AL).

 

I do not plan to take a solicitor with me as I am pretty sure that the accusation is without foundation.

[ErikaPNP]

Hello, stranger. Long time no see.

 

It's certainly unusual for DWP to perform IUC's without strong indicators. Unlike local authorities, they normally leave cases with no/little indicators to compliance rather than FIS.

 

It can take some time for an IUC to be performed after receiving a report, yes. I've seen investigations which have gone on for years before an IUC, owing to the evidence gathering that FIS normally undertakes prior to deciding on whether or not to invite for IUC - particularly in cases of inheritance (probate cases can take forever). Often they have to rely upon third parties such as the probate registry/banks/other interested parties getting back to them.

 

It's certainly possible that an authorised officer has asked your account provider for copies of your statements, but not a certainty. It isn't possible to guess whether or not they have done so, because we have no idea what evidence they have as yet.

 

Earnings and occasional income does have to be declared yes, but they don't always calculate it as earnings/income; each case is weighted on its own circumstances. In any event you are absolutely right - this would normally be declared as such rather than as capital. You haven't got an ISA, have you? A lot of people believe that because an ISA doesn't have to be declared to the tax man, it doesn't have to be declared for the purpose of a benefit claim either, but it does.

 

I see you are not taking legal representation with you. Do remember that if, at any time during the interview you feel that you would prefer to do this, you can express this and call an end to the interview, asking for a continuance at a later date to allow you to do this.

[FitzWilliam]

Hi Erika,

 

Thanks for your prompt response.

 

I used to have an ISA (never more than about £2000) but I closed it in about autumn 2009.

 

I now just have a current account in my name, the same one that my benefits are paid into. Over the last few years my total savings, including the ISA and the current account, have never gone over about £2500.

 

My father died in 2003 and his will was proved in 2004.

 

My brother and I are trustees of my late father's estate and so we have three bank / building society accounts and a portfolio of shares in our joint names. The total is well over the JCP capital limit of £6000, but of course this is not our money. Any income such as interest or dividends goes to our step-mother. We have only taken our executors' expenses from the estate (in 2004), about £600 in total.

 

Do you think it might be these joint accounts in my name that I am being investigated for?

 

I am annoyed at not knowing the allegations that I face. If I knew I could at least then go through my records and prepare for the interview.

 

I'm guessing that it's something to do with my father's will because the local council have also investigated that allegation. I can't think what else it could be. My savings have certainly never come anywhere near that £6000 limit.

[Nellie47]

FitzWilliam,

 

If the joint bank accounts are in your name and your brother, then both of you are liable to pay tax on any interest earned on these accounts. The banks have been reporting interest earned to the tax authorities for some time now.

 

Perhaps you should go see a lawyer about drawing up a legal trust fund for your step mother. You can assign property and assets into the fund to be used for her benefit until her demise. At that time the trust fund can then be split between the beneficiaries - yourself and your brother.

 

I am not legally qualified but I have recently been advised to do this for my mother since she has been diagnosed with Alzheimers.

 

Hope all goes well.

 

Regards,

Nell

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks Nellie,

 

The trust was legally established in my father's will, which named me and my brother as joint trustees. We submit a tax return every year in the name of the trust; and I draw up annual accounts for the family. Everything has always been above board and in proper legal form.

 

I am still not sure what purported evidence the FIS have to call me to the IUC. It annoys me that these people may be prying into my private family affairs, wasting God knows how much public money, and all probably because of some anonymous call on a benefits fraud line.

[leemack]

They may well have 'matched' these bank accounts with your benefit claim. I doubt a simple matching exercise would show up details of the trust, they would just be assuming you have this capital. If this is the case, then if you take all of the information regarding the will and the trust to the IUC, the matter will be sorted out very quickly.

[FitzWilliam]

They may well have 'matched' these bank accounts with your benefit claim. I doubt a simple matching exercise would show up details of the trust, they would just be assuming you have this capital. If this is the case, then if you take all of the information regarding the will and the trust to the IUC, the matter will be sorted out very quickly.

 

Thanks, I hope this is the case and that the matter can be easily resolved. Of course, I cannot be absolutely sure that the IUC is going to be about money belonging to my late father's will trust. I am still guessing on the basis of the other investigation by the local council and the wording my letter saying 'failing to disclose capital'. I presume I would be committing a criminal offence if I had over £6000 in capital and failed to tell the DWP, but I have never had that much money while claiming the dole. I have always declared my savings when asked.

[FitzWilliam]

I just came across this useful advice from Jabba Jones on another CAG thread:

 

One other thought. It is quite easy to select the wrong offence on the IUC letter. Give the telephone number on the letter a call & double check what the interview is about. They won't be able to tell you much, but they will be able to confirm what the alleged offence is.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?244449-Interview-under-caution-incorrect-allegation-of-benefit-fraud

 

I have just this minute called the phone number on my letter and spoken to the FIS investigator who wrote to me. He confirmed that I am being investigated on an allegation that I have more capital than the allowed limit. He said that he and one other person would be interviewing me. He told me to bring my bank statements to the meeting.

 

When I asked whether it had been alleged to him that I had received money in my father's will and failed to declare it, he said he could not discuss that on phone.

 

Anyway, Jabba's advice was good. I at least now know that the allegation is that I have not declared capital over the limit of £6000 and thus that my claim to full JSA is fraudulent. The allegation is certainly untrue and I shall refute it at the interview.

[jabba jones]

There was a HMRC data match last year looking at tax paid on interest. I'm presuming the joint account you have with your brother has shown up & if it's never been declared on your benefit claim then an IUC is inevitable.

 

They will probably have copies of all your bank statements for the last few years but I agree you should take your own copies with you, along with the annual accounts you've mentioned above & any other paper work you've got that explain the trust. You might also want to mention the Council Compliance interview you've already had on the same subject.

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks for the advice Jabba

 

I will certainly ask why the IUC has been called, whether because of a call on the benefits fraud line or a data match through HMRC or whatever else.

 

My guess is that these fraud investigators are thinking they are heading for a nice juicy conviction. But it is a matter of fact in law that the money in the trust accounts is not mine or my brother's. We have controlled the trust for seven years and been honest and scrupulous throughout that time.

 

This is not the first time I have faced false accusations of criminality from JCP. Between 2007 and 2009 a female security guard at my jobcentre made numerous false and malicious accusations to the police about clients of the jobcentre and at least one member of staff. I was arrested four times and subjected to five months of police investigation because of her, her lies including claims that I swore at her and racially insulted her.

 

In 2010 Yvette Cooper, Work and Pensions Secretary, ordered an independent investigations of these shocking events, which eventually lasted six months. The investigators concluded that the guard had lied to police about me and I received an apology from the Chief Executive of JCP and a consolatory payment of £400. Another man who successfully defended himself in court against the lies of the guard was awarded £600. (Average consolatory payments are only £85; ours are among the highest ever awarded.)

 

This is one of the biggest scandals in the history of JCP.

 

Measured by what has gone before, the accusations I am now facing are small beer.

[FitzWilliam]

IUC Today

 

I've just been to the IUC at my local jobcentre, 2pm to 3.45pm. Two investigators.

 

Yes, they did question me about the trust accounts and it was as a result of a data match with HMRC in October 2010.

 

They had been busy little bees and had a big file of papers including correspondence with the fraud department of one of the banks and old claim forms that I had filled in both for DWP and the local council (for housing benefit).

 

Before the taped interview, I could not get a promise from the investigators that I could have a copy of one of the tapes. They only indicated that I would be entitled to one if the matter went to a prosecution. So I began making a verbatim transcript in longhand. I was writing everything down:

 

Inverviewer One: ... I will caution you, therefore it is an interview under caution and it will be taped. And of course non-verbal reports will not be picked up by the tape. When the tape starts there will be a buzzing noise and after that I will start the interview with the normal -

 

Me: Hang on. 'When the tape starts where will be a buzzing noise and -'. Carry on.

 

Interviewer One: and after that I will start the interview with the normal standard opening. Since you are obviously writing everything down, I am showing you a notice to request the tapes. That is the notice that you will be given at the end of the interview.

 

(Long pause while I finish writing all that and while I write my response, before delivering it ...)

 

Me: Okay, thank you.

 

Interviewer One: All right? That will entitle you to write to me to request a copy of the tape.

 

(Another pause while I get that down on paper.)

 

Me: Okay.

 

Interviewer One: Are you happy to start?

 

Me: Yes.

 

Interviewer One: You understand that?

 

Me: Yes.

 

Just after this, with me laboriously writing everything down and all the huge pauses, the interviewer got frustrated and promised that I could definitely have a copy of the tape. Once he had said that I stopped making my transcript.

 

Later he also promised that I could have a copy of the transcript of the tape (which is going to be made to send to the decision makers).

 

* * *

 

I won't go into too much detail about the actual IUC. They had copies of bank statements that had my and my brother's names on them, but the statements did not say that the accounts were for a trust. They said they had no record of a trust being registered with HMRC.

 

Fortunately, the trust is properly registered with HMRC for tax purposes and so I am going to let these busybodies have copies of old tax returns that clearly name the trust. It annoys me that I have to do this because I am being made to demonstate innocence against an assumption of guilt, when in fact it is they who should be proving guilt against an assumption of innocence.

 

Sadly, this is all too typical of how the DWP operates.

 

Anyway, it is in my interests to prove the existence of the trust. So I am going to let them have copies of these private family papers. They will send them, together with other records in their files, to the decision makers.

 

I asked them how much the investigation had cost the taxpayer, but they would not say. I asked how many man-hours had gone into it, but they would not say. I commented that the other investigation of me by the local council was a further waste of taxpayers' money and that the making of the transcript would cost yet more money.

 

They indicated that I would probably hear from the decision makers in two to three months.

 

Now I have to put up with weeks of waiting and worrying. I am annoyed by the heavy-handed nature of the DWP investigation, which is just a big waste of time and money that will undoubtedly achieve nothing.

 

* * *

 

Oh yes, not a good day. The bloody postman was banging on the door at 7.30 am to deliver a package; then this damn IUC; and now I've got a headache!

Edited February 10, 2011 by FitzWilliam

[ptol]

Personally, whilst it looks like it was a bit of hassle, it was a very good day for you. You now know what the accusation against you is, and you know that it is completely without merit, and that you have the evidence to wave under their noses.

 

Now if you really wanted to be an awkward sod, and on a different thread a few people have (quite rightly) accused me of that particular trait, you do not have to produce the papers for the investigators. You have been cautioned (along the lines of "if you fail to mention when questioned"....)... Well, needless to say, you DID mention when questioned about these trusts.

 

Now, the crown prosecution service tend to be quite pedantic about deciding to prosecute, and they will ask the investigators what steps did they take to investigate the existence of the trusts and will want a substantial level of confidence that they do not exist, and so its quite possible that the CPS will insist that the investigators go the extra mile to verify the trusts before allowing a prosecution.

 

If you wanted to be extra cheeky, you could quote the investigators an administration fee for producing the paper work. You can be sure the banks will.

[honeybee13]

I like that ptol . Didn't realise you were the awkward squad. Fitzw, I've followed your other saga and I'm sorry that you still have other hassles going on. I'm sure you'll get the help you need here.

 

My best, HB

[ErikaPNP]

It's rare the CPS prosecute benefit fraud cases, it is usually SolP who prosecute unless the police are involved, though they too must adhere to the crown code for prosecutors.

 

Fitz, you always make me laugh - using the long hand method to get them to agree to a copy of the tape, good for you!

 

I dread to think how many man hours and money was spent; there is a hell of a lot of wasted time and money into cases such as yours, where the paper trail should prevent it even getting to IUC stage. Utterly scandalous. Glad to see that you, always true to yourself made the visit a worthwhile one!

[jabba jones]

I'm sorry but I fail to see why this has caused such high levels of indignation. If you fail to declare a bank account in your name with a large amount of money in it (no matter what the excuse) & then the DWP find out about it, a potential criminal offence has taken place & therefore an IUC is the only option. Fitzwilliam you saw the bank statements they had. How did it look without your explanation?

 

If you had bothered to wait to the end of the IUC you would have been given a notice explaining how you could get hold of a copy of the tape/s. This is part of the IUC script.

 

And as for being awkward, I just don't see what you've gained. You could have gone in explained the error, provided the proof they've requested, get the investigators on your side & wait for your decision. Instead by acting like you have you will have probably got the investigators back up. One of them will eventually be writing a report on the case that is sent to the decision maker with all the evidence & they will be putting their spin on it. In this case it probably won't make a difference but I just don't think you've done yourself any favours.

 

And as for the cost of the investigation, from my old colleagues I'm led to believe that the scan has been very successful. A lot of people have been caught out by it, but as with all investigations there are more misses than hits.

[ptol]

Hi Jabba,

 

To accuse someone for being awkward for attending a IUC without the proof of innocence when they would not give a pre warning of the accusation and the evidence for that accusation is a bit rich. The official process only promises fitzwilliam a copy of the tape if they decide to prosecute. He wanted a copy regardless. That again is a very reasonable position to take.

 

They have asked if he can do the investigators a favour in producing his copies of the documents. That is his choice whether he does that or not. He has stated why the allegations are baseless. If the investigators want to continue the prosecution, and show they have a reasonable chance of success they will need to investigate and disprove Fitzwilliams explanation.

 

It is not Fitzwilliams job to prove his innocence, but the prosecutions job to prove his guilt.

[ptol]

from my old colleagues I'm led to believe that the scan has been very successful. A lot of people have been caught out by it, but afuts with all investigations there are more misses than hits.

 

If there are more misses than hits, then perhaps their initial approach to the claimant needs to be softened from an IUC to a less agressive approach asking for further information about...

[FitzWilliam]

If you had bothered to wait to the end of the IUC you would have been given a notice explaining how you could get hold of a copy of the tape/s. This is part of the IUC script.

 

Actually, I did specifically ask before the recording started whether I could have a copy of the tape and they said I could but only if the case went to prosecution. I decided therefore to make my own transcript, which started to slow the proceedings to a snail's pace. This caused the interviewer to change his mind and he said that 'in this particular case' I could, yes, have a copy of the tape. He indicated that he was making an exception to the general rule.

 

And as for being awkward, I just don't see what you've gained. You could have gone in explained the error, provided the proof they've requested, get the investigators on your side & wait for your decision. Instead by acting like you have you will have probably got the investigators back up.

 

Actually, I had no forewarning of exactly what I was going to be questioned about; they would not even confirm beforehand that it was anything to do with the trust. I did not attempt to second-guess everything they might ask and I had no idea what records they had gathered. As it turned out, they had some incomplete information from a couple of bank accounts coupled with some false assumptions.

 

They said they had no paperwork naming the trust, and when I asked whether they had copies of the trust's tax returns they said no. (Funny that, because they did the computer match with HMRC, who also have the trust's tax returns.)

 

Fortunately, I have all the tax returns and they explicitly name the trust and provide an official tax number for the trust. I have agreed to send copies to the interviewers to pass to the decision makers. Frankly, it annoys me that I am being pushed into having to prove my innocence when they have not proved guilt against me or even made a prima facie case for prosecution. Part of me wants to tell them to get lost, but I know that it's in my own best interests to send evidence that proves to them what they want, i.e. that the trust exists and is registered with HMRC.

 

I am co-operating with them, albeit grudgingly, because it is for my own benefit. Hopefully, they will soon be off my back.

[FitzWilliam]

I like that ptol . Didn't realise you were the awkward squad. Fitzw, I've followed your other saga and I'm sorry that you still have other hassles going on. I'm sure you'll get the help you need here.

 

My best, HB

 

Thanks Honeybee.

 

I like your motto, 'Illegitimi non carborundum.' There is another version of that in 'The Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Attwood which goes, 'Nolite te bastardes carborundum.'

[FitzWilliam]

Okay, just one thing is worrying me now. I'm not concerned about prosecution but the interviewers were talking about how the decision makers can sanction claims. Is this something that could happen in a case like this?

[honeybee13]

Thanks Honeybee.

 

I like your motto, 'Illegitimi non carborundum.' There is another version of that in 'The Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Attwood which goes, 'Nolite te bastardes carborundum.'

 

Very good.

[jabba jones]

Hi Jabba,

 

To accuse someone for being awkward for attending a IUC without the proof of innocence when they would not give a pre warning of the accusation and the evidence for that accusation is a bit rich. The official process only promises fitzwilliam a copy of the tape if they decide to prosecute. He wanted a copy regardless. That again is a very reasonable position to take.

 

They have asked if he can do the investigators a favour in producing his copies of the documents. That is his choice whether he does that or not. He has stated why the allegations are baseless. If the investigators want to continue the prosecution, and show they have a reasonable chance of success they will need to investigate and disprove Fitzwilliams explanation.

 

It is not Fitzwilliams job to prove his innocence, but the prosecutions job to prove his guilt.

 

I didn't accuse Fitzwilliam of being awkward for not taking proof with him. I meant his actions during the IUC were awkward & did him no favours. However I even suggested in an earlier post exactly what to take. It all could have been so much easier.

 

A copy of the tape used to only be available if a case was to be prosecuted however the last version of form CI12 that I saw (dated 08 of 2009 I believe) suggests that a copy of the tape can be requested in writing at any time. It doesn't mention prosecution. I've provided copies (via my ex manager) on several occasions for non prosecution cases, I can only presume the office that Fitzwilliam is dealing with have interpreted this differently.

 

The allegation is not baseless. It appears the bank statements that Fitzwilliams bank have provided suggest the account is in Fitzwilliams name & make no mention of the trust. If they are in Fitzwilliams name & he has not disclosed them on his claim form or reported them as a change of circumstance (dependant on whether the account pre-dates the claim etc) then how does it look? This is not the fault of anyone but Fitzwilliam & therefore it is quite right that he has been asked to explain it. The investigators have obtained everything they could be expected to & I'm afraid in this case it is Fitzwilliams job to prove his innocence because the evidence suggested otherwise & without it he will be finding himself in court.

[jabba jones]

If there are more misses than hits, then perhaps their initial approach to the claimant needs to be softened from an IUC to a less agressive approach asking for further information about...

 

I haven't said anywhere that the misses reach as far as an IUC, most don't & the person involved would never know they had been investigated, however in this case an IUC was 100% inevitable & correct.

[jabba jones]

Actually, I had no forewarning of exactly what I was going to be questioned about; they would not even confirm beforehand that it was anything to do with the trust. I did not attempt to second-guess everything they might ask and I had no idea what records they had gathered. As it turned out, they had some incomplete information from a couple of bank accounts coupled with some false assumptions.

 

They said they had no paperwork naming the trust, and when I asked whether they had copies of the trust's tax returns they said no. (Funny that, because they did the computer match with HMRC, who also have the trust's tax returns.)

 

You were told what the alleged offence was & that is all anyone is told. Most people are able to work out what the allegation is probably about, as you yourself did.

 

The scan would only have provided the name the account is in (yours it appears), the account numbers, the bank & the amount of interest paid. Tax returns don't come into it & if they had no record of the trust I don't know how you could expect them to request it.