Called for an interview under caution and I'm worried.... Please help

[sallypotter]

Just to add they never received the court date until February 2011 and had to attend court 3 weeks later.

 

How much is their figure on the overpayment?

 

People seem to say that if it is under £2,000 you won't get prosecuted any way.

 

Can't seem to understand why they are not also mentioning the housing benefit and council tax benefit?

 

I reckon they are fishing and hope you admit something so they can go along those lines also.

 

Don't admit to anything.

 

It's not what they know or think they know it's what they can prove.

 

Just say what you have always said.

 

All the best,

 

Sal

[SMC1989]

Thank you. I think they can come to there overpayment decision quite easily because it's balance of probability, which really requires no proof. To prosecute they need proof beyond all reasonable doubt. I just don't see that they have this, I've certainly seen nothing from them to intimate this. And you can't prove something which isn't real (unless you lie, which I suspect they've done on one occasion which I can prove)

[Stan Lee]

I know someone that was interviewed in January 2010 and didn't have their first court appearance until March 2011 and their last in September, 2011 so i think you are being hopeful that you are out of time.

 

Nothing wrong with the original poster being hopeful as long as she isn't bein pollyanna-ish about it. Marcander gave a very detailed explanation of the time barred element above, and the OP is aware that it depends on what section of the law any potential charges were brought under. I think there is reason to be hopeful, as long as the original poster is aware that she cannot be completely certain that this is wrapped up

[SMC1989]

Does anyone know what the time limit applies to. I.e what section and charges

[marcander]

Just to clear up a little.

 

The time limits don't concern interviews under caution or court dates. An interview under caution can be conducted when information/evidence is still incomplete so the clock doesn't have to start ticking from then. They can be looking for you to add information/evidence also other offences might come to light that require further investigation and so they might go for the 2nd offence instead of the first. The clock is then re-started.

 

Also the court date is irrelevant. It is 3 months from the date full and complete evidence comes to light to the date of laying the evidence before a court/judge/magistrate for intention to prosecute. The court case could be months later. The 12 month rule is from last date of committing of "offence" again to laying the evidence before a court/judge and not the date of hearing. So it is perfectly possible for an offence to be committed today and the court hearing occurs in 15 months time. The evidence being laid before a judge/court next May (within 12 months from offence date) the court date being set November.

 

So the extended time case Sallypotter mentions is perfectly possible and still within the time limits.

 

M.

[Sue72]

I have nothing useful to add to this I'm afraid but I just wanted to say how appalled I am at this and the length of time it has dragged on for!

 

I really hope you can get it all sorted and have some peace of mind.

[Stan Lee]

So the extended time case Sallypotter mentions is perfectly possible and still within the time limits.

 

Thanks for this: I was aware of this, but it is good to have it clarified.

 

In regards to the original poster's predicament, perhaps you know if she should have received a letter informing her of the intention to recommend prosecution by the DWP/LA investigation team/manager. I have some vague notion that this is the case; I could be wrong.

 

Also, what do you think her options are for having her solicitor get in touch with the investigators to clarify where she stands? Another grounds for dismissal of a case is undue delays/pauses in the investigation process. (Just to note as well, the original poster's partner can still be interviewed under caution; his status as a benefit claimant/non-claimant doesn't come into it.)

[SMC1989]

Thanks for all of the clarification. This is the OPs other half here.

I honestly thought they would look to interview me as the majority of their very sketchy argument against the Missus is based around apparently what I have and what I haven't done.

I tend to investigate things by speaking to any necessary people to establish full facts.

By not interviewing me I just don't see that anything has been established and cannot at all see why I've not been questioned by them. I was relishing the idea (in a weirdly perverse manner I guess).

They've lied, they've bullied and they have delayed to a ridiculous level. If I acted as they have I simply wouldn't have a job.

 

Annoyingly I just do not see what benefit they thought we would have by "doing this on purpose"....

 

When I moved out, my new outgoings such as rent, council tax, utilities, fuel to drive over and pick my kids up to take them out and ready meals/takeaways (as I can't/don't cook) comfortably equalled any money that the other half quite rightly claimed.

 

So it seems a bit odd that I would risk my career for no financial benefit whatsoever.

 

I'm just frustrated by the whole matter. But whether they prosecute or not, it only benefits them. The obscene delays have added to the other halfs stress, anxiety and has now had a scary impact upon her health too.

[SMC1989]

So given their evidence and the fact that no one has questioned the other half mean prosecution looks unlikely

[sallypotter]

Stan Lee

 

why would anyone agree to an interview under caution if they were not claiming benefits?

[Guest amianne]

Stan Lee

 

why would anyone agree to an interview under caution if they were not claiming benefits?

 

Maybe to provide evidence for an ongoing fraud investigation?

 

If the DWP can't get anywhere and need to find more evidence, they normally involve the police who will and can arrest anybody that is suspected of an arrestable offence viz conspiracy with others.

[Stan Lee]

Maybe to provide evidence for an ongoing fraud investigation?If the DWP can't get anywhere and need to find more evidence, they normally involve the police who will and can arrest anybody that is suspected of an arrestable offence viz conspiracy with others.

 

Sally Potter,My understanding is that even if you are not claiming benefits but your partner is, if there is suspicion of falsification of documents, or indeed of the partner's involvement, then the DWP/LA can/will want to interview you. Of course, you do not have to agree to be interviewed; you can be charged though, even if you were not the primary claimant. The Fraud Investigator Manuals (available on this site) have detailed instructions on the protocols to follow in these situations.

 

Amianne, my understanding is that police involvement in DWP investigations does occur but is actually very rare. If you have any stats to disprove my assumption I would love to read them.

[sallypotter]

I have a feeling the other half is Police.

 

Why would you provide evidence against the mother of your child unless you were some vindictive piece of work.

 

As for the Police arresting people i don't need to be told anything about that.

 

They arrest enough innocent people who have to end up suing them for not following PACE.

 

If the other half gets arrested then if it was me i would get a solicitor to represent me and let them deal with it probably in a prepared statement.

 

I am fed up with innocent people being accused of doing something they have not done when it is blatantly obvious to people that are not blinkered where they should be looking.

 

In half of these so called fraud cases the claimant has only received what they should have and they are technical prosecutions.

 

Ant to boot they cost the tax payer a lot more to prosecute.

 

Propoganda.

 

Sal

[SMC1989]

It's just annoying. I'm just wondering whether to write to them straightaway commencing the appeal or whether to wait until I know if they want to try prosecution.

[Guest amianne]

Sally Potter,My understanding is that even if you are not claiming benefits but your partner is, if there is suspicion of falsification of documents, or indeed of the partner's involvement, then the DWP/LA can/will want to interview you. Of course, you do not have to agree to be interviewed; you can be charged though, even if you were not the primary claimant. The Fraud Investigator Manuals (available on this site) have detailed instructions on the protocols to follow in these situations.

 

Amianne, my understanding is that police involvement in DWP investigations does occur but is actually very rare. If you have any stats to disprove my assumption I would love to read them.

 

I don't have any stats as you put it. But I do have personal knowledge of the police being brought in because the DWP investigator was being thwarted at every road he tried to go down - no one would talk to him. or give evidence.

The police were brought in primarily not to arrest anybody (although they did so in the early hours of the morning), but to turn the property over as well as his office and car looking for evidence that the DWP couldn't get from anywhere else. What they were looking for was evidence to prove that he had worked for two years before signing off and hadn't disclosed the full extent of his income in those two years. Information came to the DWP 3 years after he had signed off and that kicked off the investigation.

 

They made a right old mess of the house, garage, office, car etc.

[Guest amianne]

I have a feeling the other half is Police.

 

Why would you provide evidence against the mother of your child unless you were some vindictive piece of work.

 

 

In half of these so called fraud cases the claimant has only received what they should have and they are technical prosecutions.

 

 

Sal

 

Maybe because you are asked the question whilst under arrest and under caution?

 

There is no such thing as a technical prosecution. You are prosecuted because it is believed you have committed a criminal offence. Or do you believe that there are 'technical' offences as well? Maybe there would be. if convicted, a 'technical' sentence. Prison is still prison in my book!

[SMC1989]

I guess it does occur, but again would concur it is probably very rare. In the situations of searches it would have been driven by DWP in terms of search extent etc.

 

I'd say in all walks of life there are good and bad.... Whether it be police, DWP investigators, solicitors or just people in general.

 

The frustrating part is seeing innocent people being tore apart for no great reason. But let's face it, normal honest people are easier for the DWP to pursue than true professional fraudsters.

 

It just strikes me that even if they don't prosecute (based on the fact that they have no evidence) and I appeal the overpayment (which I will).... What chance is there of the overpayment being quashed? Probably none I guess.

[Guest amianne]

I guess it does occur, but again would concur it is probably very rare. In the situations of searches it would have been driven by DWP in terms of search extent etc.

 

I'd say in all walks of life there are good and bad.... Whether it be police, DWP investigators, solicitors or just people in general.

 

The frustrating part is seeing innocent people being tore apart for no great reason. But let's face it, normal honest people are easier for the DWP to pursue than true professional fraudsters.

 

It just strikes me that even if they don't prosecute (based on the fact that they have no evidence) and I appeal the overpayment (which I will).... What chance is there of the overpayment being quashed? Probably none I guess.

 

I don't know if it rare or not, I was absolutely shocked when I saw what they did to their home. Yes the DWP would have instigated the search dictating what the police were to look for. At the end of the day he believed he had done nothing wrong and has since his release from prison 24 years ago, lost all of his confidence. Walked away from his business and their home. It ended up with them living in poor quality rented housing whilst their home lay empty and up for sale. The sale was overtaken by the bank.They came round and pinned a notice on the front door and siezed the property.

It destroyed him, he hasn't worked since his discharge from prison, has become a recluse and been in trouble with the police mainly for violence ever since.

 

Before all this happened he was a law abiding citizen and was professionally qualified.

 

Ironically when he appealed against the overpayment he won at the tribunal in that there was no overpayment and the benefit he had had was correct proving that what he pleaded guilty to in Crown Court, courtesy of poor advice from his solicitor, should never have got to court in the first place.

 

All for the sake of an over eager investigator wanting to make an example of him because he made it so difficult for him to investigate.

[sallypotter]

I don't understand you amianne the example you have written above is a technical prosecution.

 

The person you knew had not received an overpayment at all so why was he prosecuted in the first place?

[Guest amianne]

I don't understand you amianne the example you have written above is a technical prosecution.

 

The person you knew had not received an overpayment at all so why was he prosecuted in the first place?

 

The case the DWP put up was that he failed to disclose the full extent of his earnings and hours whilst claiming unemployment benefit.

Everytime he signed on he disclosed the hours worked in the period - generally about 6 a week, and the amount he earned - gross income less allowable expenses which generally meant a zero figure.

 

The DWP stated that he should have disclosed his gross income!

 

After the search, all of his records were seized and his gross income for the two years was used as evidence. According to the DWP this gave an income figure way in excess of what he was allowed to earn and as such no Unemployment Benefit was due.

 

His solicitor told him to plead guilty as 'you can never win against the DWP'. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison. After release the DWP wanted all of the money back off him, he appealed and went to a tribunal. He produced his accounts which had been agreed with the Revenue. They showed that he had made losses in those two years. The Tribunal agreed with them and stated that the income that the DWP should have used was the net not the gross. They found for him and stated that there was no overpayment and that the benefits he had received were correctly paid to him.

 

So he ended up spending 6 months in prison (was refused early release due to his attitude whilst in prison) with another 12 months on probabation when in fact no offence had been committed. The DWP had got their figures wrong and had misunderstood how the self employed part time businessmen were to be treated when claiming Unemployment Benefit.

The regulations today are much clearer than they were then.

 

In going to prison it destroyed his reputation, his relationship, his business, his life and his self belief. He simply gave up and for the past 24 years has been waging a war on the police and the DWP.

 

He would walk up to a police car with a brick and throw it at the window, assault any police officer that came near him, walk into a Jobcentre and try to wreck the place.

 

In his head he thinks that at least he might as well go to prison for something he did do.

 

Out of the last 24 years I would reckon that he has spent 15 of them in prison.

 

Prior to all of this he was a well respected, honest person with no criminal record. Now he has a record as long as my arm mainly for violence against the police.

Edited June 22, 2012 by amianne

[sallypotter]

Don't get me started on the police!!!!

 

All you have written is terrible.

 

The injustice of life.

 

Sal

[Guest amianne]

Don't get me started on the police!!!!

 

All you have written is terrible.

 

The injustice of life.

 

Sal

 

Thanks. I just feel so sorry for him.

 

And what really winds me up knowing what this guy has been through, is that the likes of Jeffery Archer who went to prison because of something that he did do, comes out as bold as brass and writes books about his experience whilst in prison. And they say that crime doesn't pay.

 

And then we have the MP's that went to prison for defrauding the taxpayer over their expenses, come out and carry on as nothing has happened.

[sallypotter]

Class system and money is the difference. Plus who you know.

 

Get a criminal record and if you're not at least middle class, you've had it and become the underclass.

[Guest amianne]

Class system and money is the difference. Plus who you know.

 

Get a criminal record and if you're not at least middle class, you've had it and become the underclass.

 

He did try for many jobs in the years after he came out, but when the employer was told about his police record - no one wanted to know him. It took ten years for his record to become 'spent', but by that time he had become so upset over the way he was treated that he had become an uncontrollable bomb. As each offence he then carried out, trying in his mind to hit back at society, his criminal record became longer and longer making it impossible for him to ever work again.

 

24 years on one benefit or another in between spells of being locked away.

 

Yes I agree being in the right place, knowing the right people and having money does mean that being in prison is seen as an inconvenience at worst or an opportunity to make more money at best!

[sallypotter]

With the right contacts he wouldn't have ended up in prison in the first place. Not justice.

 

Working class youth gets criminal record for little bit of weed, middle class youth just being a silly boy, no action taken.Not equal.