HELP! Benefit fraud investigation. 2nd intervew preparation.

[CRH71]

I've got to be honest with you, in my dealings with these sorts of "investigators" a few years ago, I found them equally as obnoxious, arrogant and patronising as you have. They are, indeed, looking to frame you - from what you've said so far and the direction of their questioning, it's pretty clear which way they're heading with your case - especially as you've been so up-front with them already and given them what they see as "key evidence" and an "admission of guilt" - the confession of the fact that you had over £6k in savings.

 

The mere, insignificant fact that you have declared those savings and can evidence that has already been missed by the "fact finding mission" that's already gone on behind the scenes and will be very conveniently forgotten if they're not reminded of it......

 

Give them what they ask for, but don't volunteer too much information - answer the questions truthfully and honestly, but stick to answering the question.

 

Two ways of dealing with it next - one is to wait until they write to you and then write back, by Special Delivery, thanking them for their letter but, were they aware that you had declared the savings, and that you had proof that you had declared it - enclosing a copy of that proof?

Second is to turn round at the end of the grilling (sorry, interview) WHILST THE TAPE IS STILL RUNNING and tell them that you have got proof of declaring the savings, and here it is (give them a COPY, not the original - never let that original out of your possession unless to your brief (if you get that far - if what you say is true, it sounds unlikely as their case will collapse when you provide your evidence).

 

Personally, I'd wait until they wrote to me and then write back by a provable delivery method, thanking them, addressing/refuting their every point and sending a copy of the proof - that way there's a provable paper trail (tape machines aren't infallible, nor are the operators of them) - but that's just me. I'm afraid I've got too darned cynical over the last few years of dealing with pedantic Government organisations one way and another and wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.

 

I wish you luck, truly.

[GinZ]

Thanks lee100 for tip. Problem is that the ONLY number of contact I have is her number. I did ask for what the department number was but was told I only need contact her.

 

I have asked for paperwork from Glasgow JC directly for copies of all the times when I filled out/signed off telephone conversations to say what I had declared and this hasn't arrived yet so delaying till I get this may be a good idea anyway. I do not have the paperwork from when I first signed on 3 years ago as I thought 2 years' of paperwork would suffice.

 

I suppose I may call her up and say to cancel the meeting until she has called me back.

This should take some time as she failed to call me back after more than 24hrs had passed.

 

Are you sure I am entitled to speak to somebody else? It sounds obvious but I am just making sure in case she refuses, or says something like she's the only person I get to speak to unless I want to take it straight to the fraud team level.

 

Thanks too to CRH71. Your experience has somewhat reassured me that I should indeed take precautions just in case they frame me.

 

Thanks for the 'never let the originals out of my sight' tip. Obvious yes, but so easy to let it happen when under pressure with the 'I'll just take these to be photocopied'.

 

I did prepare photocopies of the letters stating I had declared but it will really help me be calm if she gets aggressive and states that she wants to see the originals only.

 

I suppose I will have to have one file of what I've submitted them, and another for my own case to prove my innocence.

 

Regarding this. I did end up spending all my savings in the end by September. It was certainly under 6K before I reapplied for JSA in June. However I trickle-spent it over the whole period and then quite a lot more when I only lived off my savings. During which time I felt it was 'immoral' to claim benefits when I wasn't intent on finding work but on updating myself to be more advertisable for a job.

 

During the period of not claiming I spent it on updating my clothing (was really poorly clothed before) - only had a couple of Primarni suits and no clothing for any sort of work-related stuff outside fully formaly suits. I bought a cycle and also spent quite a lot on better quality food trying to try and help this long-term IBS issue when I feel I've been ignored by doctors etc.

 

Has anybody got any experience of having to trawl through everything they bought maybe having to justify each and every purchase they made?

 

I ask this as this was part of the advice given to me by the free legal advice from Carillion Energy Services on 'Deprivation of Accounts'.

 

Btw, this was quite different to what the interviewer said: she said it was about hiding money. The legal guy said it was about spending money to deliberately claim or get more money.

 

I am not looking forward to looking at every bit of spend and having to justify each and every transaction in preparation and would like to reduce this workload - so would like to ask about anybody else's experience.

 

Thanks to all

[CRH71]

So, in their eyes, you are already guilty of not declaring savings AND of "deprivation of capital" - i.e. "wasting" your savings to get your total below the limits permissible for benefits?

 

That's definitely the way they're building their case against you.

 

Obviously, I don't know your full situation - the key question here is how much savings are we talking about? You're saying that your savings were below £6k before you commenced your claim last year so that is an irrelevance - they will be focussing on the time(s) you were claiming but your savings exceeded £6k whilst you were claiming - ESPECIALLY if they don't think you'd declared those savings.

 

Don't ask for the paperwork - it won't be forthcoming. In this sort of case, they conveniently "forget" or "lose" the request - particularly if it was an in-person request or a telephone call.

 

S.A.R. (Subject Access Request) them and get a full copy of your file. Templates are available on this site or other equivalent sites on the internet (I've got one downloaded if you want a copy - PM me and I'll send it to you). It's a formal request with legal time-scales on reply, that they cannot ignore. OK, it'll cost you a tenner or so, but it'll be the best tenner you ever spent as it will show you everything on your claim file from day dot which, when reviewed by your good self, will show what you are up against and exactly what they hold on you - prepare to be shocked, though as to the sheer amount of information (right, wrong or otherwise) they've got on you.

 

She won't get stroppy about not having the originals - she can't. I will repeat my earlier advice - only take copies with you, and do not let that original out of your sight unless it is to YOUR legal representative, should you get that far.

 

This sounds like they've gone back a few years - for certain they'll have bank statements from this period, including showing this savings amount - and will be trying to make the "crime" fit the timescales - i.e. "Your honour, the accused claimed benefits from xx/2008 to xx/2009 and all this time she had an undeclared Bank Account with £y in it - look at our evidence - we can prove this".

 

YOU, in turn, need to be able to refute this, with written evidence - "But, your honour, on xyzabc date, I DID notify the JC in writing about these savings - here is my proof of that, dated xx/xx/xxxx and the date I posted it to them was xx/xx/xxxx". You get the picture, I'm sure.

 

Don't worry about justifying what you spent YOUR savings on whilst you were not working and not claiming benefits - as long as the figures aren't excessive (i.e. you blew a half-million win on the lottery in 6 months) and it would look to any reasonable person that you were supporting yourself with your own savings (I'd have thought a spending pattern of around £10k a year from your only means of support would not be seen as unreasonable) and not looking to the taxpayer to top-up your income then it is of no relevance to this case.

 

They ARE trying to frame you. Be under no illusions. They are trying to frame you for your PREVIOUS claim, not this current one and by the sounds of it they've got enough "evidence" in their eyes to take it to the prosecutors.

 

Get your facts together and be clear, focussed and remain calm - if you're sure you're innocent, and you can prove that innocence, then stick to it. Don't put words in this horrible woman's mouth or give her any extra "ammunition" (and, believe me she'll be digging for said ammunition during the interview) or "evidence" of your "guilt". Remember, she already believes you to be guilty. The key point here is PROOF. If you haven't got the paper trail from that long ago, then get it - lack of paper trail is what caused our problems - we couldn't PROVE what had been said or done so our situation turned against us very, very quickly and was not a particularly good outcome at the time.

 

Lessons learned, and all that - I now keep duplicate copies of EVERYTHING and don't speak to any Government Department on the phone - not even if I'm recording it. All communication is in writing, delivered by a provable method (normally Recorded but occasionally I have been known to use Special Delivery) only. Yes, it slows things down, but it does provide a rock-solid trail of PROOF and facts that cannot be argued with later - that policy actually paid dividends only this year when we ended up in front of a Tribunal after a 13-month fight with the DWP and were successful.

[GinZ]

Hi CRH71, thanks ever so much for your warning and input.

It is very much this kind of thing that I did feel was going on, but with no previous experience it is difficult not to think I was over-doing.

Better over-prepared than under though imo.

 

The amount of savings when first signing on (Nov 08) was in the region of £11.5-12K. Again, I didn't keep bank records that far back but from the savings accounts I just got from the banks it would seem about that much.

 

The letter I have as proof states that I declared £11.5K in May 10.

 

Although I cannot prove everything from back then, the monies going into my bank do show that I received reduced rates even as far back as June 2009. So I guess the worst that could reasonably happen is that I may be accused to being paid too much for a tiny period. But I sure would like to be prepared for worse than reasonable based on the way she's behaving.

 

I do know I spent a bit more than the average person might do just to live off as I really did have appalling clothing at the time and the food was an experiment to see if it made me more mobile by eating better quality food. Will have to see about that one once I've gone through a bit and seen how much I spent.

 

Now, the key point I need to do now is send off that request for all my details they've ever had. From the link of S.A.R. there is a line saying that since it is their fault I need this info I should get a refund. Stupid question but, I'm guessing I should remove that line, right?

 

Thanks again CRH71. To get all that info will certainly put me in the position of knowing what they have on me and also to highlight any errors about me they may have. What a relief it will be.

 

Very good kama of you to pass on such info from your experience. Thanks superstar!

I'll PM you to send me a copy of what you think is a good version of the S.A.R.

[jabba jones]

They ARE trying to frame you. Be under no illusions. They are trying to frame you for your PREVIOUS claim, not this current one and by the sounds of it they've got enough "evidence" in their eyes to take it to the prosecutors.

 

This case is being dealt with by the Compliance team. It is not a Fraud investigation & you really should learn the difference between the 2 sections before giving misleading & potentially distressing advice like this.

[CRH71]

This case is being dealt with by the Compliance team. It is not a Fraud investigation & you really should learn the difference between the 2 sections before giving misleading & potentially distressing advice like this.

 

Jabba, I appreciate your input and thank you for it. Understanding that there IS a difference between the two teams, I think it would be fair to comment that, based on what the OP has said thus far, the Compliance Team are digging around for information and are doing what they can to slant the available evidence against the OP.

 

The OP asked for advice and people's experiences in this situation. I was giving the experience that I, and someone very close to me, had just a few years ago with these "Compliance Officers". I fully accept there are some officers who are diligent, thorough and will admit that mistakes have been made in paperwork when presented with the evidence, but on the flip side of the coin, the Officers that both the OP and myself have come across have been the polar opposite whom are assuming (and doing their damnedest to prove) "guilty until proven innocent". The other little "comments" that have been thrown in during the course of this investigation that makes it pretty clear in my eyes which way this "Investigating Officer" would like this case to proceed.

 

Truly, I hope for the OP's sake that I am mistaken with my interpretation of the words and actions thus far, but it has to be said that absolutely no-one has come onto this thread attempting to defend the "Investigating Officer's" position and offering an alternative point of view from someone on the "inside" based on the facts that the OP has posted.

 

I don't want to get dragged into an argument, either - it won't be helpful to the OP. I respect that you have a degree of knowledge and understanding, borne of your position, that I do not, however I am entitled to share my experiences of a similar situation with the OP as per her initial request - it is her choice as to whether to accept those experiences or reject them and seek assistance elsewhere.

 

I recognise that some of my comments are likely to get a certain section of people's backs up considerably and I make no apology for that. Nobody's forcing anyone to read this thread who doesn't voluntarily wish to. I have already openly admitted just how much I (don't) trust ANY Government Department, least of all target-driven benefit-type Departments who are under enormous political pressure from "on high" to "produce results".

 

My advice remains the same - the OP needs to ensure that she has every single shred of evidence she can get her hands on to prove her innocence and make absolutely sure that she has her facts straight, and her back covered - whether at the Compliance stage or further along the process.

 

To the OP - thanks, I have received your PM and will review it shortly and respond to you by the same method. If there IS anything in what I have posted on this thread that you find "misleading" or "potentially distressing", I apologise - and, as I said, I truly hope that I have misinterpreted what has been said and done so far and when you attend the second interview, the nice lady that interviews you will see that all this has been a terrible mistake and she's wasted a lot of time and effort for nothing.

 

Based on what's been said so far, though and the tone of the investigation to date, I suspect you'll have more chance of being run over by a Routemaster Bus whilst sitting indoors watching TV than that happening..........

[jabba jones]

Jabba, I appreciate your input and thank you for it. Understanding that there IS a difference between the two teams, I think it would be fair to comment that, based on what the OP has said thus far, the Compliance Team are digging around for information and are doing what they can to slant the available evidence against the OP.

 

They are looking for an Overpayment because that is part of their job! Compliance officers have an overpayment target but as far as I'm aware they still claim it regardless of whether it is recoverable overpayment or official error, so the officer would gain nothing from "framing" anyone. If there is a overpayment & if GinZ can prove he/she informed the dept they will accept it. If they were stupid enough to hide it then GinZ would be able to make them look pretty daft at an appeal!

 

If the dept were looking at a prosecution then trust me Compliance would not be involved & any contact would be in the form of an IUC with a Fis officer. None of this has happened. There's a pretty good chance this started as a Fis case & was downgraded to Compliance once it became apparent a Fis sanction was unlikely.

 

As for the rudeness. It's not very professional but when you have to deal with some of the chancers (I'm been nice there) that Compliance officers see every day it's hard not to become cynical sometimes.

[GinZ]

Hiya debators!

 

Interesting arguments on both sides.

 

I didn't know that compliance officers were given targets. Good for productivity and potentially bad for justice.

 

I have still not been told for what I am being investigated even though I asked it outright. So yes, it could be an overpayment, but it could also be ANYTHING/EVERYTHING else.

 

Since i have not been told and treated in such an unnecessarily rude manner, I believe it is not unreasonable of me to expect to be unreasonably treated in future. I am hedging my bets according to how I've been treated thus far that's all.

 

CRH71 may not be able to read the future but has correctly surmised my feeelings about where this thing is going - and is helping, I believe, with potentially the worst case scenarios based on such unfair treatment. If I am not even allowed to find out procedures when I ask for them, or even for website address or just anywhere where I could have information to prevent misunderstandings in future then please understand how this makes me feel. I am being grilled and not treated in an humane way. So I think it wise to expect continued inhumane treatment.

 

I therefore feel it is prudent to prepare for the worst. At the very least I'll learn a lot along the way. (which should also be good skills to transfer to workplace too!)

 

As far as being scared by what CRH71 said. Yes, I would be most scared if they said it and left it at that. They have however providing me with ways to prepare myself, not just for now but also for the future should something like this happen again. In fact, if I had such knowledge before, this situation would be so much less stressful as is. I would have kept my records longer than 2 years for example.

 

In addition would be the time when I went to sign on in a different borough due to moving and was told to ring up to start a new claim. I told them I am only moving boroughs so I think they should know I had been signing on before - so wouldn't a new claim be inappropriate? But this was met with: how can I know the job better than them! It would have been a great example of how having taken record of this, when I had a feeling it was wrong, would have saved me such bother now. Also, i would have been in the know more of how to complain about the potential of misunderstandings and potential system errors.

 

When it comes to rudeness, it's never excuseable unless someone is being rude to you, and even then it's not nice. To start off teh interview with rudeness by tutting because I didn't answer when she said "Mr surname first-name" and then I asked her to confrim the full name I told her it was back to front. She did not apologise and worse talked over me whilst I was trying to say it. She still got it wrong on the phone the other day and acted like I had a problem that I needed to correct her of my name. I would have thought that my name is a VERY important detail.

 

So if such details are being overlooked then potentially other important details are being overlooked. Never mind the rudeness!

 

The fact that she's been rude to me every time I've spoken to her does not justify me then being rude to every JC staff member I come across does it? If this continued then no wonder the compliance officers and JC staff are treated with such contempt in general. I am trying my best to be polite but feels like an attempt to goad me into doing something wrong.

[lee100]

Hi again,

 

You need to try and stop fixating on this Woman's rudeness. It's tough I know, as I've been there with someone being very rude at the JCP last year!

 

Forget her, and focus on the facts. You won't change her, and it's wasted energy.

 

Provide the facts and then some, and then you'll be fine.

 

None of us can control how someone behaves.

 

If she's being that difficult, as I said, ask to deal with someone else.

 

Good Luck.

[CRH71]

I think the above is a very wise way of looking at the situation - normally I wouldn't advocate going off at the deep end like this - but it's evident to my eyes, viewed with the benefit of experience, that your particular CO is looking to take your case down a very specific line and that the situation is threatening to spiral out of control and start causing sleepless nights unnecessarily (if it hasn't already).

 

This isn't about "scaring" anyone, or "misleading" them - it is about empowerment. The first step towards coping with any problem is understanding it and understanding what you are dealing with.

 

The Internet and forums such as this one can be your friend when looking for information and advice - there are many "stickies" on different threads and in the posts that can provide valuable information, such as applicable benefit rates at the time, or information on how these investigations are carried out, to how to complain about unfair treatment, and links to further reading or resources. The more you understand of how the system works (that's currently trying to work against you) the easier you'll find it challenging the inaccuracies and unfairness in your case.

 

It is, for example, quite telling in my opinion that the possibility of this being started as a "Fis" case suggests that the evidence gathering that has already gone on behind the scenes is to a far higher standard of proof than the Compliance stage - that's why I suggested getting a copy of everything and preparing to completely disprove, by provable fact and logical calculation that the error is not on your part.

 

I am truly delighted that you have found my advice useful and sincerely wish you all the best in proving your innocence.

 

To Jabba Jones : I respect your opinion and knowledge but acknowledge that you and I are looking at this situation from entirely opposing views - I as an outsider and who has experience of the 'customer-facing' environment, you from your equally valid viewpoint. I recognise that for every one of these appointments that you do read about on the internet that has gone wrong, there must be a hundred more that don't have any issues and by default therefore will not appear in threads like these, therefore a balanced view needs to be kept. Not all CO's are bad, but there's three people on this one thread alone who have had bad experiences with these staff in the past in terms of not necessarily rudeness, but a certain methodology to the questioning, which tends at times to gravitate towards abruptness and accusation. It can be seen how this abruptness and almost bullying behaviour could be construed as rudeness.

 

Ginz : Please keep us updated.

[GinZ]

lee100: thanks for the reassurance. I think you are trying to settle me, so thank you very much for the kind sentiment.

It is good to know that others have been through similar and come out ok.

I am not that scared of her, just infuriated by her treatment.

I still don't know what I'm being investigated for so how do I 'provide the facts and then some'?

To provide the facts on every possibility is rather overwhelming.

Sure, if I got a response to my query regarding what it actually is then of course I would build a pack of evidence. However this has not been stated and not answered when I asked.

 

Who do I go to to ask to see somebody else?

Again, when I did enquire about contact numbers etc, she only gave me her one and stated that it was the only one I needed.

Does anyone know of the procedure or title of job of whom I should speak to, to get someone new?

Whenever I go in the local JC I am asked who I saw last time. I want to avoid saying I spoke to this lady else 'security' will just go and inform her that I am there.

[lee100]

Hi,

 

I'd just send in all the paperwork (copies) which was requested, with proof that you'd already informed them, as you are doing.

 

As for the rude Woman, maybe take her out of the equation and just ask JCP for the relevant Manager?

[GinZ]

lee100: When you say send them, do you mean via post?

I have a meeting for later this week to deliver them.

 

Please remember that she refused to give me any evidence in writing that I had submitted anything, or even anything to say I had attended the first meeting at all. I asked for it more than once or twice and even said it was quite unreasonable not be given anything as such.

 

How do I ask JCP for the relevant manager?

By JCP do you mean there is a head office i can call to get this info? Or do you mean the local office which I attend in person?

I would love to be able to be interviewed and not 'interviewed' by somebody else.

 

I am still going to prepare for the worst, however.

 

I have no no guarantees of anything, and ultimately, nobody would know the truth if I suddenly was made an example of all because I didn't know the relevant procedures/information to defend myself.

 

Oh, and I found the letter originally sent to me. Nowhere on the letter does it state it is a compliance interview. It just says I need to come in for an interview.

 

Edit (added):

I have an interview arranged for later this week.

I am intending to try to phone the JC I would attend to try to find out how to get somebody else.

 

Now, if I don't get a reply before I supposed to attend, then should I attend the original interview?

Or should I ring her to ask for it to be cancelled/postponed? If I did that how do I avoid potentially getting her back up by saying I want somebody else?

 

Also, I am thinking of sending in the paperwork with what she requested plus my letters from spring 2010 showing I had obviously declared savings of 11.5K. Who should I send this to since I don;t want her dealing with it?

Also, I have some old current account statements showing I got a reduced rate (first one I can find is 92.60 for a fortnightly payment on 27.05.09). I am thinking of including a photocopy of this to prove I did in fact receive a reduced rate. Any suggestions on whether this is a bad or good idea?

 

Additonal edit:

 

I just found figures for 2009/10 benefit rates, and based on the max of £70.35 and what I was paid per week of £46.30. It would appear that they calculated that I declared just over £12K - this seems to tally with the savings records I have just received from the banks for that far back. Or in fact it may be that I declared a bit more than I had! But only a bit mind you. It does feel like the kind of thing I would have done, since my administration skills back then are not what they are now and I preferred to err on the side of caution.

 

Should I print off the benefit rates thing I found and present it together with the bank statement showing I got only £92.60/fortnight?

 

I know I spent a bit of my savings each month from about June 2010 onwards which, had I kept informing the DWP of, may have meant I was entitled to more per week.

 

Would this help to show that I had no intention of claiming more than I was entitled to? and Should I show something for this? or just leave it until if/when it is questioned why i had declared all that money and then suddenly in Summer 2011 had no savings. Will it do any harm?

 

This is in response to when I said I wanted many more meetings to prove my innocence and then she barked (it really was close to shouting): "There is such a thing as deprivation of accounts, you know!"

(Bear in mind that when I asked her what that phrase meant, she said it was what people did to hide their money - something which I now believe is misinformation).

 

I just want to make sure I am covered for anything and everything as I can foresee as a possible danger, as I've done my damndest best to be as fair and honest as possible during the nightmare that is being unemployed.

 

End additional edit.

 

 

So with this extra added stuff to show I did declared my savings and hence received a reduced rate (I started claiming on 10.08.08), I feel it's prudent to ensure I get some sort of evidence that I did indeed submit it at the forthcoming second interview. But since I was blankly refused receipts of any kind, then that's why I'm thinking of sending it via recorded delivery.

 

But with not knowing to whom I should address it to, I would like any advice on how best to go about doing this.

Can anybody help pls?

Edited February 12, 2012 by GinZ
Further questions, JSA calculation

[GinZ]

I have tried to get through to the Compliance Manager for over an hour now. Firstly via the main number only to be dealt with switchboard who continually put me through to a deadline.

 

I finally decided to use the 'say no to 0870' website to see if that gave any numbers. It did and that's when I've got through to my local JCP and got a receptionist who was helpful.

 

I asked if he knew the name of the compliance manager and he said he didn't know but could put me through to the compliance team to find out more.

 

Thankfully he gave me the number and I thought I recognised it. I said I would call after lunch.

 

This gave me the opportunity to check. The number turns out to be the number for the lady with whom I'm dealing with already and wanting to change as my interviewer.

 

I obviously want to avoid speaking to the lady who has given me such bad treatment to organise getting somebody else.

 

Anybody got any ideas of how to get the desired result?

 

I will try putting 141 to block caller id ( I think this only works on BT) and calling. But a potential stumbling block is if they want my N.I. number before helping me with anything else...

 

Update: called today just after 12pm:

 

After ages of getting put through to dead lines...

 

I finally used 'Say no to 0870' to get a more direct number.

 

Got through to sb helpful who gave me then name of the Manager and Deputy with their extension numbers (am I allowed to post these numbers and names here to help anybody else?)

 

Rang the manager after 2pm.

The manager informed me that is very difficult to change the interviewer and it is not something he would normally do.

 

I went on giving examples of what happened and how this was unfair. Eventually he came to the point and stated that no matter if I got interviewed by somebody else, it would not change the facts.

 

I said if it only involved the facts then I would be happy to be interviewed by the same interviewer I had. I really had to argue my points hard before he took me seriously.

 

He kept trying to go down the avenue of stating that he's being very reasonable by offering to attend the interview as an independent observer. He repeated this offer several times.

 

I had already mentioned that I would go down the route of making an official complaint and include my MP if I did not get to be interviewed by somebody else.

 

He gave me the complaints procedure (which is to write a letter and give it to him!) and I asked how this would affect the appointment I had later this week with the lady. He said they are two separate issues and that the interview would go ahead as they are very busy.

 

He then offered to see me tomorrow morning regarding this and I should type off a complaint letter asap.

 

I said I would be taking advisement as to whether I should attend the meeting tomorrow as I preferred to do everything in writing.

 

I did give my surname and the day on which the interview would take place (Was I stupid to do this?)

 

It appears he will do everything he can to avoid me being seen by somebody else. He even tried to say that it wasn't bad of my interviewer not to allow me to amend my statement before I signed by saying that they are not used to dealing with somebody as articulate as me. I responded by saying that shouldn't they be dealing with cases on a case by case basis? He said yes, but then argued how it wouldn't change the facts...

 

I would like to get my interviewer changed. Am scared of meeting him in person as I will have no evidence of what transpires.

Since it is quite obvious he is trying to block my reasonable requests I believe I may get bulllied/intimidated into coming to an 'arrangement' whereby I get screwed because I am creating a fuss.

 

What should I do next?

Edited February 13, 2012 by GinZ
Update, called and requested interviewer be changed.

[GinZ]

Update: I have just rung the Complaints manager to cancel the meeting tomorrow morning. I said I would be taking advice (hopefully from CAG!) and would get in touch again with him as soon as I knew how best to take it forward. He was polite, and did say that of course I could and would be happy to help me once I got in touch again.

 

May I add that I forgot to mention from the previous phone call that he did state that the interview later this week must go ahead as if I didn't then my benefits would have to brought to a halt.

 

I found this to be a bit harsch when I had just stated that I would be happy to be interviewed at the same time or even today were I to get interviewed by somebody else. I had asked to the effect on the interview and whether it would be postponed pending the outcome of the complaints procedure.

[CRH71]

I have tried to get through to the Compliance Manager for over an hour now. Firstly via the main number only to be dealt with switchboard who continually put me through to a deadline.

 

I finally decided to use the 'say no to 0870' website to see if that gave any numbers. It did and that's when I've got through to my local JCP and got a receptionist who was helpful.

 

I asked if he knew the name of the compliance manager and he said he didn't know but could put me through to the compliance team to find out more.

 

Thankfully he gave me the number and I thought I recognised it. I said I would call after lunch.

 

This gave me the opportunity to check. The number turns out to be the number for the lady with whom I'm dealing with already and wanting to change as my interviewer.

 

I obviously want to avoid speaking to the lady who has given me such bad treatment to organise getting somebody else.

 

Anybody got any ideas of how to get the desired result?

 

I will try putting 141 to block caller id ( I think this only works on BT) and calling. But a potential stumbling block is if they want my N.I. number before helping me with anything else...

 

To the best of my knowledge, 141 to withhold your number works no matter whom the telecoms provider

 

 

Update: called today just after 12pm:

 

After ages of getting put through to dead lines...

 

I finally used 'Say no to 0870' to get a more direct number.

 

Got through to sb helpful who gave me then name of the Manager and Deputy with their extension numbers (am I allowed to post these numbers and names here to help anybody else?)

 

Rang the manager after 2pm.

The manager informed me that is very difficult to change the interviewer and it is not something he would normally do.

 

I went on giving examples of what happened and how this was unfair. Eventually he came to the point and stated that no matter if I got interviewed by somebody else, it would not change the facts.

 

What facts? The fact that they've got some inconsistencies in their side of the paperwork and don't want to listen to your sequence of events and proof?

 

 

I said if it only involved the facts then I would be happy to be interviewed by the same interviewer I had. I really had to argue my points hard before he took me seriously.

 

He kept trying to go down the avenue of stating that he's being very reasonable by offering to attend the interview as an independent observer. He repeated this offer several times.

 

How can a manager be "independent" in this scenario? I think you're wise to be cautious.

 

I had already mentioned that I would go down the route of making an official complaint and include my MP if I did not get to be interviewed by somebody else.

 

He gave me the complaints procedure (which is to write a letter and give it to him!) and I asked how this would affect the appointment I had later this week with the lady. He said they are two separate issues and that the interview would go ahead as they are very busy.

 

In my eyes this is one issue - your treatment and false accusation and I feel you are correct in standing your ground with not seeing this horrible woman again.

 

He then offered to see me tomorrow morning regarding this and I should type off a complaint letter asap.

 

I said I would be taking advisement as to whether I should attend the meeting tomorrow as I preferred to do everything in writing.

 

Good for you. Given the treatment so far and the line of the questioning, it's prudent to only communicate in writing going forwards - it will remove the elements of interpretation and ambiguity from the equation. Facts only.

 

I did give my surname and the day on which the interview would take place (Was I stupid to do this?)

 

It appears he will do everything he can to avoid me being seen by somebody else. He even tried to say that it wasn't bad of my interviewer not to allow me to amend my statement before I signed by saying that they are not used to dealing with somebody as articulate as me. I responded by saying that shouldn't they be dealing with cases on a case by case basis? He said yes, but then argued how it wouldn't change the facts...

 

This is the whole point of all your post - what facts? It's evident, from what you have said so far that your version of the facts vary to theirs. In their eyes, clearly, you are guilty of deprivation of capital and of not declaring savings. From the facts you have given thus far you can refute that with evidence and should do so.

 

I would like to get my interviewer changed. Am scared of meeting him in person as I will have no evidence of what transpires.

Since it is quite obvious he is trying to block my reasonable requests I believe I may get bulllied/intimidated into coming to an 'arrangement' whereby I get screwed because I am creating a fuss.

 

The facts being inconsistent between the two sets of paperwork (yours and theirs) gives you every right to "make a fuss" - you have the right to put your side to the investigator(s) without being interrupted or spoken over and, should you not be able to do so, you have the right to terminate the interview and insist on contact in writing only.

 

What should I do next?

 

Hi GinZ, please see my comments above in red.

[CRH71]

Update: I have just rung the Complaints manager to cancel the meeting tomorrow morning. I said I would be taking advice (hopefully from CAG!) and would get in touch again with him as soon as I knew how best to take it forward. He was polite, and did say that of course I could and would be happy to help me once I got in touch again.

 

It's now dawned on him that you're serious about complaining and making them take you seriously. Most "chancers" would not have got to this stage as they'd be concerned about the manager reviewing the case again. I still think a complaint to their superiors, cc'ing your local MP would be a wise move given your treatment thus far. If nothing else, it will make the issue visibile at Higher Management level and may lead to re-training or an amendment to procedures and processes.

 

May I add that I forgot to mention from the previous phone call that he did state that the interview later this week must go ahead as if I didn't then my benefits would have to brought to a halt.

 

That's standard practice for them - and adds more weight to my thoughts that this is far more than a "compliance" interview.

 

I found this to be a bit harsch when I had just stated that I would be happy to be interviewed at the same time or even today were I to get interviewed by somebody else. I had asked to the effect on the interview and whether it would be postponed pending the outcome of the complaints procedure.

 

Not sure on this point - in our scenario, we appealed immediately and the benefits were paid again. If they sanction you, appeal and this time use your evidence to support your case as to why your benefits should not be sanctioned.

[CRH71]

lee100: When you say send them, do you mean via post?

I have a meeting for later this week to deliver them.

 

Please remember that she refused to give me any evidence in writing that I had submitted anything, or even anything to say I had attended the first meeting at all. I asked for it more than once or twice and even said it was quite unreasonable not be given anything as such.

 

How do I ask JCP for the relevant manager?

By JCP do you mean there is a head office i can call to get this info? Or do you mean the local office which I attend in person?

I would love to be able to be interviewed and not 'interviewed' by somebody else.

 

I am still going to prepare for the worst, however.

 

I have no no guarantees of anything, and ultimately, nobody would know the truth if I suddenly was made an example of all because I didn't know the relevant procedures/information to defend myself.

 

You wouldn't be the first, and I doubt you'd be the last - targets are targets and have to be met on an ongoing basis....

 

Oh, and I found the letter originally sent to me. Nowhere on the letter does it state it is a compliance interview. It just says I need to come in for an interview.

 

Any comments on there about a "doubt having arisen on your claim", or "Interview Under Caution"?

 

Edit (added):

I have an interview arranged for later this week.

I am intending to try to phone the JC I would attend to try to find out how to get somebody else.

 

Now, if I don't get a reply before I supposed to attend, then should I attend the original interview?

Or should I ring her to ask for it to be cancelled/postponed? If I did that how do I avoid potentially getting her back up by saying I want somebody else?

 

Just ask for it to be rescheduled as you are taking further advice.

 

Also, I am thinking of sending in the paperwork with what she requested plus my letters from spring 2010 showing I had obviously declared savings of 11.5K. Who should I send this to since I don;t want her dealing with it?

Also, I have some old current account statements showing I got a reduced rate (first one I can find is 92.60 for a fortnightly payment on 27.05.09). I am thinking of including a photocopy of this to prove I did in fact receive a reduced rate. Any suggestions on whether this is a bad or good idea?

 

Very good idea. Get all your facts together, provide a covering letter with them and then send the whole lot in (to the Compliance Manager) by Registered Post and get yourself a Certificate of Posting as well. Oh, and don't forget to print off the Registered Delivery signature on the RM Website and add it to your file.

 

Additonal edit:

 

I just found figures for 2009/10 benefit rates, and based on the max of £70.35 and what I was paid per week of £46.30. It would appear that they calculated that I declared just over £12K - this seems to tally with the savings records I have just received from the banks for that far back. Or in fact it may be that I declared a bit more than I had! But only a bit mind you. It does feel like the kind of thing I would have done, since my administration skills back then are not what they are now and I preferred to err on the side of caution.

 

Excellent work. Well found and well calculated. This evidence, along with copy bank statements showing the reduced payments going in is important to your case. This is the key point to your proof of innocence in this matter.

 

Should I print off the benefit rates thing I found and present it together with the bank statement showing I got only £92.60/fortnight?

 

I know I spent a bit of my savings each month from about June 2010 onwards which, had I kept informing the DWP of, may have meant I was entitled to more per week.

 

Would this help to show that I had no intention of claiming more than I was entitled to? and Should I show something for this? or just leave it until if/when it is questioned why i had declared all that money and then suddenly in Summer 2011 had no savings. Will it do any harm?

 

To a reasonable interviewer? No, it won't do any harm - in fact it would strengthen your case. However to her? It's likely to be ignored, conveniently.

 

This is in response to when I said I wanted many more meetings to prove my innocence and then she barked (it really was close to shouting): "There is such a thing as deprivation of accounts, you know!"

(Bear in mind that when I asked her what that phrase meant, she said it was what people did to hide their money - something which I now believe is misinformation).

 

It's only deprivation when it is clear that there was DELIBERATE intent to spend your savings to get them below the applicable lower limit (£6k) for means tested benefits. In your case, you can PROVE that the money was spent on day-to-day living expenses and not, for example, blown on a new car or foreign holidays. To have reduced your capital from £12k in 2008 to £6k (or less) in 2011 shows that the money was "trickled" out of your account (and was declared to them in the first place - you've got the benefit rates, calculations and bank statements to prove this) and therefore, unless there are sudden "peaks" in the amounts withdrawn (i.e. lump sums for a holiday, etc.) then it could be argued that the money was spent on day-to-day living expenses and improving your prospects for employment (as you have indeed stated yourself already).

 

I just want to make sure I am covered for anything and everything as I can foresee as a possible danger, as I've done my damndest best to be as fair and honest as possible during the nightmare that is being unemployed.

 

End additional edit.

 

 

So with this extra added stuff to show I did declared my savings and hence received a reduced rate (I started claiming on 10.08.08), I feel it's prudent to ensure I get some sort of evidence that I did indeed submit it at the forthcoming second interview. But since I was blankly refused receipts of any kind, then that's why I'm thinking of sending it via recorded delivery.

 

REGISTERED post, not Recorded. Recorded is no longer a guaranteed sign-on-delivery service (I've seen my postman "signing" for Recorded parcels that he's shoved through my door subsequently). Registered can be tracked via the RM Website and the signature can be printed off and attached to your copy of the letter to prove delivery to their offices. It would also be prudent to get a free "Certificate of Posting" from the Post Office when you send this evidence in.

 

But with not knowing to whom I should address it to, I would like any advice on how best to go about doing this.

Can anybody help pls?

 

..

[GinZ]

Hiya CRH71,

I am prepping a letter of complaint and will show it on here (minus personal details) before I send it as I've never sent a letter to my MP before and don;t know if there are any protocols I don't konw about.

Do you suggest I send in my case notes at the same time as the letter which goes out to the compliance manager or send it separately?

 

Will be on again once the letter is drafted. I am worried about how to keep it succinct (definitely not one of my strong points!) for the MP and yet with enough points for the CO manager to show the awful treatment from the CO I had.

 

I really, really appreciated the support. Especially when it comes to points like not knowing whether the fuss will make my situation worse.

I have found, in the past, that it does, unless you know how to back it up with further actions if necessary. Knowing the process and being helped along by peeps like yourself allow me to remain calm and not worry too much about whether I am acting like an idiot.

 

Thanks every so much CRH71.

 

Edit: quick answer...

The original letter's opening paragraph states:

 

We need to see you in order to discuss the benefit we are currently paying you because a query has arisen on your claim. We need to ensure your payments are correct and it is essential that you attend this interview to discuss this matter.

 

Er, hold on. I just realised. This statement says they should only be investigating the benefit they are currently paying me.

So do they have the right and why are they investigating my prior claim/s?!

 

Do they have the right to do this when the letter states that it is only to do with the current claim?

Edited February 13, 2012 by GinZ

[CRH71]

Hiya CRH71,

I am prepping a letter of complaint and will show it on here (minus personal details) before I send it as I've never sent a letter to my MP before and don;t know if there are any protocols I don't konw about.

Do you suggest I send in my case notes at the same time as the letter which goes out to the compliance manager or send it separately?

 

You're writing a letter of complaint about the member of staff, not appealing your case.For this letter, your case notes don't matter. Keep the letter short, to the point and use bullet points if necessary. Focus on the treatment, manner of speech and the overall attitude and how unprofessional it was, and how it reflects poorly upon the JCP, rather than how it made you feel..

 

Will be on again once the letter is drafted. I am worried about how to keep it succinct (definitely not one of my strong points!) for the MP and yet with enough points for the CO manager to show the awful treatment from the CO I had.

 

Try the tips above - I always find the use of bullet points helpful to retain focus and keep matters succinct.

 

I really, really appreciated the support. Especially when it comes to points like not knowing whether the fuss will make my situation worse.

I have found, in the past, that it does, unless you know how to back it up with further actions if necessary. Knowing the process and being helped along by peeps like yourself allow me to remain calm and not worry too much about whether I am acting like an idiot.

 

Thanks every so much CRH71.

 

My pleasure

 

Edit: quick answer...

The original letter's opening paragraph states:

 

We need to see you in order to discuss the benefit we are currently paying you because a query has arisen on your claim. We need to ensure your payments are correct and it is essential that you attend this interview to discuss this matter.

 

Er, hold on. I just realised. This statement says they should only be investigating the benefit they are currently paying me.

So do they have the right and why are they investigating my prior claim/s?!

 

Do they have the right to do this when the letter states that it is only to do with the current claim?

 

That is an interesting point, but probably not one for open debate on a public forum! IMO no, but there are loads of rules and regulations around benefits and it's entirely feasible that the word "claim" could relate to ANY JSA claim recorded against your NI Number, not just the current one.

[GinZ]

Hi, I have this so far, but I know it still needs work to shorten it further. What do you think?

 

Dear Mr ... I have recently received a letter asking me to attend an interview at short notice regarding 'a query' that has arisen on my claim. I have no problem in investigating the payments or look into my circumstances to ensure the payments made are correct and justly paid. I do however have a problem with the lack of professionalism, intimidation and aggressive nature of the compliance officer and the way in which she carried out the interview and her general dealings with me, both in person and on the phone. Here are some of the key points I think should be brought to your attention:

• The interview was certainly not conducted in a professional manner
  
• The manner in which the interview was conducted using intimidation and scaremongering as the main form of trying to scare information out of me rather than just communicating with me to inform me to provide information as requested
  
• The setup of the interview seemed to be all about assuming I had committed fraud even though I was and am complying with her in every way I can and the onus was on me to prove my innocence rather than work together to clear up the 'query' on my claim
  
• She stated it was my responsibility to inform the JCP of any change of circumstances (COC). When I asked her for some paperwork or website address where I could find out exactly what the rules are pertaining to a COC, she replied by stating that she would not be providing me with any written information from the interview
  
• I was refused any sort of receipt or evidence to show I had complied by attending the interview and had submitted paperwork as asked
  
• I was not given an answer when I asked what the query on my claim was, even though I asked this more than once. I still do not know what the query is about.
  
• I was not at any stage offered to write my statement myself even though I stated I would be writing down my own notes during the interview
  
• I was continually interrupted, talked over, ignored me and she sometimes raised her voice in response to any questions I had which were not exactly along the line of questioning she wanted to follow
  
• I was only ever given 3-4 seconds of time to write down important information. When I asked her to hold on as I was still writing, she did not listen and continued to talk without acknowledgement of my request
  
• I had to push her to write down certain statements which I wanted noted down. She then sometimes paraphrased them instead of writing them down as I'd asked them to be written as such
  
• She got very annoyed when I wanted time to go over what was in the statement I was being asked to sign
  
• In fact she got very annoyed several times when I asked questions. Each time she did not let me finish what I was saying and talked over me. She then repeated her phrase of 'if you listen to what you're being told, it will become clear.'
  
• She pressured me to just leave the statement as it was and sign it before I felt ready to do so
  
• Even after calling a week or so later to arrange a second meeting she still interrupted me and talked over me on the telephone conversation. She was only interested in my statements showing I had over £6K. She was not interested in me having paperwork to show that I had declared my savings.
  
• She put the phone down on me whilst I was in the middle of saying thank you and goodbye
  

Overall, I hope you can understand that the manner, the line of questioning and unreasonable behaviour by the interviewer leads me to be most disappointed by the treatment I have received.

I certainly would hope that JCP staff would behave in a more professional manner and not be so ignorant of pertinent information which is important to my claim.

Yours sincerely,

Me

[GinZ]

Dammit, took too long and now can't edit the previous post.

 

Yesterday, I sent off a large pack of information regarding my investigation, via special delivery (i.e. registered post) to ensure I have proof they received it. It contained the following:

 

1) what I was specifically asked to bring by the interviewer

2)extra very important information which the interviewer tried her best to ignore, these were:

a) letter from Glasgow JCP showing I had declared 11.5K in May 2010

b) copy of earliest entry of reduced amount showing that I had declared over 12K back in May 2009, which is just after 6 months after I first signed on in Nov 08

c) To show my compliance and interest in resolving this as quickly and smoothly as possible, I also added an ISA account's further history. It was from the point that the interviewer specifically mentioned an ISA. This ISA was transferred to another in 2010. So I included the ISA the monies were transferred to. This ISA shows that large amounts of monies were transferred out (about 1K nearly every or every other month) until the account ran out of funds

3)I also gave them a copy of everything I had disclosed the first time round (to ensure I get a receipt for doing that in the first place)

 

 

I have rung the manager and we have an appointment tomorrow to discuss my complaint regarding the interviewer. I forgot to check he'd received the paperwork, but I'm sure he has. He sounded quite compliant this time around.

 

I have also prepared a S.A.R. which will go out registered delivery with the complaint letter in the next few days. I am planning to take a copy of the letter to the meeting and mention how the original is on it's way via registered delivery.

 

Does anybody know to whom I should make out a £10 cheque to the DWP?

 

I read somewhere that although you don't have to pay, it's something that must be included else they are not obliged to fully disclose all your information.

Can anybody confirm?

 

So onto my letter: it is on here for constructive criticism and for anybody else like me who is far from comfortable and not well-practised at sending formal letters:

 

"Dear Mr (Manager),

This letter is a follow up to my telephone call to you yesterday when I requested that I be no longer dealt with by the compliance officer named (Interviewer's name). I do not have her surname as she refused to disclose this.

Over the phone I explained to you how I was being unfairly treated by the bias nature in which (Interviewer's name)'s questioning was not allowing me to be represented fairly.

Although you gave some examples of how I should try to understand her position, upon reiterating my case you agreed that she had avoided some important information which would be wholly relevant to the investigation. Furthermore, I fail to see how not treating cases on a case by case basis will lead to a fair assessment of the investigation.

I therefore give you some more examples of her behaviour in writing below:

1. I was not answered when I specifically asked what the query on my claim was;

2. I was not allowed to ask questions without being interrupted, talked over, ignored, spoken to in a patronising manner with her eyes-rolling and shaking of her head, or even responded to in an aggressive and loud manner;

3. If not ignored the only response I got to my questions was: 'if you listen to what is being said then it will become clear'. This answer was clearly an inappropriate to many of the questions I raised;

4. Pertinent information I mentioned was ignored and even avoided when I repeated them;

5. It was obvious that I was there only to answer questions and any responses I gave that fell outside her 'spiel' were not only not welcome, but treated with contempt;

6. I was not being given fair time to write down information;

7. I was not offered at any stage to write my own statement;

8. She refused to write down some statement I wanted noted down; when she did she paraphrased them even when I stated I wanted them written down verbatim

9. She got very annoyed when I wanted to amend the statement. She raised her voice and I was not given due time to go over my statement in a calm manner. I would not have signed the statement that day had it not been for the incredibly pressure-filled atmosphere created by the interviewer who stated I had to sign it before I left;

10. I was refused any information that would help me understand the process further. One such example was my request for her to give me the information and/or a website address in order to find out the rules pertaining to what constitutes a change of circumstances;

11. I was told that I would be receiving nothing in writing in relation to what happened in the interview;

12. She failed to acknowledge the importance of having my name correctly noted down on two separate occasions

13. She gave me misinformation which I found out by correcting her. She refused to acknowledge she had lied until I repeated myself several times. At which point she read out more accurate information which vindicated me;

14. She said, more than once, that she had interviewed someone last year very much like me who is now sitting in prison;

15. She also stated that people who are as nervous as me turn out to be criminals.

I hope you will now understand that the atmosphere created by the interviewer was one of hostility, intimidation and sprinkled with added scaremongering which is not a professional attitude. This makes a mockery of the JCP and the fair system it is supposed to be carrying out.

I am therefore officially making a complaint against (Interviewer's name) and request that I do not be interviewed any further by her.

I have more points and with more detail, if necessary, but I hope we can deal with this swiftly and succinctly.

I have also sent a pack of paperwork, via registered delivery, relating to this investigation which, when you look at it will show that I have you will find very useful to prove my innocence and that this in no way is this an issue of delaying the investigation.

I hope you will be able to answer my question that still has not been answered by (Interviewer's name): What is the query on my claim?

I look forward to your written response, sent to the above address, regarding this matter. Please include details of the person you report to you in your response.

Your sincerely,

Me"

 

Many thanks all

and thanks to CRH71 on your tips. I've tried my best to keep it short (hope I succeeded!)

[GinZ]

Hi all. Update on goings on:

 

I met with the compliance manager. My second compliance interview was scheduled for the very next hour.

I handed him the letter and asked him to read it. The meeting was a bit of a farce

 

He took none of it seriously, using tactics such as:

-belittling the language in the letter and amending it and acting as if he were a teacher correcting it;

-asking me to clarify the letter's point with further examples every other sentence or so;

-suggesting he would attend the interview as an independent observer, clarifying that 'the interviewer will do what she normally does and if she does anything like you've mentioned in the letter then I'll be there to correct her;

-suggesting that the complaint is a different issue to the compliance interview so the interview must go ahead;

-suggesting the issues in my complaint letter be sorted out in the compliance interview;

-suggesting that the issues in the letter are in the past so going forward the compliance interview must be attended;

-suggesting I must attend the interview and then to have a meeting with the manager after the second compliance interview;

-I pushed to have a copy or some way of accessing the guidance he would be referring to when getting;

-suggesting that I should care about how much work they have on;

-saying that they are not used to dealing with people as articulate as myself so the interviewer just used the same tactics she's always used;

-saying that since they had a lot of work to do, I should attend the interview the same day to allow them to get on with their work

-a fair amount of other stuff to wear me down. I came very close to giving in several times.

 

Overall, I got the impression he just didn't want to deal with my complaint. He wanted it out of the way in whatever way he could.

 

He only got serious as it became close the end of the hour and he was getting nowhere and claimed we were going round in circles. It was not me, but him that was encircling himself. He even said, "you're more of a beaureaucrat than me!"

 

Please note that I took an independent observer and did not introduce the manager to my friend, and I took a pen and paper and took notes.

I found this an invaluable tool, by taking a moment to finish what I was writing whilst thinking about any responses I needed to make, (or whether I needed to respond at all), to not get drawn in to agreeing to what the manager wanted rather than deal with the issues in my complaint letter.

 

He then said he would write to me in 10 days. I got him to clarify what he would write to me about:

my complaint letter

decision on whether I will still have the same interviewer or not

when the next compliance interview will be

 

I also kept asking him to inform me by asking, "is anything else you ought to tell me about the process?"

Very little was forthcoming but I gave him ample opportunity to inform me of any potential negarive outcomes should there be any as a result of making a fuss.

 

At the very end, he said, "okay. If that's the way you want to play it."

He stood up, we shook hands and he stormed off.

 

Note that before the meeting I asked the manager for the details of to whom I should make a £10 cheque payable to send off with a S.A.R. He agreed he would send me the details via email the very next morning. He has not done so and it is now nearly a week later.

 

I have sent off the signed complaints letter, S.A.R. form, and a cover note explaining how I am disappointed that he has still not sent contacted me via email to give me details of the cheque payee for the S.A.R. I also noted in the letter that although he hasn't contacted re the cheque details, I trust he 'would contact me within 10 days (you didn't stipulate 10 working days) as you told me at the meeting'.

 

More updates later after events happen.

 

I'll keep reading info and trying not to panic about how much power these unreasonable people potentially have.

 

Any information to help prepare for potential outcomes would be appreciated. Thanks all.

[antone]

I'll need to digest this a bit, but there's one easy bit to answer - the DWP does not charge for a SAR. That's why no-one can tell you who to make the cheque payable to. Just send your SAR if you want too. You'll get the same information - there isn't a "paid SAR" and "unpaid SAR".

[antone]

OK. First off, have we established what it is that Compliance are concerned about? I seem to recall that there was a question about the amount of savings you have, is that correct? And that your actual savings have been fully declared, is that also correct?

 

You may have been treated badly by Compliance officers - these things do happen - but please understand that this is an entirely separate issue. The Compliance officer could have subjected you to a stream of four-lettered invective, and gotten fired as a result, but they'll still want to check out the facts of your case. So here's the key question: is the underlying issue resolved? If not, I very strongly advise that you get it resolved before proceeding any further with any complaint.

 

Here is some extra information. You can find the DWP SAR request form here.

 

I say again that no fee is required. Also, you requested information about the guidelines given to Compliance Officers. These are available in the CAG library. Select the file named compliance.zip here, where you'll get the documents as rtf files.