Interview Under Caution

[charliesgranny]

Thankyou for your support

[sparky514]

you are most welcome, was his solicitor with him, and did he have anything to say?

[SKJP]

So they DO have evidence, despite them telling your solicitor (twice?) that they didn't? They need pulling up on that. As far as I know, the DWP have no obligation to reveal the full extent of their evidence to solicitors (it just so happens that solicitors are often successful in extracting the info), but to lie is a different kettle of fish.

 

Did your son give anything away during IUC? Did he admit anything, or agree with any of their allegations? When was the video taken? How many days was he filmed for, and over what period of time? Was he filmed at different times of day, or just coming and going to work? Did the DWP mention any other 'evidence' that provides a timescale for this 'fraud'?

 

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but all are relevant.

 

If your son kept schtum, if the video was shot in the recent past, and if that's all they've got, it will be difficult for the decision maker (who will look at his DLA award in the near future) to revise his award any further back than the first day filming took place, in the absence of any other hard evidence. This is good-ish news, in that any overpayment that arises could be substantially reduced from what the DWP wants. (I must point out, though, that the presence of other evidence - for example, statements from his employers stating that your son is fine and dandy - can push the date they're looking at backwards)

 

If this video is all they have, you need to get in letter-writing mode. Write to them stating that their evidence is weak, and that you demand that they take the matter to the decison maker as quickly as possible. Mention the stress and strain this is having on your son. Point out that being disabled doesn't equate to being a 'sicknote' employee. Get the attention of your MP, GP, charities, etc., and point out to the DWP that you have consulted other such people in support of the case. However, you need to be very careful of what you say in your correspondence - do not make any admissions whatsoever.

 

Address your concerns to the manager of the person(s) who conducted the IUC, and state that you would like your comments to be forwarded to the DM. Request in advance that the DM backs up any decision with a full written statement of reasons (basically, put the wind up the DM, and make it known in advance that you'll fight their decision to the hilt, if it's not made on proper grounds).

[charliesgranny]

He did not admit to anything as there is nothing to admit to, and there was two video clips both taken of him getting out the car at work and walking into the office which as I say they said themselves is 10metres (well within that allowed for DLA) The videos were both taken in march in the same week (sorry don`t know which week). We ahve contacted the MP today and the gp called earlier and is ringing back tomorrow he has advised that my son goes on the sick. My son is contacting the union tomorrow to see if they can be of any help also.

[charliesgranny]

The solicitor pulled them up on the statement they made regarding the fact that he does not take time off work, he reminded them that to qualify for DLA you do need to stay away from work.

[jabba jones]

some kind person who works with him has said he walks from his car to the office door without pain and they even provided a short video recording of him walking the 10metres.

 

Who took the video?

His work colleague or the investigator/s?

[charliesgranny]

A work colleague took the video.

[SKJP]

Two video clips isn't much. Just two clips in total? Or a mish-mash of seperate clips put into two files to show to you? If it's two clips in total, i.e. just two incidences of 'walking', then tell them to go forth and multiply. Two clips is nowt! Anything else...photos, statements, etc? As jabba jones says, WHO took them?

 

And do you mean March 2012? If so, they've jumped onto this 'fraud' pretty quickly!! A premature IUC for weak reasons, methinks.

 

ETA: I see you say a work colleague took the vids. Pah. Get this in your correspondence. I could shoot amateur video of someone commiting murder, but it doesn't necessarily mean it'd be admissable in court. The DWP's surveillance, however, is conducted with strictly-controlled equipment that is supposed to be tamper-proof, hence why a video from the DWP would hold more weight than that of a work colleague who (presumably) isn't trained in the art of official surveillance.

[sparky514]

Not much of a colleague is he, what an utter b*****d, I'm a really placid person normally, but if someone did that to my son I would at his workplace, ripping someones head off. I am so angry for you. I do hope your son finds out who did it. I have a saying, what goes around, comes around, and the person that did this will get his.

[jabba jones]

A work colleague took the video.

 

I'm not sure it can be used then.

 

It needs checking but there are huge questions regarding CHIS's http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/surveillance-and-undercover-human-intelligence-sources/covert-human-intelligence-sources-chis.html

Which FIS investigators are not allowed to use.

 

& RIPA's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000. which covers surveillance & CHIS.

 

These are both very important & if the rules have not been followed there would be major trouble.

 

Have a word with the solicitor.

[charliesgranny]

Yes two short video clips and from march 2012, and yes it was from a work colleague, so I do hope the case is so weak it will get them nowhere. Now I feel a bit calmer and my son has calmed down when I look at it written here they dont have a lot to go with so they are going to have to try a lot harder.

[SKJP]

I'm not sure it can be used then.

 

It needs checking but there are huge questions regarding CHIS's http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/surveillance-and-undercover-human-intelligence-sources/covert-human-intelligence-sources-chis.html

Which FIS investigators are not allowed to use.

 

& RIPA's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000. which covers surveillance & CHIS.

 

These are both very important & if the rules have not been followed there would be major trouble.

 

Have a word with the solicitor.

 

In your experience, jabba, and just based on what's written my charliesgranny on this thread, do you (like me) suspect that this should have been a case for compliance, rather an a full-on IUC jobby??

[charliesgranny]

Not much of a colleague is he, what an utter b*****d, I'm a really placid person normally, but if someone did that to my son I would at his workplace, ripping someones head off. I am so angry for you. I do hope your son finds out who did it. I have a saying, what goes around, comes around, and the person that did this will get his.

 

This is exactly how I have been feeling since the interview, I have just calmed down in the last half hour or so and usually nothing can ryall me.

[kk3852]

Sorry but to be honest the time scale doesn't make any sense. To conduct a proper DLA IUC they must have sight of the original claim form where they can see what difficulties have been declared.

 

IF, and its a very big IF, they have relied on taped evidence sent in by a work colleague (and I dont believe that any investigator would/or could do this) there is absolutely no way that they would have received an allegation in March and they would be in a position to IUC in April.

 

That would lead me to believe that it is video evidence taken by the investigators and unless they really do not know how to do their job, they would not have called him in for interview with just 2 days of filming the same journey and with absolutely no other evidence. Unless, the claim form says things such as he cannot walk any distance at all/cannot go out alone. If the evidence they found wasn't obviously at odds with the claim form his DLA claim should have been sent off for a reassessment.

[charliesgranny]

Well we only know what they told him today which was they received the info in march and as we have no other way of knowing we can only go by this. Having said that they originally said they had no evidence when they had the clips so who knows but, my concern is my son.

[queensclose]

i,d speak with the union and bosses about the malicious and vindictive gossip.

[Nystagmite]

The DWP accept that people do have better, average and bad days. Walking 10 meters in 2 days proves nothing really.

 

This is disgusting. It would be different if he claimed he couldn't walk and was running a marathon.

[jabba jones]

In your experience, jabba, and just based on what's written my charliesgranny on this thread, do you (like me) suspect that this should have been a case for compliance, rather an a full-on IUC jobby??

 

Compliance do not deal with DLA only cases so it has to be FIS, but investigations take months.

 

What KK3852 has pointed out is correct. It can take over a month just to get the DLA claim docs & until you get them its very hard to start the investigation as you don't know what the subject has said about their condition. So the time scales mentioned above do not make sense.

 

On this case where you've got someone coming & going to work on a regular basis, as long as there are suitable locations to set up, surveillance should have been fairly routine & using the equipment I had available to me I'd expect to have more than 2 short videos & from more than 1 location.

[Stan Lee]

So, assuming that the contents of this thread are correct, we have an FIS investigation using evidence that a) may not be admissible under the law because it is from a third party, b) contains footage that probably doesn't prove anything because of the duration of time the footage lasts for, and c) is being used prematurely as it's probable/possible that the original claim forms haven't been scrutinized (did they not show the original claims form at the start of the interview?) On top of this you have the investigators allegedly lying to the solicitor by saying that they don't have any evidence, when they were sitting on this third-party footage? If your solicitor is any good, they should be having a field day with this. I hope this gets sorted, pronto.

[charliesgranny]

Well just a quick update, my son has recieved a letter today to say his DLA has been suspended until they sort all this out. I suspect now after the bank holiday we will hear from motability and they will take the car away so, he will really struggle now for work. It is a case of guilty until proven innocent.

[Nystagmite]

Sorry to hear that. It might be worth speaking to Motability on Tuesday about this.

[charliesgranny]

Sorry to hear that. It might be worth speaking to Motability on Tuesday about this.

 

I am going to ring them first thing tuesday and see what they say but, I think it will be sooner rather than later when they take the car.

[Chanei]

Hi

 

I am in a very similar situation and have followed your thread, was your son successful in getting his car back? i hope so

[charliesgranny]

Hi there, they took the car and it went straight to auction so he can`t get it back. He still has not heard from the dwp yet and its 10 weeks now, they did say it would be 3-4 months. We have had to get into debt to get him a car to get to work. I hope you are coping with your situation better than my son is he has lost 2 stone in weight and the gp is extremely worried.

[Nystagmite]

Disgusting.

 

Is he able to put in a new claim?