Formal interview with Benefit Investigator

[cayasm]

After all the trails of this last year with Housing benefit, they suspended my claim in January 2012,, the asked for evidence Bank statements going back to August 2011 wich were duly handed in.

 

2wks later they say they know of another account in which transfers were made from, which is true but was one back in 2009 but had no funds in the account when I applied for HB and JSA and in actuality I gave them the account details, it didn't come from them, plus all of which was handed into the compliance officer.

 

So since February i've literaly been handing in the same documents, even when they moved the goalposts and have handed in statements from the begining f my claim, inlcuding the defunct account which is closed and has had no activity.

 

This has caused horrid problems with my landlord a housin society who tried to have me evicted back in June, that was suspended until 2nd August when I appear in court again.

 

I feel that I'm being harrassed and they are working in conjunction with the housing society (hence why the judge through it out the last time) now the investigator who wasn't available prior intiial evction hearing has since returned 3wks ago and despite several letters/phone calls has now told me that a formal interview is planned for 24th July a mere 10 days before my next eviction hearing.

 

Where can I go for advice I've no money will the CAB be able to have someone in court with me, I've no idea what is going to happen, I literally cannot give any more information that asked for.

 

I've proved I don't have or never have had the excess capital the statements bear that out and yet they still persist, I fear my eviction will go through on the 2nd August and why has it taken them so lon to resolve this 7 months.

 

Help!! thanks

[cayasm]

Just to add, I've sent in statements in February March April June, quite often the same information.

 

I forgot to mention that in a statement made by another investigatior that they will be checking the banking institute --what does that mean.

[cayasm]

I've read a few other threads similar to this, however, I need to know where I can get advice they tell me that I can't have someone from CAB or the Welfare rights in the interview with me only a solicitor is this right.

 

They say in the letter they are giving me the opportunity to explain mysef and will tell me more about the alleation on the day, which clearly this gives me no opportunity to supply additional evidence if required, which then puts me on the back foot.

 

Surely by telling mwhat the allegations are ives me a chance to explain i've a feeling I'm just going to be there empty handed, and the way the letter was written came across in a threatning manner.

[Stan Lee]

In regards to whether or not a WR/CAB representative can sit in, see this thread on RIGHTSNET:

 

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum-archive/index9c55.html

 

My understanding is that many WR/CAB employees can't (or won't) attend an IUC, and I have heard that budget cuts have something to do with this. This is anecdotal and should not be treated as gospel.

 

Also, see Neil Bateman's statement (about halfway down this thread) on the importance of speaking to an experienced criminal law solicitor:

 

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum-archive/index540d.html

[hensteeth]

In regards to whether or not a WR/CAB representative can sit in, see this thread on RIGHTSNET:

 

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum-archive/index9c55.html

 

My understanding is that many WR/CAB employees can't (or won't) attend an IUC, and I have heard that budget cuts have something to do with this. This is anecdotal and should not be treated as gospel.

 

Also, see Neil Bateman's statement (about halfway down this thread) on the importance of speaking to an experienced criminal law solicitor:

 

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum-archive/index540d.html

 

 

Excellent advice!!

 

I would add, that the poster can and should obtain disclosure before the interview. The claimant is entitled to know what the allegations are and what evidence they are using to back them up.

 

To go 'blind' into an interview knowing nothing (with the LA saying that they will tell them during the interview) is asking for trouble.

 

Justice is not done, if the evidence is 'brought out of the hat one piece at a time' by the LA. You should at least have time beforehand to examine the evidence.

[Stan Lee]

It is -- of course -- prudent to get full disclosure of the evidence that the F.I.s hold on an individual, although it tends to only be solicitors who can do so. I have heard of Welfare Rights advocates gaining disclosure of evidence against a client, but I believe this is rare, and will probably depend on the discretion of the investigative officers.

[bio]

As Stan Lee rightly says, disclosure can only be given to a solicitor, the OP cannot ask for it prior to the IUC for themselves.

[hensteeth]

As Stan Lee rightly says, disclosure can only be given to a solicitor, the OP cannot ask for it prior to the IUC for themselves.

 

Says who???

 

Never heard such garbage!

 

Are you actually saying that only with a solicitor you are much more able to prepare your arguments than without one?

 

Not true. Every individual is entitled to be advised of the evidence and line of enquiry. What about the cases where a solicitor is not engaged - how are people supposed to defend themselves?

 

I do know that investigators hate having to tip up their evidence before hand for fear of the claimant being prewarned and more able to say the right things.

 

But to expect someone to go into a formal interview under caution and have no knowledge of what is happening is ridiculous. Then have questions thrown at them for which they are not prepared for, and then have the interviewer play cat and mouse by introducing evidence at times to suit them, is a recipee for disaster.

 

If the investigator refuses to disclose, then there are solutions, but to be honest it can get very heavy with a court application being made to force disclosure.

 

Much better in cases of non cooperation by the investigator is to either ask a solicitor for a small fee to demand disclosure or during the interview refuse to continue until disclosure is complete.

 

These investigators must think that they are back in the 1960's where it is acceptable to give the claimant a couple of slaps to wake them up! Times when evidence was thrown at them as if from a magic hat.

 

All I can say, and I spent years interviewing the public for wrong doings, I even had the power to refuse the person being interviewed legal representation - but every interview was conducted in a fair way. I first of all outlined what it was about, showed the evidence that I will be asking questions on and finally asking if they understand everything and whether they had any questions to ask before we started. I never hid anything, there is no need to. With those types of interviews, the questions asked where written down by me and then the answers given once the interviewed person was happy with what they were saying.

 

Recording machines were and still are not used in those types of interviews, it was sufficient only to have my signature on each statement page after the the interviewed person had signed. There could never be any question that the statements were not true as I was also an Officer of the High Court as well as a Civil Servant.

[kk3852]

All I can say, and I spent years interviewing the public for wrong doings, I even had the power to refuse the person being interviewed legal representation - but every interview was conducted in a fair way. I first of all outlined what it was about, showed the evidence that I will be asking questions on and finally asking if they understand everything and whether they had any questions to ask before we started. I never hid anything, there is no need to. With those types of interviews, the questions asked where written down by me and then the answers given once the interviewed person was happy with what they were saying.

 

Recording machines were and still are not used in those types of interviews, it was sufficient only to have my signature on each statement page after the the interviewed person had signed. There could never be any question that the statements were not true as I was also an Officer of the High Court as well as a Civil Servant.

 

I take it that this was pre-PACE ??

 

I think that you will find that there is no legal obligation to give even a legal representative full disclosure prior to an IUC, only the reason why the interview is being conducted.

 

In practice most investigators will give full disclose to a solicitor but it is their decision as to what and how much is given. It certainly would not be given to anyone other than a legal rep.

 

If you did the interviews as you describe then you have breached legislation in a very obvious way.

[hensteeth]

I take it that this was pre-PACE ??

 

I think that you will find that there is no legal obligation to give even a legal representative full disclosure prior to an IUC, only the reason why the interview is being conducted.

 

In practice most investigators will give full disclose to a solicitor but it is their decision as to what and how much is given. It certainly would not be given to anyone other than a legal rep.

 

If you did the interviews as you describe then you have breached legislation in a very obvious way.

 

No - post PACE.

Up to 2009

 

Interviews can be undertaken in many ways, there is no need for a recorder.

 

And sorry, a legal rep as you say AND the interviewee are entitled to disclosure if they so ask. I always made a point of being open from the start telling the person being interviewed exactly what records and evidence we will be looking at. I would hate to think that the 'old' way of pulling out evidence from under a folder and being thrust in front of someone and asking for their comments still goes on. All that finished or should have pre PACE.

PACE is basically all about being open, fair and honest with nothing being done that amounts to subterfuge or underhanded tatics.

 

By the way I was trained by the best at New Scotland Yard on PACE procedures. Even the old idea of putting pressure on someone is outlawed - not even tapping a pen on the table whilst waiting for a reply is permissiible.

 

Mind you what we used to get up to back in the 60's and 70's would make your hair curl! Yes we did have rooms with no windows, one table and two chairs and one lightbulb - and sometimes left someone alone for an hours or so to 'cook' with their thoughts after letting them know that they had no rights! Not fair I know but it was the way then.

[Stan Lee]

I take it that this was pre-PACE ??

 

I think that you will find that there is no legal obligation to give even a legal representative full disclosure prior to an IUC, only the reason why the interview is being conducted.

 

In practice most investigators will give full disclose to a solicitor but it is their decision as to what and how much is given. It certainly would not be given to anyone other than a legal rep.

 

If you did the interviews as you describe then you have breached legislation in a very obvious way.

 

KK, my understanding was that the investigator would give as much information as was required to allow a solicitor to be able to properly advise their client. I am neither a DWP employee nor a criminal specialist so I freely admit I could be wrong. I think we can all agree that if the OP wants disclosure of the case against him, then his mostly likely avenue to obtain that is via a lawyer speaking to the investigators prior to the interview.

[hensteeth]

KK, my understanding was that the investigator would give as much information as was required to allow a solicitor to be able to properly advise their client. I am neither a DWP employee nor a criminal specialist so I freely admit I could be wrong. I think we can all agree that if the OP wants disclosure of the case against him, then his mostly likely avenue to obtain that is via a lawyer speaking to the investigators prior to the interview.

 

That is the easiest way forward as I said earlier.

[Stan Lee]

I've read a few other threads similar to this, however, I need to know where I can get advice they tell me that I can't have someone from CAB or the Welfare rights in the interview with me only a solicitor is this right.

 

They say in the letter they are giving me the opportunity to explain mysef and will tell me more about the alleation on the day, which clearly this gives me no opportunity to supply additional evidence if required, which then puts me on the back foot.

 

Surely by telling mwhat the allegations are ives me a chance to explain i've a feeling I'm just going to be there empty handed, and the way the letter was written came across in a threatning manner.

 

Sorry Cayasm, having reread this thread, I didn't spell out why I posted the first RIGHTSNET link: it seems that it falls within the power of LAs to stipulate that they do not accept adults in an IUC in a supportive capacity (certainly the experience of WRs Advisers in 2007 suggests that some LAs were doing just this), and so it does not seem too large a leap to then say that only solicitors are accepted.As for the actual legal basis for this, I'm a bit fuzzier, but in my experience on these forums, kk3852 seems to offer an informed perspective on such matters. In any case, my understanding is that many CAB and WRs representatives do not attend IUCs anyway, and so this is perhaps a moot point.

 

But that does not mean that you shouldn't seek informed advice; WRs are very good with civil matters such as double-checking overpayments, and it is possible that they will have experience/know the local investigators, and so will be able to give you something like an informed opinion. I've not gone through your other thread with a toothpick, and so you may already be in contact with other support agencies, but given the complexities of your case, if you haven't already done so, a chat with Welfare Rights may not go amiss.

[confuciused]

If you live in or near London and want the name of a solicitor who is experienced in IUCs, PM me and I will give you the name of one.