worried about iuc

[lochnettie80]

hi can anybody give me any advice

 

at the end of november my partner got his job back after being made redundant in may, i was still working part time so we claimed h/b and c/t for that period,

 

however i didn't phone h/b to tell them until january 5th as i was told i would be intitled to a 4 week run on as my partner had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks (just).

 

so my benefit stopped immediatly as from phoning them or so i thought i recived a few revised benefit letters each time phone and told them i was no longer entitled to benefit s could the stop it which they did

 

then here it comes august 1st 3 letters arrive 1 for housing benefit over payment, one for council tax over payment and 1 demanding payment in 14days

 

now yesterday i get home and another letter asking me to ring with in 7days to arrange an appointment for an IUC if i fail a court or jury may decide in my absence and my faliure to say any thing basically wouldn't look good , i really didnt think 5 weeks was such a major deal i was obviously wrong

 

does any one know what steps i should take i really dont know what to do?

[Conniff]

Phone calls are recorded (or supposed to be), so you can ask them to have the phone call transcrips available at the iuc if you think they will be of value to you. How much are they claiming you have been overpaid ?

[lochnettie80]

thanks conniff

 

they say i owe 414 h/b and 125 c/b ive already started to pay c/b back they have added it to this years bill

 

the letter just says

 

my enquires reveal some concerns with your claim, in that your partner commenced employment, as this may relate to an offence i wish to ask you some questions , and the letter staes that it is reguarding benefit form the day after my partner started work

[Conniff]

I don't think you have a lot to worry about with amounts that small especially as you are already refunding the overpayments of ct

. It is more procedure and to ensure that you didn't deliberately falsify the form.

[lochnettie80]

that makes me feel a lot better, if anything for the whole time i was claiming they had me down as working more hours and earning more than actually did however by faffing around with it i would only have got an extra 5 pound a week housing benefit

 

thanks

 

so u dont think theres any need for a solicitor as the letter states i may wish to bring one to the interview

[Conniff]

You wont need a solicitor unless they charge you with something, that sentence is as stupid as the people who work for the department.

I would have my mobile phone in my shirt pocket and record the conversation. You don't have to tell them you are recording.

[lochnettie80]

i dont know if my phone will record but will give it a go x

[Benefits Bod]

I don't understand why you are being asked to an IUC. If the Council has questions, those can be put in writing. Further, the Council has, apparently, already made its decision so to ask FURTHER questions means either it doesn't know what it is doing or believes something more untoward has taken place. If the former, there is plainly no need to attend. If the latter, my advice would be to tread very carefully.

 

Based on the info given so far, my advice is to write to the Council asking that any questions it has are put to you in writing. There is no legal basis on which the Council can insist you attend an IUC. If the crux turns out to be that you took too long to notify the Council of a change, it's worth noting that the legislation relating to the duty to notify changes (for HB/CTB) has no time limit. What would then potentially be relevant is the clarity of instructions within any letters the Council sent to you as to what changes you had to notify and when.

 

I don't think you have to worry unduly at this time so long as you are careful and don't inadvertently say something in all innocence that unnecessarily opens the door to the Council.

 

Why so cautious in this case? The wording in the Council's letter about Courts / Juries deciding the outcome if a claimant fails to attend an IUC is abhorrent. It is plainly intended, deliberately, to cause fear and is an unadulterated bullying tactic. As observed above, the outcome relating to benefit entitlement has already been determined - hence the overpayment. So, the only "outcome" that anything else can be about is whether a criminal offence has been committed. The Council should be transparent about that and it appears not to have been. Perhaps the Council in question needs to boost its conviction/penalty stats with a cheap (and wholly unwarranted) attempt to bully a claimant into accepting a caution? I don't know but, based on the info so far, I don't trust the motives of the Council.

[Conniff]

Why so cautious in this case? The wording in the Council's letter about Courts / Juries deciding the outcome if a claimant fails to attend an IUC is abhorrent.

 

Exactly what I was thinking, this is akin to **** debt collectors so I suppose we should also class the council the same.

 

I meant to mention that you don't have to attend if you don't want to.

[lochnettie80]

I don't understand why you are being asked to an IUC. If the Council has questions, those can be put in writing. Further, the Council has, apparently, already made its decision so to ask FURTHER questions means either it doesn't know what it is doing or believes something more untoward has taken place. If the former, there is plainly no need to attend. If the latter, my advice would be to tread very carefully.

 

Based on the info given so far, my advice is to write to the Council asking that any questions it has are put to you in writing. There is no legal basis on which the Council can insist you attend an IUC. If the crux turns out to be that you took too long to notify the Council of a change, it's worth noting that the legislation relating to the duty to notify changes (for HB/CTB) has no time limit. What would then potentially be relevant is the clarity of instructions within any letters the Council sent to you as to what changes you had to notify and when.

 

I don't think you have to worry unduly at this time so long as you are careful and don't inadvertently say something in all innocence that unnecessarily opens the door to the Council.

 

Why so cautious in this case? The wording in the Council's letter about Courts / Juries deciding the outcome if a claimant fails to attend an IUC is abhorrent. It is plainly intended, deliberately, to cause fear and is an unadulterated bullying tactic. As observed above, the outcome relating to benefit entitlement has already been determined - hence the overpayment. So, the only "outcome" that anything else can be about is whether a criminal offence has been committed. The Council should be transparent about that and it appears not to have been. Perhaps the Council in question needs to boost its conviction/penalty stats with a cheap (and wholly unwarranted) attempt to bully a claimant into accepting a caution? I don't know but, based on the info so far, I don't trust the motives of the Council.

 

can u put this abit easier i just keep reading it over and over and its not sinking in , surely there must have some legal basis to ask me to go for IUC

 

thanks

[estellyn]

This is the second post I've read recently about people being called for an IUC after the overpayment decision has been made. Very strange.

[Benefits Bod]

There is nothing in the law, currently, that means you HAVE to attend an IUC. Ask the council for the legislation - it will only have guidance or policy or procedure (none of which are the law).

 

My suggestion, based on the info you gave, was that you should write to the Council asking them to put any questions to you IN WRITING. In other words, if the Council wants info, it doesn't need an IUC - it can be done in a letter to you. Doing it that way means you still have the option of attending the IUC afterwards, but it isn't compulsory.

 

Just for info, it has quickly become apparent in responses to other posts I've made there will be other posters advising you to attend the IUC anyway. The decision will be yours based on which posted info you believe to be most appropriate.

[lochnettie80]

This is the second post I've read recently about people being called for an IUC after the overpayment decision has been made. Very strange.

 

hi estellyn

 

is this not normally how it is done?

[jabba jones]

hi estellyn

 

is this not normally how it is done?

 

It's not unusual for a Local Authority benefit only case.

[estellyn]

It's not unusual for a Local Authority benefit only case.

 

Admittedly I've been out of the look for a while. So it could well be more common now.

[lochnettie80]

hi all i have been speaking to a family member today about this and she was called in for IUC too because she failed to inform them about minimum wage increase, she and 2 others she knew ,she refused to sign anything and got a solicitor to write to them ,the other 2 signed the papers at the interview and ended up with cautions for fraud. i still haven't rang for appointment

[confuciused]

Hi, Just going back to the letter, what was the exact wording about what would happen if you didn't attend the IUC? Could you quote it word by word? It is possible that such a threat could be construed as illegal it seems to me so the exact wording is important. Anyone else agree?

[antone]

Hi, Just going back to the letter, what was the exact wording about what would happen if you didn't attend the IUC? Could you quote it word by word? It is possible that such a threat could be construed as illegal it seems to me so the exact wording is important. Anyone else agree?

 

If a letter suggests that someone is legally obliged to attend an IUC then yes, it is not correct and should be changed. I can't speak to whether it's actually illegal. One of the things an IUC subject must be told as part of the caution is that they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time.

[miracle 1978]

I agree with Benefits Bod. Please seek legal advice. I was very naive and went an IUC on my own at the moment they are taking me to court. Not to frighten you but they use what you say in these interviews against you. If i knew what I know now I would NOT have attended the interview without legal advice. Dont worry go to CAB office asap

[confuciused]

Re the threat in the letter is it not a breach of PACE guidance to make threats in order to induce someone to attend an IUC? Even if they are later told that they don't have to be there?

[antone]

Re the threat in the letter is it not a breach of PACE guidance to make threats in order to induce someone to attend an IUC? Even if they are later told that they don't have to be there?

 

I suppose there's a difference between threatening you and laying out possible consequences. It's probably OK to say that failing to attend will not stop any prosecution, it will merely mean that the decision on whether or not to prosecute will be made without hearing your evidence. If they say something that isn't true, for example, imply that you can be arrested merely for failing to attend, that's probably a violation.

[confuciused]

Do you know what the likely consequence of a violation of PACE would be? Would it undermine any prosecution, or would it merely mean that the Council were given a ticking off?

[antone]

Do you know what the likely consequence of a violation of PACE would be? Would it undermine any prosecution, or would it merely mean that the Council were given a ticking off?

 

Good question, and well outside my area of knowledge. I mean, I believe a judge can be asked to rule as inadmissible any evidence gathered improperly, but beyond that, I don't know.

[confuciused]

Maybe someone else knows? Any angle is worth pursuing....

[lochnettie80]

if it helps the actual wording on the letter says :please contact me on the above number where an appointment can be arranged for you to attend xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx for an interview under caution.

 

should you fail to make contact a court or jury may draw an adverse inference from your failure or refusal to say anything .

 

i have made an appointment now and will go see citizens advice before i go , dont know what good it will do because i really dont know why i am going apart from that i took so many weeks to tell them my partner was working