Time limit for prosecution/investigation?

[sandra80]

Hi all,

 

I have been watching this forum for some time and it has truly been a source of great information, so thank you for that!

 

I have a question relating to benefit fraud. I have a family member who has schizophrenia. Before the diagnosis, he was studying at post grad level and received a loan (approx £8,000) from a charity on the condition that when he finished his studies and started working he would repay it. Shortly after he had a major "episode" and his studies were suspended, and the money remained in an account untouched.

 

He then applied for benefits for the first time, and passed incapacity test etc and was awarded income support and housing benefit etc. He didn't declare this money as he felt it wasn't his, and it remained untouched for several years. His plan was that when his mental health stabilized he would be able to return to study, leave benefits etc, but unfortunately he was very unwell for 5+ years.

 

Fast forward to last year........he had a very severe episode and during this received a letter from DWP stating they had found this capital undeclared and he was called for IUC. This was delayed on medical grounds, and intended that when he was more stable he would attend and explain himself. His benefits were stopped, and he went to stay with family member abroad who has expertise in mental health nursing. He has been away for nearly 18 months and has recently become better mentally. HOWEVER, he is afraid to come back to UK for fear that he will be arrested etc, which would really set him off again.

 

Sorry that this is long, but I'm trying to give as much info as possible. So my question is, if he were to return to UK would this case be reopened, or is there a time limit that once passed they can't restart this investigation? As i said before he didn't attend the IUC in the first place. If he returned and reapplied for benefits would this still be against his name? It has been 18 months now.

 

Many thanks in advance,

 

Sandra

[sandra80]

Just wanted to add that after several months of being away the money for the loan was returned to the charity (it had never been touched by him) and the account was closed.

[renegadeimp]

He wont be arrested. He would have to explain himself and what has happened, but if he did have a warrant for his arrest, the people living at his previous address, or his next of kin would have been contacted.

[sandra80]

So does that mean that the investigation remains open permanently until *solved*? I did some internet searches and was under the impression that after a certain time period if there was not enough evidence for prosecution then the file had to be destroyed?

 

Many thanks!

[citizenkain]

the benefits people never forget,my father owed housing benefit from 1992,he had to pay it back in 2008 when he bought his council house,maybe it depends what department it is but they dont seem to get rid of files!

[sandra80]

I don't think paying it back would be so much of an issue for him, it is being prosecuted that would. Would they still want to prosecute after this time?

 

Many thanks for the replies, i really appreciate it.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

I have a feeling citizen kain could be right. I was about to say that things like fare evasion have come back to haunt people here, so it's possible that a benefits problem could.

 

I've flagged your thread for the benefits experts on the site team in case they can add anything. They should be around later today.

 

My best, HB

[sandra80]

Many thanks. I will await their verdict!

[Stan Lee]

Many thanks. I will await their verdict!

 

I am merely a layman in regards to this topic, but I believe I read that whilst there is a time limit for investigations from the date of discovery by the government (which can be taken as the date of the IUC) of twelve months, that this doesn't necessarily apply if the claimant/ex claimant is being evasive. The DWP can and do try cases outside that have exceeded the statutory time limit, and I would hazard a guess that they could argue that in case X it was necessary because claimant y was being evasive. (Note I am not saying that the person you are posting about was bring evasive, merely making a general point.) Don't take this as gospel, but I would say that the DWP would be legally covered to recommence investigations in the situation you described.

[sandra80]

Thanks for the reply. I think the family were hoping that legal action would not be taken as this will really set him back again. He is extremely paranoid at the best of times, but would be unable to cope at all with IUC (his specialists wrote as such in a report).

 

i would love to hear of any DWP legislation that would cover this, although i do know that they have the right to exercise their own "rules" if needs be.

 

Again many thanks for the replies.

[Stan Lee]

In the absence of anyone being able to help you further here (it does seem quite a specific case that you mention) I would be tempted to make contact with welfare rights and discuss your case with them. It may be possible for the individual in question to submit or read out a written statement in lieu of being interviewed (and the advice I have read suggests that such a statement should be drafted with the input of a lawyer specialised in benefits cases and/or a welfare rights adviser). Often, the welfare rights adviser may know the local CFIS/LA investigators.

 

Certainly, whilst the official position is that paying off any debt owed to the government does not influence the decision to prosecute, I believe that when the investigator submits the report to the Procurator Fiscal/Crown Prosecution Service they must detail what has been paid back (if any money at all). I will let you draw your own inferences from that; I would say that clearing the debt to the government cannot hurt in the case you mention.

 

Finally, I may well have read about the exceptions to the statutory time limit in the Benefit Fraud Investigators manual, which is available on this site (and on the internet). I would perhaps caution you though that spending a lot of time looking at legislation/gemming up on their manuals is the path to madness, and instead utilise the services of professionals like Welfare Rights who know the law, may well know the local investigators, and will be able to help you in figuring out the next step forward.

[sandra80]

Thanks a lot Stan. Another question i have is is it possible even if a prosecution goes ahead for it to be kept out of the public news, eg community newspapers (which have a court section)?

[Stan Lee]

I don't know for sure, but I think it is tricky at best, once a decision to prosecute has been made. The relevant office often inform the local papers of the case, but even if they don't, I believe that papers often have court reporters (once again, I could be wrong). A couple of things that occured to me after the last post I made: 1) A big part of prosecutions is that it is 'in the public interest', and I have read guidelines that have quite clearly stated that cases should not be taken forward if it will generate negative publicity for the government. This doesn't guarantee immunity from prosecution, but it does raise a big question mark in regards to the story you have told: severe cases of mental health will be one (and, as unfair as it may seem,I would suspect that a diagnosis of schizophrenia would carry much more weight than depression, but that is just my own hunch). A good lawyer (specialised in social security law) will keep you right on this. 2) If/when you speak to welfare rights, have the overpayment checked. Very often the calculations surrounding overpayments are wrong, and people who deal with this professionally (Neil Bateman/Andy Mallick) have gone on record as saying that all overpayments should be checked, whatever the cause of the overpayment and/or the severity of the case.

[sandra80]

The thing is (regarding overpayment) that once a report from his specialist was sent off to DWP stating he was not fit for IUC nothing was ever heard again. There was never any mention of a figure, just the "we believe you have committed fraud due to undeclared capital" letter. His mother has never heard anything either, she thought perhaps they might have been looking for him after a certain period of time, but nothing. This gave them some hope that things perhaps had been forgiven and forgotten (I know that is not likely!)

[Stan Lee]

Again, we are way outside my comfort zone here, but I believe that demands for overpayments and investigations of fraud are two distinct processes. Just to clarify, there was never anymore contact made from the DWP overpayments department in regards to the suspected OP?

[sandra80]

Not as far as I am aware. He left his place of address shortly after the letter and ceased all benefits and DWP were aware of this.

[Stan Lee]

Did he have his mail forwarded/redirected? Overpayment decisions can take some time to come through (I've heard of cases of six months plus.)

[sandra80]

I don't think so. Although his Mum says that he gave her address for his GP/hospital specialists, so I'm not sure if DWP are privvy to this information from these?

[Stan Lee]

I would doubt it. It may well be that an overpayment has been raised, and I would suggest that, if you want to wrap this up and get some closure on it, find out if an overpayment bill has been issued, and for how much.

[jabba jones]

I would doubt it. It may well be that an overpayment has been raised, and I would suggest that, if you want to wrap this up and get some closure on it, find out if an overpayment bill has been issued, and for how much.

 

Yes I agree.

 

I can only say how I would have dealt with this case, but this could differ from investigator to investigator & from area to area.

 

As soon as I got the medical letter showing an IUC was not possible I'd doubt whether a prosecution could ever happen.

 

However there would still be a potential overpayment to calculated & as an IUC letter had been issued, the case could not be downgraded to Compliance to deal with.

 

Therefore I'd have sent all the evidence that would have been shown at the IUC, to a decision maker. They would then disallow the claim & an overpayment would be calculated.

 

At this point the FIS case could be closed (no investigator wants old, un-prosecutable cases clogging up their case load) & in theory your relative would be informed of the disallowance & overpayment in writing.

 

However as Stan Lee has suggested, if the DWP do not have a current address then I presume these letters would not be issued & there's a pretty good chance the debt centre are just waiting for a new address so they can continue their recovery action.

[sandra80]

Many thanks for the replies, they have been most helpful, I am passing on any info to my sister in law. How would they go about finding out whether an overpayment bill has been issued?

[jabba jones]

I would add though, that disappearing abroad doesn't look good so in theory as long as the investigator is doing regular checks, the case could still be open, but if the medical letter has been taken seriously then this imo would be pretty pointless.