Fraud Interview at Jobcentre

[nocando1]

Can anyone offer me advice on what I might expect from an interview under caution? Got the letter today and very worried. Is it true they rarely prosecute if you admit and offer to pay back?

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I'll move your thread to the benefits forum and hope the guys there will be able to help you. What benefit were you claiming that seems to have caused the problem please?

 

My best, HB

[RebeccaPidgeon]

It depends on whether, what they suspect that you of done, is proven by the evidence. For example, the interview may have been called due to hard evidence being collated, or simply a report of a suspicion.

 

I suggest that you seek guidance from someone at the local Advice Centre, who will discuss the issues with you, and may even be able to arrange for a Legal Advisor to sit with you at the interview.

 

Best option - don't incriminate yourself. All that you can do is answer each question presented to you in the best way that you can. If that requires you to plead ignorance, or suggest that you cannot remember issues or facts, go with the flow.

[SWLABR9]

If it's under caution in my view you need a representative with you. As Rebecca says, CAB's your best bet.

[nocando1]

Thanks for the advice. Somebody said that if you just admit to everything they just get you to pay the funds back and it dont go to court. Is that right? My int is on Friday and will that be enough time to get somebody from the CAB to come with me. I thought they needed weeks of advance warning. Any other advice would be very helpful.

[jadeybags]

People have been prosecuted after they have paid it back. Some of us don't even get invited to IUC's until after the over payment amount has been established & paying it back is in place. If it was as easy as admitting wrong doing & just paying it back, I expect a lot of people would take the risk with benefit fraud?

Totally depends what the issue is, how long it's been going on, the amount, how many involved. If the amount is over 2k, it'll be referred to someone to decide if they prosecute, that decision can take months, by which time quite often people are paying it back.

You should be able to postpone the interview if you would rather have more time to find a solicitor, but sometimes they wont attend interviews under caution anyway. IUC didn't used to be covered under legal aid. Maybe it's changed now though. They can't do an awful lot anyway at the interview, apart from go in there & find out exactly what evidence if any they have against you, so you're forewarned first.

When I consulted one he said to get back in touch after the interview if I needed to. But I knew what it was about before going for the interview. And didn't end up needing him.

[hine moa]

I had a solicitor attend my IUC and that was on Legal Aid.

I found that the CAB didn't know what to suggest and didn't want to get involved at all, just sent me off to look for a solicitors window that advertised Legal Aid!

[jadeybags]

I had a solicitor attend my IUC and that was on Legal Aid.

I found that the CAB didn't know what to suggest and didn't want to get involved at all, just sent me off to look for a solicitors window that advertised Legal Aid!

 

My CAB weren't the best either to be honest. They did give me a list of legal aid solicitors, but my best help was a friend that used to work for CAB in a different area. And he gave me his benefit solicitors phone number. The guy didn't live near me, but he was all set to arrange a meet up if it was needed. Glad they include IUC's on legal aid now. Never did understand that.

[NoworNever]

Overpayment under £2,000 with an full admittance would normally result in an administrative penalty these days.

[charliesgranny]

My son had an IUC and the CAB where we live were not relly any help at all, they were so busy with other matters they told us just to go straight to a solicitor and the welfare rights were booked for months ahead so no joy there either. My son works so had to pay for his solicitor which was £240 for the interview. He has still had his benefit taken away and is having to fight to prove he is innocent of all accusations which is costing even more for the solicitor.

[bio]

Overpayment under £2,000 with an full admittance would normally result in an administrative penalty these days.

 

Except that the DWP stopped issuing Ad Pens wef 01/04/2012. LA's still do though.

[Stan Lee]

Except that the DWP stopped issuing Ad Pens wef 01/04/2012. LA's still do though.

 

BIO, I could be wrong, but I thought it was cautions that were no longer administered; I thought ad pens had got tougher?

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/may-2012/dwp045-12.shtml

 

As to the concerns of the OP, I would suggest exploring all avenues of advice that you can, which would include CAB, welfare rights, and seeking legal advice from a solicitor experienced in social security law/benefits fraud. I must admit to having been more impressed with welfare rights over CAB myself, but it will depend on the individuals in the CAB and their background, and so you may find CAB very useful. I would also suggest looking up law firms in your local area on yell, and e-mailing asking them specifically if they have experience in benefits fraud/interviews under caution. Often they will offer an initial consultation period (it might be half an hour) for a chat to see if they can help you or not. As for legal aid, it will depend very much on your circumstances, if an IUC is covered at all (anecdotally it seems that some people have them covered by legal aid, but others do not).

[bio]

Sorry Stan - you are spot on, its me rushing and not reading the question properly.

[sinkinghelp]

I have a thread on here DWP Interview under caution

 

When I had my interview under caution I could not get legal aid. The local CAB did not come to IUC's and welfare rights had only one person left suitably qualified and they were booked up weeks ahead so I had no choice to go alone

I could not afford the £160.00 plus VAT for a solicitor to attend

 

November 2011 my nightmare started and its still rolling on

 

 

regards

 

sinkinghelp

[Stan Lee]

nocando1

 

Sinkinghelp has had a very difficult time, as is evidenced by his thread, but not everyone who posts on here has had a similar experience. Yes, there are horror stories, but there are also cases of people reporting back that the investigators were fair and not ogres (Jadeybags is once such user, and there are others I found trawling through the CAG archives). It is not my place to name names, but there are also investigators (and other DWP/LA staff) who post on here and give up their own free time to help people.

 

Thus, in the absence of further information from yourself (and don't feel obliged to fill in any details if you don't want to -- if I were a fraud investigator I would keep a close eye on this forum), you need to be aware that you are about to attend a recorded interview that has been arranged because the investigators feel that they have an articulable suspicion of fraud surrounding your claim. This interview can and may be used as evidence in court, and so you need to be aware that it is a serious matter with substantial implications.

 

There are a number of options surrounding the interview:

 

1) don't attend. As far as I can tell, this is generally not recommended, as I believe that the fraud investigators are more inclined to refer these on for consideration for prosecution (although I have heard of people receiving administrative penalties through the post, but this may well be very rare). I have read that a solicitor may advise you not to attend if there is already substantial evidence against you that you cannot refute, that you are effectively guilty, and the investigators intend to refer for prosecution anyway. This would be something to discuss with an experienced solicitor.

 

2) Attend, but 'no comment' through the interview. I believe in England, if you do this, negative inferences can be drawn from this in court -- and so you're best not to do this; either attend, or prepare a written statement (the law on silence is different in Scottish law).

 

3) Read from a pre-drafted statement; this is where you attend and read a pre-drafted statement that you have written up. This avoids interrogation, but the investigators may want to ask you about things that you have not mentioned in your statement, and also, you have to be careful not to implicate yourself. If you were going to do this, I would try and speak to someone in Welfare Rights, and see if they would listen to your case and perhaps read your statement.

 

4) Attend the interview and explain your side of the story. If you do this, make sure and take a pad of paper in with you, and I have been told that is best to keep your answers short: don't over elaborate or get yourself tied up in knots. The staff involved are there to investigate fraud, and so it won't necessarily be all sweetness and light, and you may get a proper grilling. Just be aware that you can leave at any time, and/or take breaks through the proceedings.

 

I would suggest that professional advice is in order: I would consult your CAB and Welfare Rights if you have them locally, and try and source a lawyer specialised in benefit fraud/IUCs. Before attending CAB/Welfare Rights, have all the relevant paperwork in order.

[jabba jones]

Sorry Stan - you are spot on, its me rushing and not reading the question properly.

 

But only if all of the offence (the period of the sanctionable overpayment) has taken place since April 2012 I believe.

 

Therefore most current cases where at least part of the offence will be from before April should still have an Ad Pen or Caution option available to them.

 

Someone currently working on FIS will hopefully verify this???

[jadeybags]

nocando1

 

Sinkinghelp has had a very difficult time, as is evidenced by his thread, but not everyone who posts on here has had a similar experience. Yes, there are horror stories, but there are also cases of people reporting back that the investigators were fair and not ogres (Jadeybags is once such user, and there are others I found trawling through the CAG archives). It is not my place to name names, but there are also investigators (and other DWP/LA staff) who post on here and give up their own free time to help people.

 

Thus, in the absence of further information from yourself (and don't feel obliged to fill in any details if you don't want to -- if I were a fraud investigator I would keep a close eye on this forum), you need to be aware that you are about to attend a recorded interview that has been arranged because the investigators feel that they have an articulable suspicion of fraud surrounding your claim. This interview can and may be used as evidence in court, and so you need to be aware that it is a serious matter with substantial implications.

 

There are a number of options surrounding the interview:

 

1) don't attend. As far as I can tell, this is generally not recommended, as I believe that the fraud investigators are more inclined to refer these on for consideration for prosecution (although I have heard of people receiving administrative penalties through the post, but this may well be very rare). I have read that a solicitor may advise you not to attend if there is already substantial evidence against you that you cannot refute, that you are effectively guilty, and the investigators intend to refer for prosecution anyway. This would be something to discuss with an experienced solicitor.

 

2) Attend, but 'no comment' through the interview. I believe in England, if you do this, negative inferences can be drawn from this in court -- and so you're best not to do this; either attend, or prepare a written statement (the law on silence is different in Scottish law).

 

3) Read from a pre-drafted statement; this is where you attend and read a pre-drafted statement that you have written up. This avoids interrogation, but the investigators may want to ask you about things that you have not mentioned in your statement, and also, you have to be careful not to implicate yourself. If you were going to do this, I would try and speak to someone in Welfare Rights, and see if they would listen to your case and perhaps read your statement.

 

4) Attend the interview and explain your side of the story. If you do this, make sure and take a pad of paper in with you, and I have been told that is best to keep your answers short: don't over elaborate or get yourself tied up in knots. The staff involved are there to investigate fraud, and so it won't necessarily be all sweetness and light, and you may get a proper grilling. Just be aware that you can leave at any time, and/or take breaks through the proceedings.

 

I would suggest that professional advice is in order: I would consult your CAB and Welfare Rights if you have them locally, and try and source a lawyer specialised in benefit fraud/IUCs. Before attending CAB/Welfare Rights, have all the relevant paperwork in order.

 

You have done your homework lol yes, my interviewer was alright. Well, as nice as can be expected when I was bricking it. Him 'up there' does seem to sometimes deal you what he thinks you can handle I think. And what doesn't do us in makes us stronger. I seriously don't wish IUC's on anyone though, they are terrifying. The build up before it quite often worse than the actual interview.

[brownletterdiet]

Hi, Sorry to hear you're going through this. I had an IUC last February.

 

I also found CAB to be of no use. I actually went alone to the interview, and the 2 interviewers were very surprised, and asked if I wanted to postpone to get representation. I just went ahead, and in my case don't think it would have made any difference having representation.

 

I found the interview a lot kinder than I expected. They are after all trying to get as much information from you as possible. I'm not sure how much sway they have on any final decision, but I certainly think they have to put some of their own spin on the completed report! So, a good impression has to help.

 

They will have every piece of information they are able to acquire in front of them - including bank statements for the period of time in question, so its worth you covering every base beforehand, as forewarned is definitely forearmed in this case.

 

I have not heard anything from them since! So once the interview is over, don't lose any more sleep over it, as the wheels turn very slowly.

 

Hope this is of some help.