Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


bee b

DWP and underlying entitlement

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2619 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I was found guilty of benefit fraud by the dwp a few months ago. I received my sentence. I have to attend a tribunal next month regarding my appeal. Do the dwp apply underlying entitlement the same way the Local authority does?

I would like to add that the local authority revised their original decision in my favour with respect to my housing and council tax benefit. The sum I was originally supposed to owe dropped from £20000 to £1700.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is any one able to help?

What is awful in my case is that the Local authority looked at all my evidence and revised their decision accordingly, but the dwp seem to have not bothered. In court things that they'd lied about in their summary of facts were not even mentioned. I've almost had a breakdown as this has been going on since my birthday in January( I was called for my iuc on my birthday-how nice of them!)

Thank you in advance for your assistance :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the circumstances in which you had committed benefit fraud?

 

I can understand why the LA would reassess your claim for HB - if it was to do with you working they would look at your claim again to see if you would still have been entitled to any HB with the correct details.

 

The DWP are not able to do the same thing - depending on what benefit you were claiming you may no longer have any entitlement to that benefit at all. If say you were claiming as being unfit for work and had been working, or claiming as a single person when you were not.

 

The Courts are able to consider whether or not there may be any entitlement to tax credits but that is for sentencing only and does not reduce the amount that you have to repay,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.

Brief background. I was accused of living together as husband and wife. I was in receipt of income support, housing and council tax benefits. I had my iuc. Then it was decided on balance of probabilities I was LTAHAW. After supplying evidence to the contrary eg letters to say my partner wasn't even in the country, payments going from his account were not towards my rent-but for a garage he was renting(they said I had admitted to this fact- but nowhere had I)

The LA after actually going through my evidence decided that what I was saying all along was true and revised their decision. The dwp however decided to prosecute me. I pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty. My solicitor may well have not been at the trial.

Now I have a tribunal to go to. This is where I wanted to bring up underlying entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand where underlying entitlement comes in - surely you're appealling on the grounds you weren't LTAHAW?


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The magistrates found me guilty. The Tribunal (one assumes ) because of this will find me guilty also as their burden of proof is less than a criminal case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The magistrates found me guilty. The Tribunal (one assumes ) because of this will find me guilty also as their burden of proof is less than a criminal case?

 

Their burden of proof is different than with a criminal case, and in my experience benefit cases at court are very poorly represented. Whereas there are some very good benefit caseworkers who do a much better case at tribunal than the solicitor does at criminal trial. Have you got any expert advice on this so far? A criminal case has no bearing on the civil Tribunal (whereas a civil tribunal finding in your favour has an effect on the criminal case).

 

also what benefit are you enquiring as to having an underlying entitlement to, and which benefit were you claiming?


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My solicitor was pretty poor tbh. In court he didn't really say a great deal. I feel incredibly let down by him. Also I think, as the tribunal is next month, the chances of finding anyone who could help me are very slim.

What I am getting at is: I was claiming income support as a single mother. They are saying I was not entitled as I had an undisclosed partner. If I am found guilty by the tribunal, do the dwp not apply underlying entitlement as the LA do?

I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. This has been going on for some time and my head feels like its going to explode at times.

Will the fact that the LA revised their decision have any influence on the tribunal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My solicitor was pretty poor tbh. In court he didn't really say a great deal. I feel incredibly let down by him. Also I think, as the tribunal is next month, the chances of finding anyone who could help me are very slim.

What I am getting at is: I was claiming income support as a single mother. They are saying I was not entitled as I had an undisclosed partner. If I am found guilty by the tribunal, do the dwp not apply underlying entitlement as the LA do?

I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. This has been going on for some time and my head feels like its going to explode at times.

Will the fact that the LA revised their decision have any influence on the tribunal?

 

Sorry no, you can't get underlying entitlement in the way you did with HB and CTB.

 

No the local authority decision won't have abearing on the Tribunal decision - did they decide you weren't LTAHAW or just that you had underlying entitlement as a couple and then offset?

 

The Tribunal decision will depend on the case you present. Though its difficult, with help from people here you may be able to put together a submission (statement of your case) yourself. What evidence do you have that you were not LTAHAW and what evidence are the DWP presenting that you were LTAHAW?


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LA agreed with me that we were not a couple from June 2009 until November 20011. We became a couple at the end of November. We had evidence that my partner was not in the country until the end of June 2009(my claim began at the beginning of June) , that money coming out of his bank wasn't being paid to me for my rent (was for rental of a garage).They said that I had admitted at the iuc that he was paying me, which simply isn't true in both cases! (I have the transcript of the iuc) None of these things were even brought up in court. The problem is..that he was staying with me as a friend between these two times.We had totally separate finances, which we evidenced, separate sleeping arrangements, which we evidenced. I simply had no idea that I had to notify them a friend was staying.The LA applied the underlying entitlement as a non dependant adult between these two periods.They would accept the situation, the DWP would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that the DWP would not accept it - neither would the Court and there must have been some evidence to put before the magistrates and to be found guilty after a trial.

 

To answer your question about underlying entitlement - you were claiming as a lone parent.

 

The only other conditions of entitlement are that you are sick, a carer or actively seeking work. It is unlikely that you would qualify for any contributory based claims if you had been claiming income support.

You cannot now say that you were sick - but even if you did any partner would affect that claim for income support

Unless you were caring for someone who received DLA, there is no claim but again any partner would affect income support (although not the CA)

You were not actively seeking work and had not been to the jobcentre each fortnight to declare that you had been.

 

In each of the above scenarios there is a time limit on making the claim and it is not now possible to go back to 2009 to say that you should be considered for benefit under a different criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.

The dwp evidence was that I must have been ltahaw because I had a man staying with me. That really was it. They received an anonymous allegation that I had been living with someone. I was prosecuted for failure to notify change of circumstance.

In court it was almost a surreal experience. No one seemed to listen to what I was saying. My solicitor began with-we have to prove that I told a lie. The prosecution stated that wasn't the case, that it simply had to be proved I failed to notify change of circumstance. I am a relatively intelligent person, but when the magistrates came back after deliberating I really didn't understand what they said-even what I'd been found guilty of!! My solicitor disappeared rather rapidly after the trial and I've had very little contact since. This is why I am concerned about the tribunal.

I now understand about the underlying entitlement issue- thank you all. I hold very little hope for the tribunal. I don't even know if my solicitor is attending. If I had more strength I would consider representing myself, but I don't think I have any left :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

representing youself at Tribunal is actually pretty easy if you're relatively intelligent, as you say and literate. Look through the DWP submission in the appeal papers and pick out all of the points you can refute with evidence, and get the evidence together. Write a statement detailing your relationship at every point during the time period you were accused of LTAHAW. For each time period, refer to any evidence you have and refute any arguments the DWP made for that time period. For instance where the DWP accuse you of saying that you received money for rent in the IUC - refer to the transcript and state request that the Tribunal judge read through the IUC, at no point did you say you received any monies from X. Tear apart the points made by the DWP, in advance, in writing, and at the end of the statement you can then state that you have shown the DWP arguments have no merit and respectfully request that on a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal find thatyou were not LTAHAW.

 

A well prepared statement, explaining everything, and making the arguments for you, means come the Tribunal, there will be very little you will have to do except maybe answer a few questions to clarify any issues. Much less stressful, and much more chance of success than relying on your own oral arguments on the day (or on a useless solicitor, who in Tribunals are as much use as a chocolate fireguard).


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...