Interview Under Caution: Housing Benefit

[sickwiworry]

Did you advise the Council at the time that the original business had: -

 

1. ceased trading?
   
2. recommenced trading?
   

 

1. Yes

2. No

[sickwiworry]

So your business partner was running a business using your bank account for multiple years because he/she had bad credit? But surely it doesn't take a lot to get a basic bank account, of the kind that CAGGERs advise people to get if they're about to go bankrupt? Was your partner having to use your account for credit for the business transactions?

 

I appreciate that you're reticent to go into too many details online (that's smart), but from what you've said, surely you will need your business partner to speak to the LA investigators on record to confirm the unorthodox business relationship you have had in the past?

 

Also, my understanding was that investigators may well release details to legal over the phone, but that they only really have to just prior to the interview, and that's just enough information so that legal can advise their client accordingly. (I am open to correction on that though.)

 

What I would say is that, given that this all sounds pretty unorthodox, you're going to need evidence to back it up, whether that be details of the business using your account, and/or your partner going on record. As it stands, if I were a fraud investigator (which I'm not, nor am I an ex DWP/LA employee), the first person I would be speaking to post-IUC would be your (ex) partner.

 

Hi Stan, I'm new to CAG so wasn't aware of the advice re basic accounts. This isn't the first time my business partner has used my account. We've got a history going back 10 years where one or another of my bank accounts during the period has been used in the same way, so for us, as business partners, there's been nothing unusual in my account being used, although I can see that some people might find it a little unorthodox. I personally find it a darned sight easier dealing only with my account/s when it comes to doing the accounting and tax returns - it narrows down the amount of places I need to dredge up the evidence of business expenditure. I don't have any credit facilities on my account, so that's not the reason it's been used. It's just easier for me!

 

I've been going through my statements over the last 3 and a bit years accounting for every penny that's been deposited and spent - I just hope the investigators can follow how things have been done, so I hope the investigators will take the statements as evidence and not haul in my business partner for questioning. My business partner doesn't really have a clue about the accounts or how I work with them, and I'd hate for them to drop me in it without realising or get muddled up on the day. My business partner's nerves are worse than mine when it comes to things like this, which is why we've always been squeaky clean with the accounts and tax returns. My uncle was investigated by HMRC about 20 years ago and I never want to be put in that position. This is bad enough!

[lilyx0xmunster]

If you have a paper trail you could be ok.. I fell foul of an advisor a few years back and because SHE failed to put in my notes I was studying at college i ended up in hot water.. even when i provided some evidence to support my claim it was disregarded but thankfully we got the whole thing changed and now just very suspicious of them entirely... also on disclosure which happens at the meeting and not before even to a solicitor you can go over all the evidence and remain silent until the evidence has been shown then looking at the evidence ask for an adjournment/ another appointment to balance your work against theirs you are also entitled to ask for copies of everything they are showing you for your records before you leave they don't like it but will do it if pushed. Also chances are their figures are completely different to the reality of true figures this happens ALL the time.. take the figures they have (if any) and balance them to yours if there is a difference then your solicitor can argue this fact and get it altered.. hope i haven't confused you any further. remember also if they are saying you are earning money you are entitled to a set amount each week before they go £ for £ and reduce your benefit i'm not sure what the rate is but i think it's no more than £20 a week you may need to check that also.

[abc123def]

I wouldn't worry about embarrassment for your business partner if they discover your benefit claim, if they have found it impossible to get a bank account due to poor credit (and don't mind telling you that) then have been in bigger do-do's than you are at present. Even bankrupt people have bank accounts. I would think it highly likely the business partner will need to be interviewed to verify the amounts and what they were used for.

[sickwiworry]

I wouldn't worry about embarrassment for your business partner if they discover your benefit claim, if they have found it impossible to get a bank account due to poor credit (and don't mind telling you that) then have been in bigger do-do's than you are at present. Even bankrupt people have bank accounts. I would think it highly likely the business partner will need to be interviewed to verify the amounts and what they were used for.

 

Hi, thanks. My business partner has known about my claim since the day the letter about the IUC arrived, so I'm not embarrassed about that. It's just that I have a better grip on the accounts than they do and I'm worried they might slip up under pressure. If I slip up under pressure then that's my problem, but if someone else beggars things up and it affects me... well that's a different story.

[sickwiworry]

I've had my IUC and it didn't go too well The LA had found something else about me through data matching and that's why they called me in. I've been in receipt of some money and now they say they are going to write to the body concerned to get the details of the bank account the money is paid into and get my bank statements. My solicitor told me on the day after disclosure but pre-IUC that given the size of the overpayment this is likely to go to court (my worst nightmare). The solicitor advised that I draft a statement to read out at the start of the interview and answer "no comment" to the questions, which I did. Then they said that even though I've admitted I made a mistake etc. and would pay back the overpayment that they would get my bank statements anyway. This will only highlight the issue I raised in my original post. It's not as if getting my bank statements is going to change the outcome regarding the amount of overpayment, but the information to be gleaned from those statements might mean a juicier case, along with accusations of greed etc., not that it was like that. I can explain why my bank statements appear as they do, but the fact that they've already got my admission of guilt, why do they have to make things look even worse for me? So now I'm in a right mess mentally too. Not feeling good on this at all. I made my interrogators aware I had had problems in the past and that a court appearance wouldn't be good for me. I don't know if it'll have any bearing on the outcome though, although my solicitor did say that each case has to judged on an 'in the public interest' basis, but we'll have to see. Also, based on further information they are likely to find, it is likely that I'll have to attend another IUC.

 

If the LA do decide to prosecute through court, what happens now? Do they write to me to tell me of their intentions, giving me time to do something about it with regards to getting my doctor to let them know this isn't good for my mental health? Or is the next I hear a court summons?

[jadeybags]

They tend to just send you a summons from what I have seen on here. Gosh I hope you can get some support from your business partner, if that's what the extra money is about.

[tomtom256]

As you no commented they know need to get the full evidence to present to the courts. The IUC was your opportunity to explain the issue and other than the statement you "no commented" as such they will be expecting a not guilty plea and always prep in full for this.

 

They also need the bank statements etc so that they can ascertain if there is any further undeclared capital.

 

They have to do all of this under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act and is routine.

[id6052]

in the prepared statement you read out, have you now told them about the current statuses of the business(es)?

[sickwiworry]

As you no commented they know need to get the full evidence to present to the courts. The IUC was your opportunity to explain the issue and other than the statement you "no commented" as such they will be expecting a not guilty plea and always prep in full for this.

 

They also need the bank statements etc so that they can ascertain if there is any further undeclared capital.

 

They have to do all of this under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act and is routine.

 

I admitted my guilt in the statement. My solicitor told me that the information they have versus something I missed off the original claim means that I don't have a defence. I am guilty as charged. It's the additional information that they're going after that will prove to be the icing on their cake, even though my bank statements will open a can of worms that can be explained, but if they choose not to believe me then I have an even bigger problem.

[sickwiworry]

in the prepared statement you read out, have you now told them about the current statuses of the business(es)?

 

No, because the evidence they had against me was nothing to do with business/es, and my solicitor advised me to volunteer nothing that they didn't know about. His philosophy appears to be 'make them work for it', and if they haven't got evidence not to give it to them. They did ask me to submit my own bank statements to 'hurry the process' along, but my solicitor had already advised me against it, plus if I was to get my own statements from the bank it would have cost me in the region of £700, which is money I don't have, so it'll cost the LA instead.

[id6052]

No, because the evidence they had against me was nothing to do with business/es, and my solicitor advised me to volunteer nothing that they didn't know about. His philosophy appears to be 'make them work for it', and if they haven't got evidence not to give it to them. They did ask me to submit my own bank statements to 'hurry the process' along, but my solicitor had already advised me against it, plus if I was to get my own statements from the bank it would have cost me in the region of £700, which is money I don't have, so it'll cost the LA instead.

 

From experience, if a case is borderline for being put forward for prosecution, then whether or not the claimant has been open and transparent can be a deciding factor. I am really concerned that following your solicitor's advice could potentially backfire on you.

 

On a side note, you can make a Subject Access Request for your bank statements under DPA, this would only cost £10 maximum.

[sickwiworry]

This is something I've been worried about. To be honest, I went to the interview expecting the worst and was prepared, with answers for everything they could throw at me. Then when I got there it was just one piece of evidence they had, and based on that my solicitor helped me prepare the defence, not that there is a defence as it boils down to something I omitted when I claimed. They also have evidence in the form of a letter itemising all the payments that have been made to me, so they know I've received the money, now they want to see the evidence of the payments into my bank account. It was a gamble suggested by the solicitor and I went along with it. I'd have rather laid all my cards on the table, but what do you do when you're advised to do one thing by the person who's supposed to know what to do in these circumstances? He seems to think that when they've got the rest of the evidence, if the authority goes ahead with getting it, I'll be called in for another IUC, so I guess if and when that happens I'll know they've got more evidence against me and I can be more open.

 

Should I seek a second opinion from another solicitor?

 

From experience, if a case is borderline for being put forward for prosecution, then whether or not the claimant has been open and transparent can be a deciding factor. I am really concerned that following your solicitor's advice could potentially backfire on you.

 

On a side note, you can make a Subject Access Request for your bank statements under DPA, this would only cost £10 maximum.

[NoworNever]

Let me get this right. You got an IUC letter and immediately thought it was about this unorthodox business relationship. It turns out that it was actually about something which, it seems by your own admission, you failed to declare originally, presumably a pension or something ? You no commented at the interview and never mentioned anything about the large number of transactions into and out of your account. The LA are now going to use their authorised officer powers to obtain your bank statements which will show all the said transactions, not only that but they will get them for every account you have. You also hope that they will not prosecute you because you told them you have mental health issues….have I missed anything ? My opinion is that a 2nd IUC is a possibility, especially if they are reading this site! It depends really on the affect the non-declared income they now know about has on your claim. If it wipes out your entitlement all together then they might just go with that. I suppose it really will depend on how much money is going through your account. Regarding that how believable is your explanation ? They are at least going to speak to your partner, why wouldn’t they. I don’t understand why, if all is above board, the business partner would drop you in it ? Surely if there is no relationship they should be able to account for the money for their business ? Is your business partner a member of the opposite sex by any chance (any children involved), might they suspect he/she is your actual partner? What debits do you have from the account and who are they too? Who pays the bills ? Who has access to the account ? How do you pay the partner his/her money ? What is registered at your address in your partners name and importantly why? What is the business (es) ? And how many times do you think the LA will hear that a prosecution will affect someones health ? I’ll tell you….hundreds. You can provide some proof if its available but they might take the view that your health doesn’t stop you running a business, taking a decision not to declare something (making your claim false from the outset) and been able to manage your financial affairs ? Sorry but from what you’ve said I think you’re probably going to end up in court. A no comment interview can be as helpful to an investigator as a full admission. At the interview you had a chance to muddy the water with an explanation, you’ve missed that ship now.