money taken out of state pension

[michphil]

Hi,

My husband has been charged with fraudulently claiming HRM over 9 years he has pleaded not guilty and it now going to crown court. The DLA has stopped payment on top of that they are taking back the 32.000 they say he owes them at the same rate as they were paying him i.e £50.00 per week out of his state pension. Even though he has not been found guilty. Is there anyway we can appeal this deduction until the trial has finished as we are on the whole nearly£100 down .?

[Conniff]

Have you a waterproof defence that he was entitled to the benefits ?

[kk3852]

It is not usual for deductions to be taken at this rate. But, having answered your question before when you have not given the full story there is perhaps more to this. The letter informing you of the deductions will have told you what to do

[antone]

Remember that the civil overpayment and the criminal fraud are separate but related issues. He could be found not guilty of fraud and still be required to make repayments.

[postggj]

Interesting this

 

How can the DWP deduct payments when it is subject to criminal proceedings

 

Innocent until proven guilty and all that

 

A valid point has been made about civil redress if an error has occurred, but that will be down to the court to decide through a compensation order if found guilty of the indictable offence.

 

This is one of the examples where civil redress and criminal transgressions can be linked

[antone]

Interesting this

 

How can the DWP deduct payments when it is subject to criminal proceedings

 

Innocent until proven guilty and all that

 

A valid point has been made about civil redress if an error has occurred, but that will be down to the court to decide through a compensation order if found guilty of the indictable offence.

 

This is one of the examples where civil redress and criminal transgressions can be linked

 

They are linked, yes, but the key to remember is this: not all overpayments are the result of fraud. It's possible to be found not guilty of criminal fraud but still be required to repay overpaid benefits.

 

If one believes that an overpayment is unjust or improperly calculated, the correct redress is to appeal the matter to a civil Benefits Tribunal.

[fedupandold]

They are linked, yes, but the key to remember is this: not all overpayments are the result of fraud. It's possible to be found not guilty of criminal fraud but still be required to repay overpaid benefits.

 

If one believes that an overpayment is unjust or improperly calculated, the correct redress is to appeal the matter to a civil Benefits Tribunal.

 

I would also point out that the burden of proof needed for a criminal conviction far outweighs that that is required for a civil action. The DWP will have to show that in a criminal court that the claimant was guilty on the basis of 'beyond all reasonable doubt' whereas in a civil action they only have to demonstrate 'on the balance of probability'.

[fedupandold]

Hi,

My husband has been charged with fraudulently claiming HRM over 9 years he has pleaded not guilty and it now going to crown court. The DLA has stopped payment on top of that they are taking back the 32.000 they say he owes them at the same rate as they were paying him i.e £50.00 per week out of his state pension. Even though he has not been found guilty. Is there anyway we can appeal this deduction until the trial has finished as we are on the whole nearly£100 down .?

 

You have two separate actions going on here. The first is that the DWP are satisfied that your husband was not entitled to the HRM so they have closed the claim down and are demanding that you repay everything that he has received. If you don't like what they are doing or think that the DWP are wrong, you should appeal and eventually your husband will have his day at the tribunal.

 

As regards the second matter, not only do the DWP believe that your husband was not entitled to the HRM but that they are also convinced that he carried out a fraudulent action in getting it paid as well - hence the criminal action.

 

He may be found not guilty in the Crown Court but he will still have to pay it all back unless you have your appeal to the Tribunal upheld.

 

As a matter of interest and considering that your husband is over 65, what made the DWP believe that your husband was a benefit cheat?

[postggj]

I would also point out that the burden of proof needed for a criminal conviction far outweighs that that is required for a civil action. The DWP will have to show that in a criminal court that the claimant was guilty on the basis of 'beyond all reasonable doubt' whereas in a civil action they only have to demonstrate 'on the balance of probability'.

 

 

It is interesting that you state that civil trials are judged only on the balance of probabilities, i will draw your attention to the case of:

 

Rhesa Shipping v Edmunds [1985] 2 ALL ER 712

 

That case debated that if no evidence can be produced to support either parties claim, how can a burden of proof be discharged. The judgement states that the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities will lay on the plaintiff, and that a court should avoid deciding cases on the balance of improbabilities.

 

The appeal itself did not raise any matters of law, but proof on the balance of probabilities with an element of common sense. The plaintiff’s action failed

 

The words of the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes fallacy is in opposition to this judgement which was raised and dismissed by Lord Brandon of Oakbrook :

 

‘Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth ‘:

[michphil]

You have two separate actions going on here. The first is that the DWP are satisfied that your husband was not entitled to the HRM so they have closed the claim down and are demanding that you repay everything that he has received. If you don't like what they are doing or think that the DWP are wrong, you should appeal and eventually your husband will have his day at the tribunal.

 

As regards the second matter, not only do the DWP believe that your husband was not entitled to the HRM but that they are also convinced that he carried out a fraudulent action in getting it paid as well - hence the criminal action.

 

He may be found not guilty in the Crown Court but he will still have to pay it all back unless you have your appeal to the Tribunal upheld.

 

As a matter of interest and considering that your husband is over 65, what made the DWP believe that your husband was a benefit cheat?

A guy who doesn't,like my husband rang them and told them my hubby was not as bad as he says . He was a manager where my hubby worked and because my hubby didn't,t take early retirement he held a grudge against him this guy tried all ways to get rid of my hubby. So this was the only way to get at him. My hubby suffers from chronic asthma ostearthirits in his hips knees shoulders and hands he is very bad at walking . What this guy has done this because he did not like my hubby . He knows nothing about my hubbies ailments as he never spoke to him properly and saw him about a minute a day if that . This has made my husband worse his health is going downhill

[antone]

It is interesting that you state that civil trials are judged only on the balance of probabilities, i will draw your attention to the case of:

 

Rhesa Shipping v Edmunds [1985] 2 ALL ER 712

 

That case debated that if no evidence can be produced to support either parties claim, how can a burden of proof be discharged. The judgement states that the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities will lay on the plaintiff, and that a court should avoid deciding cases on the balance of improbabilities.

 

The appeal itself did not raise any matters of law, but proof on the balance of probabilities with an element of common sense. The plaintiff’s action failed

 

The words of the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes fallacy is in opposition to this judgement which was raised and dismissed by Lord Brandon of Oakbrook :

 

‘Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth ‘:

 

That merely states that the burden of proof lies with the one bringing the action (so the plaintiff in a civil case). Civil cases are indeed decided on "balance of probability", it's simply that if the one bringing the action can't actually demonstrate any reason why the court should accept the case against the defendant, then the case will fail.

[postggj]

that merely states that the burden of proof lies with the one bringing the action (so the plaintiff in a civil case). Civil cases are indeed decided on "balance of probability", it's simply that if the one bringing the action can't actually demonstrate any reason why the court should accept the case against the defendant, then the case will fail.

 

 

Agreed

 

The point that was raised was that when a judge reaches a decision, that decision will need to be decided on a common sense approach with the balance of probabilities as to judicial discretion. And not take anything on face value is what i am looking for

[antone]

agreed

 

the point that was raised was that when a judge reaches a decision, that decision will need to be decided on a common sense approach with the balance of probabilities as to judicial discretion. And not take anything on face value is what i am looking for

 

Fair enough. For a benefit overpayment case, the fact that someone has received benefits is normally taken as a reason to bring a civil action if the DWP/HMRC or LA asserts an overpayment. Judicial review should be at an HMCTS Tribunal if the claimant brings appeal proceedings within one or thirteen months.

 

That's why the important first step in any benefit fraud (or overpayment case) is to appeal the OP. Because even if the claimant is acquitted of fraud, they may still be required to repay the money.

[45002]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=3445823

 

Hi,

My husband has been charged with fraudulently claiming HRM over 9 years he has pleaded not guilty and it now going to crown court. The DLA has stopped payment on top of that they are taking back the 32.000 they say he owes them at the same rate as they were paying him i.e £50.00 per week out of his state pension. Even though he has not been found guilty. Is there anyway we can appeal this deduction until the trial has finished as we are on the whole nearly£100 down .?

 

A guy who doesn't,like my husband rang them and told them my hubby was not as bad as he says . He was a manager where my hubby worked and because my hubby didn't,t take early retirement he held a grudge against him this guy tried all ways to get rid of my hubby. So this was the only way to get at him. My hubby suffers from chronic asthma ostearthirits in his hips knees shoulders and hands he is very bad at walking . What this guy has done this because he did not like my hubby . He knows nothing about my hubbies ailments as he never spoke to him properly and saw him about a minute a day if that . This has made my husband worse his health is going downhill

 

Please read OP previous posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?394490-benefit-fraud-prosecution&p=4263451&viewfull=1#post4263451

 

It's the brother being prosecuted for benefit fraud in that post !

 

I wouldn't waist any more time on this OP.......

Edited June 30, 2013 by 45002

[scotgal68]

She also is having probs with her own DLA going by the blogs whe writes on Health Unblocked

[jadeybags]

 

2 members of family with the same ailments & the same prosecutions..

[scotgal68]

Jadeybags.. Keep up, it's her, her brother and her husband xx

[michphil]

where have you got that from I am not on health unlocked

[michphil]

smart arse it is not me being done for benefit fraud it was my husband and the case was dropped due to the DWP not not reading his condition right and the judge throwing it out of court . So after 19 months of misery and worry he had not done anything wrong in the first place the DWP walked away with egg on their face. And I thank the legal team who noticed what was wrong with the evidence given. In my first post I put it as my brother because I was ashamed of what was going on but it was my husband not me nor my brother.

[kk3852]

where have you got that from I am not on health unlocked

 

Blimey - that response took long enough.... out of curiosity - has your 'family member' been to Court yet ?

 

 

Sorry - cross posting.... can you expand on 'the dwp did not read his condition correctly' DLA cases depend on a persons ability and not a condition

Edited October 18, 2013 by kk3852
Cross posting.

[michphil]

45002 I could not care less what you think about my post I was ashamed that this was happening to my hubby but seeing as the courts said there was no case to answer after 19 months of worry and depression it is all over and he can walk his head held high and I am really pleased because we knew all along that he had not done anything wrong as he has a injured leg that they had not looke at the outcome of that accident so they were wrong from the start.

[michphil]

I have had enough on my plate to reply to any one on here I shall not be using this forum again after today. If you read my other post you will see that the he has been to court and the court throw it out as they had not read his medical reports properly he had a accident 15 years ago and had a very bad injury to his leg from his knee downwards and he can walk a short distance with severe pain and he has to keep stopping to release the pain he has metal plates and pins in his lower half of his leg which also stops him from walking with a very heavy limp and he takes his medication often through he day.The day they saw him he had been in hospital for 2 weeks to have something replaced in his leg so he was a little better than normal. In my first post I put it as my brother because I was embarrassed about it all . But it was my hubby and he and myself are getting over the last 19 months. I have found some people on the forum horrible nasty people and I will no longer be putting anything on here for advise I too am disabled and I have now just found out that I will be in a wheelchair full-time by this time next year and I can not abide rude and nasty people. I though th is forum was for giving people advice etc not to be bitchy and judge people that they do not know. Life is hard enough without nasty people.

[antone]

Well, I'm sorry you feel that CAG has been unhelpful. Since you've stated your intent to leave, I'm going to close this before it degenerates into a bun fight. If you change your mind, feel free to start a new thread.