massive problem with benefits overpayment - desperate for help cant cope anymore

[hollow_atom]

I could if I was at work..... the new (ish) letter of invitation to attend for IUC states that arrest will be considered if a person does not attend without contacting the Department. The 'interviewee' is asked to respond to confirm attendance.

 

Hmmm. The letter i received which must be the latest version as it was sent to me last week, and that does not say anything of the sort. Could it be possible that in addition to helpful genuine people on this forum, there could be people who post that have an agenda to misinform and spread fear ? ( I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, I'm just posing a quandry )

Edited August 26, 2013 by hollow_atom

[hollow_atom]

I can only reiterate what happened to me. I refused to attend.

 

A short while later I had the police at my front door in the early hours of the morning.

 

I was arrested by them and interviewed by them. The DWP/Council had handed the case to the police.

 

What would have been a failure to notify a change of circumstances which is what the DWP would have gone for, I was instead charged under the Fraud Act.

 

Any attempt to obtain money by deception - which is one of the charges they laid against me has a 10 year prison term attached.

 

The reason the police became involved was because I refused to co-operate with the DWP and they had nowhere to go.

 

Because the police were now taking the action that is why they turned our house upside down looking for anything and everything that could be used as evidence in the theft of benefit money as well as to delve into what else I might have done in the past that they knew nothing about.

 

During the search they found a letter from our bank that I had bounced a cheque. I was charged for that offence as well.

 

They even went as far as to contact our mortgage provider to find out what we had put on the application form years earlier especially income and employment details.

 

Hi Mate, may i ask, how did you refuse to attend and did you refuse several times ? I mean did you contact them and point blank refuse, or did you ignore them ?

 

It is just that your experience seems terrible luck , when you read the actual guidelines published by the DWP themselves on this exact matter

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-arrest.pdf

 

Failure to attend an Interview Under Caution

4. Investigators must not refer cases to the police simply because the

claimant refuses to attend the Interview Under Caution (IUC). Each case

must be considered on its own merits. In England and Wales this must

also be in accordance with the necessity criteria set out in Police and

Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code G 2.4 et seq.

5. In England and Wales if a claimant persistently refuses to attend an IUC,

police intervention could be justified on the grounds that an arrest is

necessary in order to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the

offence or the conduct of the person in question (PACE Code G 2.9(e)).

 

 

 

one would think, form those DWP guidelines, that one would have to fail to attend an IUC several times for it to progress to that point.

[hollow_atom]

Attending an IUC is optional however, the directive from DWP managers is now that a person is asked to voluntary attend once and if they fail to do so that the police will be contacted to conduct an arrest.

 

Can you provide proof / source for this "directive "

 

here are the DWP's own guidelines ( which would could consider their directives on said matter ), and they contradict your statement

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-arrest.pdf

 

Failure to attend an Interview Under Caution

4. Investigators must not refer cases to the police simply because the

claimant refuses to attend the Interview Under Caution (IUC). Each case

must be considered on its own merits. In England and Wales this must

also be in accordance with the necessity criteria set out in Police and

Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code G 2.4 et seq.

5. In England and Wales if a claimant persistently refuses to attend an IUC,

police intervention could be justified on the grounds that an arrest is

necessary in order to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the

offence or the conduct of the person in question (PACE Code G 2.9(e)).

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is the opinion of the investigating office at the DWP that will be used to decide if arrest is appropriate so the MAY happen.

[hollow_atom]

It is the opinion of the investigating office at the DWP that will be used to decide if arrest is appropriate so the MAY happen.

 

Can you link to any guidelines or documentation that says this ? I get confused here, because every document i can find online says one thing, and then people give information here that says the opposite. One would think with a place so created by and operated under bureaucracy that DWP would have to stick to their own documented, published guidelines ?

[abc123def]

Hollow, from how I read the guidelines that you have posted if the DWP feel they have cause to interview you as there is suspicion there is an overpayment or fraud they may give you more than one opportunity to attend an IUC before giving their evidence to the police who will go to the CPS who will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to issue a warrant for your arrest so you can be taken in for interview. However if the DWP feel that they definitely have good cause to believe that you have commited fraud then even after one invitation to attend an IUC, they could then hand their evidence straight to the police who then go to the CPS who are then likely to issue a warrant for your arrest. I think the guidelines you posted covered both scenarios, and if they have sufficient evidence I would say they could go to the police even after one failed attempt at an IUC. That's how I read it anyway. They'd need sufficient evidence though for the CPS to decide to request a warrant, whereas even with little evidence they can 'ask' you to attend an IUC, however when it is little or circumstancial, the CPS are less likely to suggest a warrant for arrest.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The 'guidance' document in post 53# explains the criteria quite clearly.

I doubt the CPS will have any input here, if the investigating officer on consultation with their superiors decide that the only way an individual can be properly interviewed under caution because of repeated failure to attend for interview that may ask the police to make an arrest, even at this stage the DWP may charge an individual and proceed to court I think.

[bio]

Can you provide a source to support this statement? There is no, repeat no, requirement to attend an IUC.

 

If we want to speak to someone enough about an allegation of Fraud - then we have them arrested. We sometimes even have people arrested without sending an IUC letter if the level of Fraud warrants it.

[Surfer01]

If we want to speak to someone enough about an allegation of Fraud - then we have them arrested. We sometimes even have people arrested without sending an IUC letter if the level of Fraud warrants it.

 

Surely it needs to have compelling evidence to justify that the fraud was deliberate in order to justify arrest?

[hollow_atom]

The 'guidance' document in post 53# explains the criteria quite clearly.

I doubt the CPS will have any input here, if the investigating officer on consultation with their superiors decide that the only way an individual can be properly interviewed under caution because of repeated failure to attend for interview that may ask the police to make an arrest, even at this stage the DWP may charge an individual and proceed to court I think.

 

yes that is how it reads to me too. It clearly outlines cause for arrest to be repeated failure to attend an IUC.

 

The thing that confuses me, is that the basis for an IUC is to gain enough evidence for prosecution, ergo, one would think if they need an IUC to gain evidence ( in the form of a verbal admission of guilt from the interviewee ) then there possibly is not enough evidence to prosecute, hence the need for an IUC.

 

Otherwise why would they want the IUC ?

 

I know in some guidelines it says that the IUC is " your chance to put your side of the story forward ", but the reality of the machination of the IUC is for the DWP to get more evidence for their case.

 

I have an appointment at CAB next week, and have spent a lot of time researching " freeman on the land " . Not sure if anyone has heard of this ?

[hollow_atom]

If we want to speak to someone enough about an allegation of Fraud - then we have them arrested. We sometimes even have people arrested without sending an IUC letter if the level of Fraud warrants it.

 

source please ? continually in this thread people give opinions or information without a source or link to proof of information.

 

Here is the paradox i just cant grasp. \you say " We sometimes even have people arrested without sending an IUC letter if the level of Fraud warrants it. "

 

Can you explain, if you have enough evidence that you feel you can just have someone arrested without even sending them a letter or informing them, then why isnt that enough evidence just to prosecute said person ? if you have enough evidence why the need for an IUC ? when you can just prosecute.

 

Maybe im applying idealist values to a corrupt system here, but something about your statement just doesnt sit right. There is a certain zealousness to the statement that shouldn't sit right with anyone interested in justice, liberty and the god given rights that every human being has, that the state con and trick you into thinking you shouldnt have. It's like living in a grotesque amalgamation of George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxleys Brave new World.

Edited August 26, 2013 by honeybee13

[hollow_atom]

Surely it needs to have compelling evidence to justify that the fraud was deliberate in order to justify arrest?

 

exactly. and in my opinion the very reason for the IUC is to glean this " compelling evidence " it was deliberate. this is a kind of reverse Catch 22 situation, and im sure there are agent provocateurs lurking around the internet trying to scare genuine people seeking genuine advice into walking right into DWP's hands. That should make genuine posters who want to offer genuine advice fairly angry, one would think.

[caro]

Surely it is only right that someone suspected of claiming fraudulently has the opportunity to see the evidence and explain their side of events.

[hollow_atom]

Surely it is only right that someone suspected of claiming fraudulently has the opportunity to see the evidence and explain their side of events.

 

I agree in principle with that statement, but the guidelines published by DWP for conducting IUCs ( which i linked to in an earlier post, and have read through several times now ) tell staff who are to conduct an IUC what the main purpose is for ( to gain enough evidence for prosecution / an admission of guilt ) ... there are even guidelines in the document that read like a staff manual for a salesperson on how to get better results , such as the advice to be friendly and put the interviewee at ease as this is the best way to get information for prosecution out of them. So i guess it depends if you believe the IUC is there to give the little man his chance to put things straight , or if you believe the IUC to be there so that the system can turn what evidence they do have into a compelling case for prosecution, which as i said before, can only come from verbal exchange within the IUC.

[caro]

If you provide evidence that invalidates theirs then it reduces their likelihood of gaining a successful prosecution. They have a duty to investigate and get back public funds that shouldn't have been paid out, but if theirs no evidence of fraud they can't prosecute.

 

It's up to you if you feel able to prove if you had money that you shouldn't or not, and if so if you did so innocently.

 

If it was me I'd rather do that at this stage than risk it going further which I would find even harder to face. However this is your call not mine.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

IF the benefit claimant refuses to attend the IUC, conclusions will be drawn and if arrest is seen as the only way to continue the investigation to a conclusion then it is appropriate.

 

Remember the words of the caution.

 

Quite frequently I see cases listed for hearing at magistrates courts, where no IUC has taken place, but charges of fraud are still brought and convictions made.

 

It must always be born in mind that this is a criminal law process and has no relation to the enforcement of consumer credit debt in a civil court.

[bio]

Surely it needs to have compelling evidence to justify that the fraud was deliberate in order to justify arrest?

 

Yes of course it does - and that is why we have people arrested. It is mainly when we need to put questions to people - they can of course choose not to answer those questions, and go 'no comment' but we do need to ask the questions still.

 

In cases where we have sufficient evidence, but the case is not that serious, and people continually refuse to attend an IUC, then the case is normally prepared for prosecution, regardless of the size of the overpayment, and they are summonsed to appear in court, without having the opportunity to put their side across. This will also mean obtaining a criminal record, where they may just have received a formal caution or ad pen had they attended the IUC.

 

I would always advise people to attend an IUC, so that at least they have the opportunity to put their side of the story across.

[stifle]

I have an appointment at CAB next week, and have spent a lot of time researching " freeman on the land " . Not sure if anyone has heard of this ?

Yes we have, it's a load of rubbish, and it doesn't work. I suggest you spend your time more fruitfully

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If you go along with this delusional nonsense you will quite simply make a complete fool of yourself.

 

A recent judgement in Canada has blown this rubbish completely out of the water.

 

Stay well clear and forget you ever heard of this!!

[antone]

I agree in principle with that statement, but the guidelines published by DWP for conducting IUCs ( which i linked to in an earlier post, and have read through several times now ) tell staff who are to conduct an IUC what the main purpose is for ( to gain enough evidence for prosecution / an admission of guilt ) ... there are even guidelines in the document that read like a staff manual for a salesperson on how to get better results , such as the advice to be friendly and put the interviewee at ease as this is the best way to get information for prosecution out of them. So i guess it depends if you believe the IUC is there to give the little man his chance to put things straight , or if you believe the IUC to be there so that the system can turn what evidence they do have into a compelling case for prosecution, which as i said before, can only come from verbal exchange within the IUC.

 

Look, you come on here asking for help with a possible benefit fraud problem, and people have advised you. Believe them or don't - it's your choice, as this is a self-help site. But lose the attitude, yeah?

[jadeybags]

I was invited to an IUC, to put my side across, I had been overpaid benefit & they wanted to know if I was actually aware of it. If I hadn't gone & put my side across, they may well have had enough evidence to prosecute me, I was advised by a benefits solicitor that I didn't have to go, sometimes he advises not to, & said if they have enough evidence they'll summons me to court, but in my case he said I probably should, so I did go, & I am glad I did.

No prosecution.

[hollow_atom]

Look, you come on here asking for help with a possible benefit fraud problem, and people have advised you. Believe them or don't - it's your choice, as this is a self-help site. But lose the attitude, yeah?

 

Apologies if i came across in that manner, i certainly did not mean to. I was just stating my opinion. Possibly my emotion pertaining to the situation colouring my words. Either way, sorry if you felt i came across that way, it was not my intention.

[hollow_atom]

If you go along with this delusional nonsense you will quite simply make a complete fool of yourself.

 

A recent judgement in Canada has blown this rubbish completely out of the water.

 

Stay well clear and forget you ever heard of this!!

 

I didn't say i necessarily believed in it, i was just curious as to others opinions. cheers

[antone]

Apologies if i came across in that manner, i certainly did not mean to. I was just stating my opinion. Possibly my emotion pertaining to the situation colouring my words. Either way, sorry if you felt i came across that way, it was not my intention.

 

Oh well, these things happen, no big deal. But you'll get better advice if you're not antagonistic.

[hollow_atom]

Oh well, these things happen, no big deal. But you'll get better advice if you're not antagonistic.

 

Agreed. The stress of this scenario is causing me to act in unusual ways. No excuse but that is what i have observed.

 

I'm going to go to the IUC. I can't attend on the exact date they have given me, as we just got my wifes cardiology day patient appointment through and its the same date. but i will write to them and explain that, and ask them to schedule a date that is do-able.

 

Meanwhile i shall be seeking legal advice