Please help a dear trusted friend - Benefit fraud Interview under caution this week.

[Please Help friend]

I'm very worried about a friend I trust and respect that has received a letter for an interview under caution for this coming Wednesday. My friend doesn't want friends or family to know what has happened and at this stage probably wouldn't be happy about me asking for advice, so out of respect I don’t want to give to much away about his identify.

 

Sorry I hadn't intended for this to be a long post but thought I should give as much info about him as possible so you can better understand why I’m so worried..

 

I don’t know what benefit he is on, I don’t want to appear nosy by asking but I don’t think he knows because when we talked about it he said he’s not to sure because he also now gets a government retirement pension. If you didn't know him you would probably think he is being evasive.

 

My friend phoned citizens advice but wasn't given any advice other than being directed to benefit fraud on the CAB website. From what I gather my friend got the distinct impression you have broken the law get on with it!. My friend “Who I will now call Fred" admits he would probably feel the same way..

 

Fred is in his 60s and did not deliberately set about to defraud anyone, truly its not in his nature, Fred was on benefits when a parent passed away and money was lodged into his bank account for himself & some for a third party to be given to that person in several years time when the beneficiary is older but Fred doesn't have any proof.

Fred didn't think to notify work and pensions and cancel the benefit. He said it didn't register in his mind he completely forgot he was on benefit. He hasn't deliberately tried to hide anything but understands people won’t believe him & will judge him.

 

Should Fred phone them now and ask for the benefit to be stopped today or wait for the interview?.

 

Fred thinks he should because he is now aware he is not entitled to benefit. Fred would like to offer to pay back what he owes which would amount to approximately three years of overpayment. Fred says the benefit officers will not believe him and expects the worse but he is prepared for it and would be better than the life he is living at the moment. “This is very unlike the Fred I knew a few years ago who would be prepared to give a fight. It is clear to see he has lost his way in life.

 

Fred as had a very difficult time over the last several years because of deteriorating health and loosing family and friends etc.. My friend as become more and more distant and depressed over the last few years suffering with memory loss and being more and more vacant when you talk to him he is often on another planet and believes he has the same disease has the parent that passed away after years of terrible suffering. I think it was Alzheimer's or dementia?. . Fred looked after his parent for many years and witnessed lots of suffering.

Fred has several major and perhaps life threatening health problems and because of circumstances and pain, as become addicted to very powerful prescribed medications.

 

Fred seems to be in a never ending spiral where one day runs into the next. If you knew Fred as I do you would understand he would never deliberately break the law he is a Royalist and loves his country and its laws. I'm very worried about him because he will not go to a solicitor and believes know one will believe him so accepts what happens. “So unlike Fred..

 

Can someone make any suggestions?.. But firstly should he notify work & pensions before the interview and stop the claim?..

 

Perhaps I should try and give you all a rundown on how I see my friend; why I don’t think he should be alone on the interview. I won’t go into all the whys and wherefores we would be here all day!. My friend as helped me and many other people over the years he is so honest and kind you wouldn't find a better friend. I have been worried about him for some time now but it’s not always easy talking to a friend. Not so many years ago he would never be late for an appointment. We have mutual friends that are magistrates and I remember a few years ago over dinner people saying and agreeing how good a magistrate he would make. “Not any more he forgets things!. To give you an idea what he is like now, “Fred what time is it? Errr, “errr “Fred would look at you with a blank distant look as if I had asked a really difficult question. He sometimes forgets dates & times, He looks as if something is always on his mind often staring into space. You can explain the simplest thing and he won’t grasp it, he can get half way through a sentence & forgets what he was saying. He will jump at the slightest thing. He was always out and about; He used to be very well dressed.

 

Fred doesn't have a partner I can approach and I don’t know his family well enough, in anycase he doesn't want to involve anyone so I’m at a loss as to how I can help. I would offer to go on the interview with him but I’m away all this week.

 

Thanks to anyone that may give advice.

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

It's kind of you to think of helping your friend, but if you don't think he wants advice from you, I don't quite understand how we can help. Forgive me if I'm being thick.

 

The best people to help would be a solicitor, CAB, Welfare Rights [somtimes with CAB these days], or possibly a community legal centre. Although it sounds as if some or all of those may not work if your friend doesn't want to consult.

 

My best, HB

[mr_mastiff]

Pleasehelpafriend, as he touched any of the capital that he holds in trust. Who is the money being held for. Could they provide a statement to say that by verbal agreement and to comply with the Wishes of Freds parent that fred was holding the money in trust. Fred appears to have a number of both Physical and mental problems as he been assessed in anyway I.E by Doctors, Care workers etc to back up your claim that he as some form of dementia. Could one of your mutual friends that is a magistrate give him some help. The biggest question can Fred be persuaded that he needs help without his cooperation any advise given here would be futile.

[antone]

Agree that if he's not amenable to taking advice there's not a lot any of us can do. However, if he will listen, my first advice would be that he write to the DWP office asking to postpone the interview while he seeks professional advice. He's quite within his rights to do this. But note - the letter should contain only a request for the delay, he should not say anything else or attempt any explanations at that point.

[Please Help friend]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I'm at a loss as to what to do to help. He is a very good friend and I will help all I can, he deserves it and has helped many people including me over the years. Surly that's what friends are for? I will phone him later and try and get him to accept help. Should he be honest now and say he is not entitled to the benefit or should he say nothing util if or when he gets legal advice? Perhaps I should encourage him to cancel the appointment until he gets legal advice.

[mr_mastiff]

Cancelling the appointment would be your best option at the present time. Until he as taken advice do not say a word to the DWP. Please get back to us if we can help you deal with this.

[Please Help friend]

Hi, Thanks for your reply. No Fred as not touched the capital other than what was left to him. Yes the other beneficiary does know they have inherited money. Fred will get the results of a ct scan over the next few days he as many health problems and as had numerous tests over the last year. I did ask him if he has mentioned dementia to a health care professional he often tries to make lite of it in front of some friends, but says he cant remember! He would be to embarrassed to ask help from the mutual magistrate friends.

 

Fred plans to go to the interview and admit he should have notified them but forgot

[mr_mastiff]

Fred is perhaps too honest, I still believe it would be in Freds best interest to cancel the appointment. Not to lie to them but to acquire medical evidence that he as such a poor memory.

[antone]

If he plans to go to the IUC and admit guilt, he should ideally take legal advice before he does so. Also, anything he can gather to show that that some of the money is not intended for his use and he is respecting that would probably help a bit. It would be more of a mitigating factor than a defence, especially since the money is simply sitting in his account and not in a legally constituted trust.

 

But as my signature says, I am not a lawyer and that's why I would strongly suggest he speaks to a solicitor experienced in benefit matters, even if, in the end, he goes ahead with his plan to admit that it's his fault.

[jadeybags]

Oh bless him, see if he'll postpone the IUC, it would be best if it's when you can go with him too?

[Please Help friend]

Thank you and others for the kind advice. I have spoken to Fred saying I had taken some advice. He will be going to the interview under caution. He plans to tell them the truth no point in altering the truth and cant see how admitting the truth can be harmful in any way.

 

I can understand Fred wanting to get this over and done with as soon as possible; dragging it out will not help his deteriorating health. Fred really has had it rough and fears the worse regarding a diagnosis of one of his ailments. He gets the results of the CT scan over the next few days

 

Fred hopes by being honest they won’t take it to court. He plans to tell them he didn't think to notify them but will offer to pay them back with a lump sum along with a payment plan. . He will also tell them, that half of the money is for another beneficiary but Fred is still over any thresholds with an original amount of about 30k each. Fred says he will say know more than this and will probably see a lawyer after the interview when he knows what he is facing.

 

Fred is a little worried that they might try to trick him; he is also worried they may get very nasty with him.

 

My questions are..

 

1) Should he phone now to cancel his benefit or wait until he goes to the interview?

 

2) What are the thresholds of savings?

 

3) Is there anything he shouldn’t say?

 

4) Can he legally tell them the above and refuse to answer any other questions without a lawyer being present?. He may say more depending on the questions and on how they talk to him. He will try not to incriminate himself by telling only the truth.

 

5) What is the likely outcome of an interview under caution, and is it likely to go to court?

 

6) Will they try and trick him and get nasty with him?.

 

Thank you all once again for all the kind advice.

[mr_mastiff]

Hi, your questions need someone with far more experience than I. A lot of the advisor's on this forum have day jobs, so please be patient, someone I am sure will get back to you.

He should phone now to cancel the appointment and rearrange another date. Please do this as a prority.

[Please Help friend]

Thanks for your very kind reply and for taking the time to advice my friend. I will be speaking to him this evening and will ask him to reconsider cancelling the appointment. He admits he should have notified them and believes if he is honest and tells the truth “what does he have to loose?.

 

How differently can a lawyer answer but truthfully. So that I can try advising my friend to get legal advice can you please explain what difference does it make if he only admits he should have notified them and offers to pay them back. But says he won’t answer any other questions until he has taken legal advice. He thinks rightly or wrongly if he takes a lawyer its like saying you have something to hide.

 

Fred really is very worried not only about this but his health and other issues and just wants to put an end to this because he believes dragging it out will only make his health conditions worse. Since he received the letter he has been unable to eat and sleep.

 

I mistakenly though the interview was later in the week but that’s for a medical issue the interview under caution is tomorrow so little time left.

 

Thankyou.

[bio]

The very best advice I would give is for him to attend and to be totally honest. It is very likely that the investigators will have secured all the evidence they need, so there is little point in him lying, or being awkward. If he is totally honest in his IUC, it will go in his favour. If he attends the IUC voluntarily, he will not be under arrest, so can leave whenever he likes, and if, during the IUC he feels he does need legal advice, then he can request that it is suspended until such time as he obtains legal advice.

 

One advantage of taking a solicitor is that he can obtain 'disclosure' prior to the IUC, and see what evidence is going to be used in the IUC. In cases involving capital, it is easy to obtain bank details etc, so this is most likely the evidence that they have anyway.

[Please Help friend]

Thanks for your advice I tend to agree with you my friend is understandably at his wits-end and has enough to worry about. It’s not like he deliberately tried to hide the money or used a false name or even had it stashed under his pillow. Forgetting something isn't much of a defense bit it is the truth and he does have mitigating circumstances to back up his bad memory.

 

He has had an horrendous past 4 or 5 years. I'm sure if things carry on as they have he will have a breakdown of some sort. He was literally shaking and stammering the last time I spoke to him.

 

Thank-you.

[antone]

I'll write more in a moment, but I just wanted to point out that Fred should not wait until after the IUC to seek legal advice - he should cancel and seek advice now. There's no sense in waiting until he finds out "what he is facing" because this will depend heavily on what happens at the interview.

[Please Help friend]

Thanks for your advice but Fred's appointment is tomorrow and he believes if he comes clean admits he failed to notify and cancel his benefit whilst he has a chance and to explain things before being arrested and charged. The simple fact of the matter is he didn't even think about benefit payments and they obliviously know his capital is above the allowed amount. Fred now knows this and would be breaking the law if he didn't notify them of this fact.

 

Please see the post above from bio. He explains why he thinks its a good idea to go keep the interview.

 

Can you please underline why he should cancel the appointment and any benefit this would have because they already know he should have canceled his benefit.

 

I will be speaking with Fred later this evening.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

[antone]

I agree with Bio on the point that using a solicitor will assist because he can obtain disclosure, but bear in mind that he or she was writing when we thought the interview was next week. Now, no-one has suggested that he completely not attend the interview, and I'm certainly not doing that either. But he is entitled to postpone the interview to seek advice and as long as he contacts them (by phone, now, given the timescale involved) before the interview then he will not be arrested - they'll just give him a new date and time.

 

So that's the basic reason why I suggest he postpones and seeks advice - he has mitigating circumstances and could benefit from the help of a professional. And if, in the end, that professional advises him to go ahead and tell all at the IUC, then fine. My point above was that the time to seek advice is before, not after, the IUC.

[antone]

Sorry, meant to add - I can't help with whether or not he should cancel his claim as I don't know what benefit he is on and that is crucial information. It's also crucial information for advising about savings/capital limits.

[Please Help friend]

Thanks again for your kind reply. The appointment as always been this week I had originally stated it was for this Wednesday, which is today but it’s for tomorrow Thursday a day later than I had originally stated.

 

Unfortunately I don't know what benefits he is on but surely we are talking about a point of law, you are either paid benefit when you are not entitled or not. He should have notified the authorities that he is no longer entitled to benefit. Unfortunately he simply didn’t think about it.

 

What are the benefits of keeping the appointment, what are the benefits of not keeping the appointment?.

 

My friend did contact citizen’s advice but the person he spoke to wasn’t very helpful. He also phoned a firm of solicitors but the person able to help was on his/her annual leave.

 

Thank you once more for help.

[id6052]

the advantage in postponing an IUC is to allow him to seek professional legal advice

 

in "Fred's" situation, a solicitor can help him prepare a statement along the lines of

 

since receiving the IUC letter, Fred has realised that he may not be entitled to "insert name of benefit(s)", prior to the letter he was not aware that he might not have been entitled to said benefit, his comprehension/understanding of the situation has been impeded by "insert medical condition"

 

although he accepts that he may no longer entitled to "insert name of benefit(s)", Fred would like to emphasise that any overpayment was not as a result of dishonest intent n his behalf, but rather his difficulties in understanding the complexities of the social security system

 

Fred is willing to make arrangements to repay any amounts due, however would ask that further sanction action not be applied on the basis of his age, medical conditions, previous good character and the fact that any sanction action would not satisfy the condition of being in the public interest

 

et cetera

 

it is difficult to give further advice without knowing more detail

[jabba jones]

Fred has realised that he may not be entitled to "insert name of benefit(s)",

 

It will be Pension Credit.

I believe there has been a capital match scan on PC claims in the last few months & £60,000 in a bank account will definitely have shown up!

[antone]

1) Should he phone now to cancel his benefit or wait until he goes to the interview?

 

2) What are the thresholds of savings?

 

3) Is there anything he shouldn’t say?

 

4) Can he legally tell them the above and refuse to answer any other questions without a lawyer being present?. He may say more depending on the questions and on how they talk to him. He will try not to incriminate himself by telling only the truth.

 

5) What is the likely outcome of an interview under caution, and is it likely to go to court?

 

6) Will they try and trick him and get nasty with him?.

Well, it's late now and I don't know what he's decided to do. But for what it's worth:

 

1) Can't answer that. If Jabba Jones is correct and he's on State Pension Credit, we'd need more information. Personally, I wouldn't bother now, but that's just what I'd do and not any kind of legal opinion. It's just that, well, they obviously already know about the situation. He should not say or do anything without seeking advice - which is why he should rearrange the interview.

 

2) If it is State Pension Credit, then savings below £10,000 are ignored. £1 is deducted from his weekly entitlement for every £500 (or part thereof) that he has above that amount. There is no maximum threshold for SPC. There is for other benefits.

 

3) He shouldn't say anything at all without talking to a lawyer. We're not legally qualified, which is why we're emphatically stating that he should speak to someone who is. If he chooses not to postpone the interview as advised, no-one here is in a position to tell him what he should or should not say: we have neither the training nor the necessary background information.

 

4) He can decline to answer the questions, or read out a prepared statement and then say nothing more other than "no comment". The caution is along the lines of "you are not obliged to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court." He can leave the interview at any time. Whether doing any of these things is wise is something to be discussed with a lawyer.

 

5) The outcome will depend on what he says (if anything) and whether there are any mitigating factors if he admits guilt. Coherently presenting his mitigation is the main reason he should postpone and seek legal advice. Also relevant will be the amount of the overpayment. They could decide to drop the criminal matter entirely, and merely seek repayment. They could offer a deal known as an "Administrative Penalty", where he agrees to pay 30% extra in exchange for not being prosecuted. He does not have to accept this deal. Or, of course, they could prosecute. Mitigating factors might affect this, which is why he should postpone and seek legal advice.

 

6) They are not supposed to "get nasty", but they are seeking evidence about a possible crime. So while they (probably) won't go all "good cop, bad cop" on him, they should not be regarded as his friends. They're not his enemies either, they're just people doing a job. But he should seek legal advice because a good lawyer will know how to handle the situation.

 

See the common theme here? He should postpone and seek advice, even if he intends to admit guilt. I can't stress this enough.