Six Years Ago - Events of Nine Years Ago.

[Kouros]

In July 2009 I was interviewed under caution for benefit fraud 2006-2008.

I was divorced finally in July 2006.

September 2009, the local Magistrate pinged the case to the regional magistrate.

October 2009, the regional magistrate dismissed the case.

April 2010, the County Court Judge said: "Not Guilty of any benefit fraud"

November 2011, the DWP Debt Collection wrote to me to claim the amount of the benefit fraud.

November 2011, my solicitor wrote to the DWP, you have waited nineteen months before raising the matter again and the fraims guidelines are for eighteen months.

The reply then was, civil and criminal are different.

 

I am now waiting May 2015, for my Tier 2 letter stating "Final Written Response" having gone through Tier 1 in the last couple of months as according to the DWP no complaint had ever been lodged.

( I think my solicitor's letter in 2011 rather implies otherwise )

The Independent Case Examiner wants this DWP letter as well.

 

As I understand it the DWP are arguing a "Not Guilty" at a Criminal Hearing does not also cover the civil side of things.

Well maybe, and hence my post, but the thing is, according to my bank statements Jan 2006 to April 2006 there are no payments of Income Support as alleged.

 

The assertion from the DWP is I had over £16,000 in savings and not entitled to any benefits.

The money in the account was put there by my now late uncle and my now late father for the purposes of a property conversion by them to provide a bedroom for my wheel chair bound father.

So yes the bank account in my name for a few months had a lot of money in it before paying the builder but not once the money had been paid out.

The DWP have seen the conversion from outside of the property (2009).

 

I have no problem defending the matter in a civil court ( not that the DWP have suggested that ), they have to date kept asking for the amount of their criminal case with no regard to the fact that they did not pay all they have asserted. I could tell back in 2010 the County Court Judge was far from impressed especially since he could not find all the alleged payments on my bank statements.

 

 

So here is my question: Can a *Criminal* *County Court* Judge say "Not Guilty of *any* benefit fraud" and that is the decision or are the choice of his words misleading.

A more advanced question is what if any evidence can the DWP bring back from a failed criminal case where all benefit payments ceased over seven years ago.

[BazzaS]

In July 2009 I was interviewed under caution for benefit fraud 2006-2008.

I was divorced finally in July 2006.

September 2009, the local Magistrate pinged the case to the regional magistrate.

October 2009, the regional magistrate dismissed the case.

April 2010, the County Court Judge said: "Not Guilty of any benefit fraud"

November 2011, the DWP Debt Collection wrote to me to claim the amount of the benefit fraud.

November 2011, my solicitor wrote to the DWP, you have waited nineteen months before raising the matter again and the fraims guidelines are for eighteen months.

The reply then was, civil and criminal are different.

 

I am now waiting May 2015, for my Tier 2 letter stating "Final Written Response" having gone through Tier 1 in the last couple of months as according to the DWP no complaint had ever been lodged.

( I think my solicitor's letter in 2011 rather implies otherwise )

The Independent Case Examiner wants this DWP letter as well.

 

As I understand it the DWP are arguing a "Not Guilty" at a Criminal Hearing does not also cover the civil side of things.

Well maybe, and hence my post, but the thing is, according to my bank statements Jan 2006 to April 2006 there are no payments of Income Support as alleged.

 

The assertion from the DWP is I had over £16,000 in savings and not entitled to any benefits.

The money in the account was put there by my now late uncle and my now late father for the purposes of a property conversion by them to provide a bedroom for my wheel chair bound father.

So yes the bank account in my name for a few months had a lot of money in it before paying the builder but not once the money had been paid out.

The DWP have seen the conversion from outside of the property (2009).

 

I have no problem defending the matter in a civil court ( not that the DWP have suggested that ), they have to date kept asking for the amount of their criminal case with no regard to the fact that they did not pay all they have asserted. I could tell back in 2010 the County Court Judge was far from impressed especially since he could not find all the alleged payments on my bank statements.

 

 

So here is my question: Can a *Criminal* *County Court* Judge say "Not Guilty of *any* benefit fraud" and that is the decision or are the choice of his words misleading.

A more advanced question is what if any evidence can the DWP bring back from a failed criminal case where all benefit payments ceased over seven years ago.

 

 

I don't know what standard of proof the DWP have to meet in terms of clawing back money.

 

"Not Guilty" is just that - they standard of "guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt" hasn't been met. No criminal conviction is possible, you can't loose your liberty.

A finding of "not guilty" is not the same as "being found innocent" - in terms of a civil case the standard of proof is "on balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt"

 

As a somewhat notorious example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of the murder of his wife (in a criminal prosecution), so he wasn't going to go to prison. A civil case by his wife's family still found him liable for damages in relation to her death. Different standards of proof.

 

With the higher standard in the criminal courts, a finding of guilt can then be relied on in a civil case (and the Civil Evidence Act specifically allows for this).

I don't believe a "not guilty" is similarly binding.

[antone]

 

 

So here is my question: Can a *Criminal* *County Court* Judge say "Not Guilty of *any* benefit fraud" and that is the decision or are the choice of his words misleading.

A more advanced question is what if any evidence can the DWP bring back from a failed criminal case where all benefit payments ceased over seven years ago.

 

The criminal court can find you not guilty of fraud. This does not, in itself, mean you have not been overpaid benefit - it simply means that a court has found that you did not commit any crime. Most benefit overpayments do not involve any fraud or crime, but many are nonetheless recoverable. Basically, a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal court ends the criminal case, but does not necessarily erase any liability to repay overpaid benefits. So it's not that the judge's words are "misleading", at least, not intentionally so. They refer to one matter, while civil recovery of an overpayment is another matter.

 

Your post seems to suggest that you are also in the process of appealing the overpayment decision at a civil tribunal. Is that the case? And if the DWP cannot actually demonstrate that you received any benefits during the period in question, I'd say that their case at a tribunal would appear, on the face of it, to be rather weak. Why do they think you were in receipt of benefits?

[id6052]

i think it would be difficult to get to a tribunal - as years out of time for a MR

[antone]

i think it would be difficult to get to a tribunal - as years out of time for a MR

 

Yes - I misread references to "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" as being about a Tribunal hearing, but on re-reading I think OP might be talking about the DWP's internal complaints procedure or perhaps the ICE.

[Kouros]

The "appeal" sometime near the end of August 2009 prior to the court cases ( Sep, Oct, Apr ) and was a farce.

Generic chat about large amounts of benefits owed over a long time.

Nothing specific like amounts or dates.

It had the feel of an evidence fishing exercise by the DWP.

I attended that "appeal" with a Court Summons in my hand for ten days later.

 

The part I did not mention is that they paid Income Support while I was a full time carer for my father in my own home.

So another issue is I should have received say £40 from *Carer's Allowance*.

You see if the DWP is right they should have to at least offset the £80 Income Support Payments with £40 Carer's Allowance (not means tested).

 

They realised this at some point in 2007 and paid out as £40 Carers Allowance and £40 Income Support.

I assumed it was like that to get the same amount as the statutory minimum support as by then my capital was now below £16,000.

They argue, sorry about our mistake (£40 pw IS ) but we still want our mistake repaid.

 

The amount in question is about £5,000 (total three years, without CA offset or IS should be paid because capital is *now* below £16000)

but nothing will convince me that "right" would have been £40 Carers Allowance a week only.

( what am I a care home on the cheap then? )

when Income Support for a single person was twice that at the time and such people also do not pay Council Tax

where as I was billed the full amount on my property ( 25% off for a paraplegic in your converted home ?? Carer's Assessment ?? ).

 

If the DWP expected me to pay the builder in full before he started (so that I could cleanly claim means tested)

rather than in stages then they are idiots.

 

+++++

antone, yeah maybe hence the question but I think he meant EXACTLY what he said.

Nobody (DWP or here) seems to know if a Criminal County Court Judge can also reach a Civil Decision at the same time.

 

id6052, I do not need the Tribunal to be re-run that is in effect what the Independent Case Examiner is offering.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Kouros