Interview under caution - allegation of working whilst claiming

[politenun]

I have been asked to come to an interview under caution.

I was told it was to do with allegations of working whilst claiming universal credit.

 

What was odd was that I received the letter at the beginning of April, yet it was dated mid February.

In the letter, it said that if I did not reply within 7 days of the date as posted,

then they will assume that I am not attending and it will result in further action.

 

When I called the DWP officer, he said it was just a mistake

- but it seems a bit odd that a DWP fraud officer would get the dates so wrong. Also, he told me just to ignore the serious wording of the letter. I said it was a serious investigation, judging by the wording.

 

I felt he was just trying to get me to come in, thinking it was not too serious so that I do not get legal advice.

I feel this is a devious ploy.

 

 

I am thinking of just saying no comment because I cannot afford for a solicitor to attend

but I am afraid this will land me in more trouble.

Also, I will ask for a copy of the tape at the end of the interview.

[martin2006]

Are the allegations true or not? Are you able to expand on the circumstances surrounding the allegation?

 

this would have immense bearing on any advice offered

[BazzaS]

I have been asked to come to an interview under caution. I was told it was to do with allegations of working whilst claiming universal credit.

 

 

What was odd was that I received the letter at the beginning of April, yet it was dated mid February. In the letter, it said that if I did not reply within 7 days of the date as posted, then they will assume that I am not attending and it will result in further action.

 

 

When I called the DWP officer, he said it was just a mistake - but it seems a bit odd that a DWP fraud officer would get the dates so wrong. Also, he told me just to ignore the serious wording of the letter. I said it was a serious investigation, judging by the wording.

 

 

I felt he was just trying to get me to come in, thinking it was not too serious so that I do not get legal advice. I feel this is a devious ploy. I am thinking of just saying no comment because I cannot afford for a solicitor to attend but I am afraid this will land me in more trouble. Also, I will ask for a copy of the tape at the end of the interview.

 

Ask them to resend the letter, sending a letter that clarifies the seriousness. If it is "under caution" ; I'd say it could be serious.

Most importantly : have you been working while claiming?

 

If not, why the need for a "no comment" interview?.

Sure, you are "innocent until proven guilty", but you can elect to answer, let them find you are in the clear, and you can get this all behind you.

[politenun]

Hi

I read on a number of legal forums that you should only talk if you have legal advice

as sometimes innocent people like me are stitched up.

 

 

Apparently, they get a bonus if they "find" an overpayment.

Also, I read that if you are on your own,

they can be a bit more well,

not bullying but they can create an atmosphere where people say yes to things

without really understanding the enormity of what they have said.

 

I was told by a universal credit person that you can work whilst claiming

and they will check how much you have been paid each month by looking at HMRC.

That is why I am a bit confused by what is being said.

 

People like me are going in blind and then immediately expected to reply with a definite answer

to things that could be more accurately given if we had time to take the evidence away and check.

 

Also, I read that you can request a copy of the tape but I wondered how long this takes them.

[dx100uk]

HAVE you been working whilst claiming....?

been asked twice now by forum members...

 

 

answer the question please..

 

 

dx

[BazzaS]

Hi

I read on a number of legal forums that you should only talk if you have legal advice

as sometimes innocent people like me are stitched up.

 

 

Apparently, they get a bonus if they "find" an overpayment.

Also, I read that if you are on your own,

they can be a bit more well,

not bullying but they can create an atmosphere where people say yes to things

without really understanding the enormity of what they have said.

 

I was told by a universal credit person that you can work whilst claiming

and they will check how much you have been paid each month by looking at HMRC.

That is why I am a bit confused by what is being said.

 

People like me are going in blind and then immediately expected to reply with a definite answer

to things that could be more accurately given if we had time to take the evidence away and check.

 

Also, I read that you can request a copy of the tape but I wondered how long this takes them.

 

If you worked:

A) did you tell DWP?

B) do you qualify for a "work allowance"? (where earnings up to an allowed value don't affect a UC claim, but you still have to tell DWP)

 

"You will need to tell DWP if you start working and will be able to call a helpline to report this change. The helpline is available Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm. Call 0345 600 0723.*

[antone]

Hi

I read on a number of legal forums that you should only talk if you have legal advice

as sometimes innocent people like me are stitched up.

 

 

Apparently, they get a bonus if they "find" an overpayment.

Also, I read that if you are on your own,

they can be a bit more well,

not bullying but they can create an atmosphere where people say yes to things

without really understanding the enormity of what they have said.

 

I was told by a universal credit person that you can work whilst claiming

and they will check how much you have been paid each month by looking at HMRC.

That is why I am a bit confused by what is being said.

 

People like me are going in blind and then immediately expected to reply with a definite answer

to things that could be more accurately given if we had time to take the evidence away and check.

 

Also, I read that you can request a copy of the tape but I wondered how long this takes them.

 

It's important to note that the advice we give will be affected by whether you have been working while claiming or not. It's hard to suggest courses of action without knowing that fairly basic piece of information. If you don't want to say, well, fair enough, but we can then only offer very generic and not particularly useful advice.

 

So, here goes with some generic advice:

 

1) You have said that you are innocent. Note that DWP fraud staff absolutely do not get a "bonus" for finding overpayments or inviting people to IUCs. You are not being "stitched up".

 

2) However, an IUC does suggest that they're at least considering the possibility of prosecution, so you do want to be careful. Whether or not you choose to "no comment" at an IUC is up to you, but bear in mind that if you do that then you're passing up an opportunity to lay the matter to rest before it goes any further.

 

3) You can request a copy of the interview. It will be a CD rather than a tape these days, and will probably take a few weeks to get that sorted.

 

4) If you can't actually afford to get a lawyer to represent you, you might try looking for one who will provide a short free consultation. They may at least be able to consider the facts of the case if you're unwilling to post them here. You can ask for the IUC to be postponed while you seek legal advice: that is your right. If you have a local Law Centre (not all areas do, but there's one near me in Glasgow that does excellent work) they might be able to help.

[Shoelover]

DWP fraud staff do not get any such bonus, urban myth. The interview will be recorded so they won't bully you because you are alone. There is no more reliable witness than a sealed recording.

 

The incorrect date is probably because the officer overwrote the template or typed 2 in stead of 4.

 

No comment is not always the best advice - adverse inference can be drawn- take legal advice before you go down that line. Qualified legal advice from someone with all of the facts of your case.

[politenun]

Hi

 

 

I worked and telephone the UC after two weeks. When I was on JSA, you had up to four weeks to report a change in circumstances. The woman I spoke to said that they would have known anyway as they have a "real time" link to HMRC.

 

 

I tried to post a link to a woman who was asked to attend an IUC DWP for working whilst on benefits. When she got there, thinking she could explain it all, it turned out they were investigating her for living with someone and not telling them. There are many examples that I have read of people being told one thing and finding out they are being investigated for something else. This woman said they tried to bully and intimidate her. Other people have also said they felt pressurised and taking that into account and the general advice on a legal blog spot, I would rather just go there and listen to what it is all about.

 

 

In the case of this woman, she appealed the decision and it was then that she had access to the details of the DWP investigation. It claimed that they had observed her partner leaving her house etc. on one particular week. She pointed out that she and her partner were away on holiday that week. The charges against her were dropped and she lodged a complaint against the DWP for misleading her as to the real purpose of the investigation. It is for this reason that I do not feel that a taped interview in itself ensures good practice on the part of the DWP.

 

 

I am only allowed to send links after 10 posts but there are two legal blog sites I have come across were lawyers/legal advisers have said that it is best just to hear what is being said because of the tactics used by the DWP.

 

 

When I claimed for UC, I was the third person in that area to claim and none of the benefit advisers knew what to advise me as they said they are still learning. I called the UC office three times and only one of them gave me advice that I understood to mean you can claim UC if you are working or not working and they will decide if they can give you an award. I am going to try and find out if the UC people keep a record of the phone conversations and if so, if I can use a FOI to prove that I acted on the UC advice. I am not sure how long FOI takes so by saying nothing and waiting to appeal, that should give me enough time to collect more evidence.

 

 

I work long hours and my phone does not have internet access. So I am only able to reply when I get home in the evenings.

[BazzaS]

If you are concerned they will ask you questions other than what you have initially been told about

, then one option (to prevent "adverse inferences" being drawn) is to give a "no comment" interview

& then give a written statement at the end of the interview.

 

 

The advantages are that you know what questions need answering,

so they cannot ambush you with a new question,

they cannot use this to allow a court to make an adverse inference

(& you can't be accused of getting the questions & then going away to fabricate a response!)

This is akin to the "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something which you later rely on".

 

However, this is usually done with the assistance of a solicitor, who can help you

a) phrase your responses correctly, avoiding accidentally / incorrectly incriminating yourself, and

b) not missing out any key questions / areas.

 

FOI requests are better suited to general policy queries. If you want your notes / records of calls a SAR is more appropriate.

[Shoelover]

Can you post the website name & we can get to it that way instead of a link. Would be interested to read what's said on them.

 

Have the DWP told you it's about work- the fraud officer is probably the only person that can tell you for sure.

[Mr.P]

I am going to try and find out if the UC people keep a record of the phone conversations and if so, if I can use a FOI to prove that I acted on the UC advice. I am not sure how long FOI takes so by saying nothing and waiting to appeal, that should give me enough time to collect more evidence.

 

If you seek personal information from the DWP such as telephone recordings, then you need to use a Subject Access Request. The DWP do not charge for a SAR, and it should take up to 40 days.

 

A FOI request can only be used to seek copies of documents such as training notes, minutes of meetings, and a limited range of communications. If you ask for policy information or personal information, it can and will be refused. In any event, a FOI should receive a response within 21 working days.

[liverpoolluke]

out of interest and maybe to aid others, when you are under cation are you not entitled to see the duty solicitor ?

[Shoelover]

out of interest and maybe to aid others, when you are under cation are you not entitled to see the duty solicitor ?

 

No. Duty is only available at court or in custody.

[politenun]

Hi

 

Thanks very much indeed for your responses.

Particularly about the SAR.

 

 

Here is the reference of the woman who was told one thing when she was invited to come in and another when she was there.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?463723-Interview-under-caution-allegation-of-working-whilst-claiming&highlight=ST24Mondeo

 

Incidentally, I have been calling around trying to get a solicitor and when I told them that the fraud officer

said I should not be too concerned about the wording of the letter he said that is a tactic they sometimes use.

 

I am thinking of making a written statement at the end of the interview.

[BazzaS]

I am thinking of making a written statement at the end of the interview.

 

Definitely worth attending with a solicitor.

 

The solicitor should be told of the evidence against you.

The solicitor should be present when you are questioned.

The solicitor can help you formulate your statement, and whilst they can't help you mislead, they can ensure that both

a) you don't wrongly incriminate yourself

b) you cover all the matters put to you.

[Shoelover]

Hi

 

Thanks very much indeed for your responses.

Particularly about the SAR.

 

 

Here is the reference of the woman who was told one thing when she was invited to come in and another when she was there.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?463723-Interview-under-caution-allegation-of-working-whilst-claiming&highlight=ST24Mondeo

 

Incidentally, I have been calling around trying to get a solicitor and when I told them that the fraud officer

said I should not be too concerned about the wording of the letter he said that is a tactic they sometimes use.

 

I am thinking of making a written statement at the end of the interview.

 

 

Hi.. It was the blog I was really interested in. Would you have a link?

[Shoelover]

Ps your link brings me back here!!

[martin2006]

Search for ST24mondeo in the cag search bar, you'll see it

[dx100uk]

correct link is:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?215431-My-Experience-of-interview-under-caution-for-benefit-fraud-and-the-low-tactics-they-will-use-to-find-you-guilty&highlight=ST24mondeo

[Shoelover]

That's a pretty extreme case. IF it did happen that way, then it's disgraceful.

Not casting aspersions but remember everything you read on these forums is written by a faceless stranger and by & large you have no idea of the accuracy of their account. That's why it's great getting general pointers from such websites but you can not replace advice from a qualified advisor that has the full facts of your case.

If you take advice, make sure you are open with your adviser - without all the facts they can not give you the best possible advice.,

[politenun]

Hello again

 

There is a legal blog site where a lawyer/legal adviser called [removed] has said in his second point that his advice to clients is to say no comment if there is no solicitor present. It is called [removed] and it is in the forums section. I am not very tech savvy and I am having a job trying to post the link.

 

I am hoping to see a lawyer next week and I will go through everything and show her the statement I am thinking of reading out.

[Shoelover]

Glad to hear you are seeing a lawyer,

 

As someone who conducts these interviews, I find they always go far smoother when someone has had legal advice, or better still has a rep with them.

 

If you do go ahead with a no comment interview, then the officers will still ask you all the questions as in order for adverse inference to be drawn the question has to be asked. They may give you a "special warning" if you go no comment - which is basically explaining adverse inference.

 

I don't think any lawyer can give such sweeping advice- each case is different.

[BazzaS]

Glad to hear you are seeing a lawyer,

 

As someone who conducts these interviews, I find they always go far smoother when someone has had legal advice, or better still has a rep with them.

 

If you do go ahead with a no comment interview, then the officers will still ask you all the questions as in order for adverse inference to be drawn the question has to be asked. They may give you a "special warning" if you go no comment - which is basically explaining adverse inference.

 

I don't think any lawyer can give such sweeping advice- each case is different.

 

The standard PACE warning covers general adverse inferences.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994, s 34

 

The "special caution" applies to the specific adverse inference that can be drawn regarding

a) failing to account for their presence at a particular place,

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994, s 37, and

b) explanation of possession of objects, substances or marks CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994, s 36

 

OP : your solicitor should find out the matters they wish to enquire about and help you provide a written statement before they interview you. If matters arise during the interview which aren't covered in that statement your solicitor can ask for the interview to be suspended while you create an additional statement. If your statement is then provided at the end of the "no comment" interview and covers the questions asked : no adverse inference can be drawn.

If the statement doesn't answer / cover a question that had been asked : adverse inference can be drawn on that unanswered topic.

This is one of the reasons why it is wise to use a solicitor : if you "go it alone" you might miss answering a (key?) question.

[BazzaS]

Hello again

 

There is a legal blog site where a lawyer/legal adviser called [removed] has said in his second point that his advice to clients is to say no comment if there is no solicitor present. It is called [removed] and it is in the forums section. I am not very tech savvy and I am having a job trying to post the link.

 

I am hoping to see a lawyer next week and I will go through everything and show her the statement I am thinking of reading out.

 

That site's advice is wise if (and only if) you've asked for a solicitor and there isn't one present : where adverse inference can't be drawn.

 

Lousy advice if you haven't asked for a solicitor (or not arranged one for a planned IUC), as adverse inference can be drawn.

 

The key is to reply to all questions "no comment" but if you have been denied a solicitor or are waiting for them to arrive, to make the reply to the first question "no comment as I am awaiting my solicitor whose advice I require" : almost certainly the interview would be suspended and there wouldn't be a second question!