Benefit Fraud - Under Investigation

[tomtom256]

Hi All

 

Well the IUC is over, but it is far from over, h met with the solicitor beforehand, and it was decided to go in for the prepared statement, then "no "comment" to all the questions.

 

The investigator did not seem to believe the letter, because previously it was phone calls, this time was different because I could not get through at all, waiting on the line for over an hour each time, and as he was starting work imminently decided to inform them via a letter, this is the truth.

 

The upshot of that may not be good, they have now requested more info, bank statements going back a few years, to the very first claim which lasted a year, then stopped because of work, which they were informed about, but they still paid another 2 payments after being notified, which I only just realised that tonight on checking the statement but then at least they did cease, not like this time.

 

For the period of time that they want to see, I had a bank loan of £5k so that is a payment into the bank, should we have notified them of this payment? the rest of the balance is mostly overdrawn over that period, that does not look good does it, but it is the recent period of work and the letter informing them of a change in circumstances that the payments kept coming in and we have the money in the bank to pay them back, but they seem to want to be digging up more.

 

When you are on ESA contribution based should you tell the office of every amount of money deposited into the bank, and then should the payments stop until that money has been used up.

 

Sorry for more questions, but it would appear that if you do not know the rules, you can easily fall foul of them, but I understand that you should make sure that you know the rules.

 

And if you got paid any redundancy pay during the time of a claim, he didn't by the way, but now I am trying to find out the rules and regulations, should the office be notified of that.

 

So another sleepless night for me tonight, and h is very down.

 

I'll leave the capital as that has been explained, but from what has been said I can't figure out what the investigator may be looking for.

 

This is a little odd as the investigator appears to possibly be fishing by asking for the bank statements as they could have obtained these prior to IUC if there was a need to assist in proving the fraud. Was the work PAYE or self-employed?

 

Do you have a copy of the MG6A that should have been given, if so what does it state as the offence(s)/matter being investigated?

[pottyprincess]

Hi Antone and TomTom256,

 

 

Thank you so much for help and interest, I am shaking at the moment with all the stress of it, and as you can imagine h is convinced he's off to the slammer.

 

 

He does not have a copy of the MG6A, the paperwork they gave him is CI16WRA 04/13) just a notice for persons who have been interviewed under caution, the next one is a CI12 10/14 and the last one is CI10/ 09/10, so I do not know why he would not have been given a form stating what offence they are investigating.

 

 

They told him that it was working whilst claiming, and in his prepared statement he explained that he had reported his change of circumstances via the letter.

 

 

The investigator told him that if he does not supply the bank statements asked for within 7 days then they will apply to get them.

 

 

The work they are investigating was paid work, like I say he gave in his P45, paid tax and NI.

 

 

I don't know what to do next, obviously obtain my bank statements for them, I do not want to aggravate or make it look like we are hiding something when we are not, I mean why can't it be ok that we showed them the total amount in the bank, showing that we have enough to pay it back, we have a joint account, so my wages get paid in, they have always known I work, and no other claims are made, no HB or council tax etc.

 

 

And thank you for telling me that we did not need to declare the few large amounts that got paid in, I was convinced they would look at that and think "guilty".

 

 

I think this nightmare is only just beginning, I will keep you all posted, thanks.

[pottyprincess]

I have just checked and it was definitely contribution based ESA.

 

 

I won't give the years, but for instance, if your job of work ended on 31st march, and you had been on sick leave following an op for quite a few weeks before, could you claim ESA from 1st April, h did not get any payment from ESA in April but it started in May, he did however get a his final salary pay on 30th April, could that be a problem, I don't know, I am wracking my brains, and looking thru the claims, which I have kept copies of, I cannot see anything wrong.

[pottyprincess]

I will print the bank statements today, but have been told to give them to the solicitor, not the investigator, is this the normal thing to do?

[Shoelover]

I will print the bank statements today, but have been told to give them to the solicitor, not the investigator, is this the normal thing to do?

 

Yes it is. Been poorly but I will respond properly tonight xx

[pottyprincess]

Hi Shoelover

 

Sorry to hear that you have been poorly, hoping you are feeling better now.

 

Speaking of poorly, this is making me and h ill, and I am trying to function properly, and come and do my job of work which is stressful anyway.

 

What I do not understand is why ask for bank statements for the year not in question, why not ask for the period of time that is being investigated.

 

Looking forward to hearing your comments when you are feeling better, thank you.

[pottyprincess]

Hi

 

I have just spoken to the solicitor, who now advises not to submit the bank statements because they are rather messy and as my income gets paid into the joint account and things get paid, how can you split that the ESA never got spent, the bank is in credit, so the solicitor says the best thing to do would be to stress again that the money is there ready to be paid back immediately, all well and good but wouldn't that look like you have got something to hide in the eye's of the investigator.

 

I know that the investigator can apply to have access to the bank account, how long does that take, and how much does that cost, wouldn't they just accept that the money can be paid back immediately.

[pottyprincess]

I am sorry to be a pest, but I cannot take my mind off these events, I know that we do not have to take the advice of the solicitor and can give the statements in, is with holding them going to make it worse, or handing them in would make it worse.

 

I will explain the reason why I am worried, and it is because like I said I had a loan, and then 2 large payments went in, as I understand because the ESA was contribution based, they didn't need to be informed, but will they question in detail, these deposits, they weren't redundancy payments, but were payments without liability.

 

If you were investigating somebody and they declined to give in the statements, would that make you more suspicious that they were hiding something, we are not hiding anything, all above board it is, but it still makes you worry non the less.

[pottyprincess]

Hi All

 

 

We have decided to submit the bank statements, because we have nothing to hide, and can explain and validate anything the investigator would need to know.

 

 

I think the advice of the solicitor not to submit, looks bad, looks like we do have something to hide and may make the investigator annoyed, something that we absolutely do not want to do.

 

 

In fact the solicitor did not even know the difference between ESA contribution based as opposed to income based, not good for the solicitor not to know that.

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

I think that's what I would do as well. I can see your point about the solicitor too, they recommended a no comment interview which the guys here said might not help you.

 

It will be interested to see what the people who have been advising you think about this.

 

HB

[Shoelover]

Hello. Thanks for your good wishes- when I taught my son to share I didn't have his germs in mind!!! Anyway I'm over my vile cold & the sinusitis is better too.

 

Like others I am not remotely worried by a no comment interview - it's just a question of asking all the relevant questions and that's it.

 

If you don't supply your bank statements then the investigator can just go and get them anyway. It depends which bank you are with as to how long this will take. So the only thing that not handing them over achieves is prolonging matters. Given how upsetting this is to you, then I think that's not ideal.

 

It's not what the investigator thinks that counts really- they won't make any decision as regards any further action.

 

Do you get housing benefit- was it mentioned at IUC? If HB is involved they will need your bank statements to consider underlying entitlement.

[pottyprincess]

Hi shoelover

thank you for your comments. Would it be appropriate for me to write explanations on the statement, like when I have paid money in from my own account to the joint account, or should I just hand them in, then wait and if they need more clarification they would invite h in for another IUC, is that what would happen?

[Shoelover]

Hi shoelover

thank you for your comments. Would it be appropriate for me to write explanations on the statement, like when I have paid money in from my own account to the joint account, or should I just hand them in, then wait and if they need more clarification they would invite h in for another IUC, is that what would happen?

 

 

I think that's a great idea to annotate them.

 

If they need further clarification then another IUC may well be conducted, but from what you say it sounds unlikely.

 

If you want to make sure they get to the investigator quickly, which in turn speeds the process up, then it could be worth you dropping them off at the office.

 

Did hubby have an appropriate adult?

[pottyprincess]

Hi shoelover

No he didn't, the solicitor thought it best to do the prepared statement because she could tell that he would waffle on, and not get the right words out, she said, he's an intelligent guy, but finds it difficult to express himself.

I am wondering though maybe it would have been better to just answer the questions, would that have beenenough or would they still want the bank statements?

[honeybee13]

PP, if you don't mind my saying, what's done is done. You can drive yourself mad wondering 'What if..', I've done it too.

 

From what Shoelover says, this is looking hopeful, please try to deal with what you have now.

 

HB

[Shoelover]

I too excel at overthinking & always manage to dream up awful scenarios. So I get how you feel.

 

You really have done your best to put this right and need to stop worrying. Hugs - have a nice weekend lovely and stop worrying!!!!! Xx

[pottyprincess]

Thank you all, very much appreciated, I will let you know how it all pans out.

 

 

Have a good week end everybody.

[Shoelover]

Yes- please do let us know. You try to have a good weekend too.

 

Stop worrying so much lovely. Xx

[neword]

Right I think the solicitor was wrong in telling you not to submit the statements.

They may be messy as you said but if you can explain anything they ask about them then you should be alright.

Also this no comment thing could be construed as you trying to hide something so that could get the investigator a little suspicious so that's probably why he's asking for the bank statements.

 

When I had a IUC my solicitor advised me to be up front and to have everything with me that could help minimize the investigation time. If you are seen to be helping to get the whole situation sorted they will probably be a little more easy going on you.

 

I pleaded guilty to the charge of claiming while building up my self employment business and I had to supply costings and earnings (spreadsheets). Over the time I had claimed it worked out that I had earned £3300 after costs and this is the figure they accepted but they added an administration charge which pushed it to about £4100.

 

I have paid back £100 per month since the decision.

 

If they find that there's not really a case to answer they will just want you to return the money that you were not entitled to.

However, they could find you guilty and require you to pay the money back with an administration charge added. This is normally based on a percentage of the actual over claimed amount (not sure what the percentage is now but it was 25% when mine was done).

 

I am not trying to scare you but simply trying to make you aware of the possible fact you may have to pay more back than was claimed.

 

As a previous poster has said they normally do not go to court for figures up to £4000 but would much prefer to have you repay with the admin charge.

 

and on a side note. I have been self employed now for over two years and even though I had to break the rules to get there I feel the whole thing was worth it in the end.

[pottyprincess]

Hi Neword,

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply and explain what may happen, don't worry you have not scared me anymore than I am scared already, I do know that they may offer an administrative penalty if there is no case to answer to, so know that the total amount would be more than the overpayment.

 

 

The investigator was wary of the letter, asking my h if he had written it, he had, they asked him if I had written it, I did not, all this was answered with "No Comment" of course we can prove that he wrote it, just ask me for a sample of my handwriting and they would see if is very different, they also got him to read out a paragraph of something, may be to prove that he can read, of course he can, he does not have learning difficulties, he just does not function under stress and has high anxiety levels, and waffles on, so I think the solicitor was worried he may incriminate himself, how I don't know, just tell the truth as to what happened and all should be well.

 

 

I am not happy that that it was decided to do a prepared statement then, answer no comment to all questions, of course it looks suspicious, and if it looks suspicious to me, it must look suspicious to them, I know they are doing their job.

 

 

The investigator asked how previously the contact had been via phone and now the IUC, a letter appears, the answer to that is they never answer the phone, or you have to hold on up to an hour in a queue and still not get through, very frustrating and as he was starting work, needed to notify them and a letter was the only way, but how cynical, and that is what worries me, because you do seem to be guilty in their eye's until you can prove your innocence.

 

 

So the solicitor says not to submit the statements but instead keep to the fact that the ESA was not spent during the time, and can be paid back immediately, but I don't think the investigator is going to be happy with that, and wonder why would we not want to submit them, as the saying goes "if you have nothing to hide, then you hide nothing"

 

 

I am also worried that when I asked the solicitor the question about income based or contribution ESA and redundancy payments and a bank loan I had, she did not know the answer, um that is something that she should know and especially If she is representing my h, bad advice could very well see h in court, if the investigator does not believe that he is telling the truth.

 

 

There are a 2 large deposits over the claim period, these were pay off's from companies, a sort of redundancy payment, payment without liability, so we were allowed to receive these, as it was contribution based, and could put comments on the statement to that effect.

 

 

The investigator did say that she was going to contact HMRC amongst other things.

 

 

There is no fraud, we are hard working law abiding citizens, but it has had me checking over and over again dates etc, frightened to death that a wrong date may have been submitted to start the claim etc, and if it had, it would have been done in error, it hasn't been, thankfully, dates tally.

 

 

I have stated before and I will say it again, I am now frightened about benefit's and hope to never be in this situation ever again.

[Shoelover]

PP,

What is the earliest date of the overpayment? That will dictate which ad pen scheme it comes under.

 

Although the money not having been spent is not a defence, i would imagine it will be considered as mitigation.

 

Your solicitors advice is just that - advice. You do not have to take it- it's your decision. It may well be she advised no comment purely because he was so nervous.

[pottyprincess]

Hi Shoelover

 

 

The earliest date would be June'15, for the first part of work, then it ended, then latest date is Jan'16 for the few weeks he worked then.

 

 

What is irking me is that I thought this would all get answered at the IUC, h had it all down on paper, the dates etc and h handed it to the solicitor, afterwards it turned out, only one set of dates came up, solicitor did not mention the latter dates, now of course on the statement, they will see the second set of dates, this is worrying me because again looks like h is trying to hide, and then how credible does he look, of course you could say "the solicitor said to only answer to the dates being questioned about"

 

 

I hate this game, it is stupid, I wanted it all out and the truth be told and lets deal with what is going to happen, do solicitors play tactics? I think so, but who has to deal with the fall out.

[neword]

An IUC is just an interview where investigators try to get information concerning questions they have unanswered and to allow the other side to put across there side of the story.

 

It goes from them to a decision maker and they are the ones that say court, admin+repay or simply to repay.

 

FYI: normally anything below £4000 is normally a repay+admin charge and the reason for this is that they get the money back + cover the costs in getting it back which is a win win for them, in general it's the stubborn ones and the ones that have deliberately done it and then try to cover it up and make the investigators job harder that they are more likely to pursue in court.

 

If they go to court they may get some court costs but in general these will not give them as much as a admin + repay result does.

 

You also have to look at it this way, the quicker they can get the low figure overpayments/claims out the way the more time they have for the big fish that are deliberately defrauding the country. If you can be seen to be cooperating with them as much as possible then the chances are they would be more inclined for the repayment option.

[ThedaBara]

I think solicitors are guilty of drawing things out in order to make more money… They don't care if you win or lose. TB

[Shoelover]

The decision re further action lies with the fraud manager. DM's only make decisions on benefit claims.