Benefits, Council Tax/Housing Benefit, Prison. HELP ME PLEASE

[shaniannie]

I totally sympathise with you, the benefits system is so hard to understand.

 

From the knowledge I have of it (which is personal, no professional knowledge) they are looking at the whole of the £90 per week you were paid, no matter what it was used for. In their eyes, you were paid £90 per week and chose to use £70 towards rent (which they will argue you needed to as you lived in a house too expensive, as housing benefit rates should cover the whole cost of what is "needed").

 

That being said, forgive me if I'm mis-reading or not understanding something... You've already been on tag years ago for this "crime", and it had all gone through court and you paid whatever you were told to at court, right? I'm no legal expert, but how on earth, after a court has ruled, can they now decide that you still owe them money? I thought a court decision is final, and the end of it?

 

I know my post isn't of much help, I just wanted to offer my support and sympathy, and little knowledge of the benefit system. I think you need to see a solicitor ASAP and go through everything with a fine tooth comb to understand the ins and outs of it all. HUGS.

[shaniannie]

Sorry, I got confused and thought you meant £70 + £20 cash in hand. So it's £50 rent and £20 cash in hand? OK.

 

In which case, the way the benefits system sees it, it would still be the same. It's hard to explain fully, so I'll use an example - If you work and either pay childcare or say a personal pension straight through your employer, you technically don't have that money as it was never paid to you in cash - it's a "paper transaction". You still have to have the money deducted from your payslip included in your p60 as it is still earnings.

 

The same goes for your "arrangement" while you were on benefits. Technically you didn't have the cash in your hand, but it was still a "paper transaction", and that is how the courts and the benefits system view it.

 

Just like if I went to work now and my employer said, "I won't pay you in cash, I'll pay your mortgage instead." Do you get where I'm coming from? No matter what the "wage" was used for, it's still your income.

 

I'm only saying this to try and help you understand why you were/are in trouble for doing this. I don't have any legal knowledge so don't know if there are any legislations/acts/whatever that could help you, there may be, there may not.

 

But from what you say, I am completely baffled as to why you're in trouble again for the same crime. You had your tag for 16 weeks when you were convicted, and did as the courts said. How can they have you up in court for the same crime when you've already been convicted??? Is it the same people prosecuting this time? Really, only a solicitor can help you properly...

 

And as I said, I do totally sympathise with the benefit thing - until a few years ago I was a single mum on benefits and know how hard it is to get by. The system is so complicated and it needn't be so.

[shaniannie]

Ah, ok. I understand what you're saying, it's plain common sense, but the benefits system doesn't work on it I'm afraid, they stick to tight rules as to who qualifies.

 

It seems that it is not the wording that has changed. The original prosecution was for wrongly claiming income support. This prosecution is for wrongly claiming housing benefit and council tax. They are two totally seperate benefits that just go hand in hand with each other, which explains why you are being prosecuted again.

 

In their eyes, regardless of whether you were actually receiving the cash in hand or not, you were being paid £70 a week for working. Because you failed to declare this I'm sure that means that your claim for income support and SEPERATE claim for housing benefit and council tax benefit become void. Which means you have to pay back the WHOLE amount of council tax and housing benefit for the period you were claiming while effectively earning £70 per week.

 

I know this may not make sense, but it's just the way the system works. From what I know, they cannot go back and re-calculate on you earning £70 per week (regardless that you only saw £20 of it).

 

To deal with a problem, you need to understand why that problem arose. I'm trying to help you figure out WHY you were in the wrong in the first place.

 

I know I think you didn't know you were doing wrong - but unfortunately not knowing you were doing wrong doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted for it.

 

Hindsight is a powerful thing. This was before Tax Credits came into force, wasn't it? What you should have done at the time is declare the £70 and claimed whatever was in place of Tax Credits (I think it was known as "Working Families Tax Credits" then). Because you didn't go this route - knowingly or not - ALL the claims you made at the time for any type of benefit are void and repayable, which is why you've been summonsed again. To answer what you said:

 

It's plainly obvious that I cannot manage to pay this on what I was getting so I would of been entitled to Benefits

 

You WOULD HAVE been entitled to the benefits had you claimed for the right ones and declared your income. Because you didn't declare this you were not entitled. It is obvious to most people that you couldn't live on £20 per week, but in the eyes of the benefit system you defrauded them so it wasn't/isn't their problem.

 

I really wish I knew more of the law regarding all this but alas I don't. I can only try and help you understand why you are in the position you are, so you can get proper help to solve this. I think you need to get a solicitor who knows how the benefits system works. I only know what I know from having lived on benefits for a while myself and have read a LOT, and I like understanding how things work. If a solicitor has never dealt with benefit problems before then I doubt they'd be any more help than I would, to be honest.

[shaniannie]

I'm glad you found a solicitor that'll be able to help you Let us know how you get on I have my fingers crossed for you!