News1 min ago
Fraudulent Benefit claims prosecutions
5 Answers
Please may I request facts and not opinions ?
My good friend had been in receipt of Incapacity Benefit for several years when it was withdrawn (please could you believe that it WAS unfairly rather than asking me to explain) and then was forced back into employment. As this was always a scenario likely to end in tears she ended up back claiming benefits. This is where she made a 'genuine mistake' (accepted by DWP) and made, in essence, a fraudulent claim. The DWP were aware of the 'fraudulent claim' in the June 2005 but it was not until late August when she was first called in to give account of the situation. There was a subsequent investigation in which she was helpful and transparent. In October 2006 she had to appear before a panel where it was agreed that she would plead guilty and pay back all monies wrongly received plus a 30% penalty without the matter going to Law Courts.
As DWP were aware of the 'fraudulent claim' in June 2005 weren't they duty bound by the 12 month rule to decide how to proceed with this by June 2006 ?
My friend is more than happy to pay back all monies 'fraudulently received' but wonders if the panel had the lawfulness to apply a penalty under these circumstances.
The entire debt is now almost fully discharged but we should appreciate any clarification.
My good friend had been in receipt of Incapacity Benefit for several years when it was withdrawn (please could you believe that it WAS unfairly rather than asking me to explain) and then was forced back into employment. As this was always a scenario likely to end in tears she ended up back claiming benefits. This is where she made a 'genuine mistake' (accepted by DWP) and made, in essence, a fraudulent claim. The DWP were aware of the 'fraudulent claim' in the June 2005 but it was not until late August when she was first called in to give account of the situation. There was a subsequent investigation in which she was helpful and transparent. In October 2006 she had to appear before a panel where it was agreed that she would plead guilty and pay back all monies wrongly received plus a 30% penalty without the matter going to Law Courts.
As DWP were aware of the 'fraudulent claim' in June 2005 weren't they duty bound by the 12 month rule to decide how to proceed with this by June 2006 ?
My friend is more than happy to pay back all monies 'fraudulently received' but wonders if the panel had the lawfulness to apply a penalty under these circumstances.
The entire debt is now almost fully discharged but we should appreciate any clarification.
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jackthehat. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Can you explain what you are referring to as "the 12 month rule". I'm not aware of any specific time limit on DWP fraud investigations. I agree that they do seem to have taken a very long time to settle the case, but this has not increased the amount of the penalty so far as I can see from your post.
Certainly themas, thank you.
I thought (quite possibly in error and I may have well overheard it from a barrack-room lawyer but it is at the back of my mind) that once an offence had come to light there was a 12-month time period in which you had to be charged with that offence and committed for trial. There was no real investigation to be had. The DWP had spotted a problem, they called my friend in, she admitted the mistake, provided the evidence requested and all details required - job done 2 weeks maximum! Depending upon circumstances, naturally, it is possible, as in my friends case, to admit the offence, and have it proceeded with in a different manner. However, the Courts have been minded to view cases brought after this 12 month period as having been unjustifiably and unfairly prolonged and have been dismissing the applications. And these cases have NOT had the penalty portion applied just an order for the repayment of the 'overpayment'.
My friend and I wondered if this is what would have happened in her case, and the fact that the court option was side-stepped meant that she had to sign agreeing to ANY penalty payments. We wondered if she could have challenged this at the time. Admittedly, it's all a bit after-the-fact and almost done-and-dusted now..........
I thought (quite possibly in error and I may have well overheard it from a barrack-room lawyer but it is at the back of my mind) that once an offence had come to light there was a 12-month time period in which you had to be charged with that offence and committed for trial. There was no real investigation to be had. The DWP had spotted a problem, they called my friend in, she admitted the mistake, provided the evidence requested and all details required - job done 2 weeks maximum! Depending upon circumstances, naturally, it is possible, as in my friends case, to admit the offence, and have it proceeded with in a different manner. However, the Courts have been minded to view cases brought after this 12 month period as having been unjustifiably and unfairly prolonged and have been dismissing the applications. And these cases have NOT had the penalty portion applied just an order for the repayment of the 'overpayment'.
My friend and I wondered if this is what would have happened in her case, and the fact that the court option was side-stepped meant that she had to sign agreeing to ANY penalty payments. We wondered if she could have challenged this at the time. Admittedly, it's all a bit after-the-fact and almost done-and-dusted now..........
I understand where you're coming from now, but afraid I can't help a lot. My understanding is that the penalty option is used as an alternative to prosecution and - as I understand it, but I may be wrong - it does not result in a criminal record whereas prosecution does. And for all sorts of reasons, it's best to avoid a criminal record if possible!
If you have evidence that you can quote (i.e. specific cases where you know the facts) where prosecutions for benefit fraud have been brought after more than 12 months with the outcome you state, then it could be worth while for your friend to take up with the DWP complaints people the way she was treated - both the lengthy delay and the imposition of the penalty. However, I suspect this would lead to a long drawn out hassle which she may not want.
If you have evidence that you can quote (i.e. specific cases where you know the facts) where prosecutions for benefit fraud have been brought after more than 12 months with the outcome you state, then it could be worth while for your friend to take up with the DWP complaints people the way she was treated - both the lengthy delay and the imposition of the penalty. However, I suspect this would lead to a long drawn out hassle which she may not want.
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.