What details should be included on certificate of caution?

Client was interviewed in relation to her income support claim.  Initially, the query was about capital, and interest in property in the USA. That went nowhere (as she didn’t have any interest in anything) but overpayments were raised because she had been to the USA a few times (paid for by family).  On first visit, hadn’t been incapable of work for 364 days, so whole period abroad was disallowed (3 weeks).  For two subsequent visits where she was absent from UK over 4 weeks, she had one overpayment of one week, and one of about 7 weeks. The long period abroad (11 weeks) was because her father was seriously ill, not because she was on holiday.

The overpayments and recoverabilty decisions are now correct, but unfortunately our client was interviewed by fraud again, and did not tell us until after the event.

Despite insisting she has not intended to claim benefit she was not entitled to, she agreed to accept a caution!!! She does not really appear to have fully understood the meaning of what she was accepting she had done.

I really think a successful prosecution was unlikely. The total overpaid was only about £880 and there was no real doubt that her reason for the longest visit was because of her dad’s illness.

However, she has done what she has done.  She wants to withdraw or retract, but I don’t think she can - does anyone know any different?

I am also concerned that the certificate of caution simply details the offence as “failure to report change of circumstances (abroad/USA), which seems totally inadequate.  It is not an offence simply to fail to report a change of circumstances.

Does anyone know whether the certificate can be challenged for inadequacy, so that client can be re-interviewed and offered a caution?

Thanks

Brian

Hi Brian

A previous thread may interest you http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/780/#2808 (hope the link works)

Bhatt Murphy Solicitors successfully challenged a police caution issued on the grounds that the police did not have sufficiently clear evidence or admissions to administer the caution. The court issued guidelines on future conduct in such cases and the caution has been expunged form our client’s record.

Case is: R (on the application of RUPERT WYMAN) - and - THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HAMPSHIRE CONSTAULARY
On Bailii see… http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1904.html

Thanks very much for that, but very embarrassing for me that the link was to an earlier post I did on the same case!! My memory really is getting worse as the years go by!

Cheers

Brian