Client on DLA since 1994 (R.Arthritis). Revised to include HRM in 1999, following stroke. Also has angina and had heart attack in recent past. Awaiting scan as osteporosis is now suspected by consultant. Has 20-year medical history with same GP. Moved off I.B. into part-time work in 1999 (could have remained on I.B. after PCA assessment, but preferred to work). She notified Blackpool about moving into work on 3 different occasions (she moved from one p/t job to another).

This year she was interviewd under caution about her DLA claim. Result of her "welfare to work" effort? DLA stopped (incl. loss of motability car), a recovery demand for £17,000, plus threat of prosecution for fraud (decision awaited).

Her current manager was reduced to tears by the counter fraud officers when questioned about her employee's work 'activites'. They also interviewed a former employer about a brief spell of work she had done in 1999. He made made a statement confusing our client with another ex-employee, including providing an incorrect NINO. The job application form for her current employment was obtained, and because she listed a particular interest in the "activities and hobbies" section, this was taken as an indication that she undertook the activity mentioned. At no time during this period was client in receipt of IB or IS. Husband works,so no IS in payment.

The solicitor who sat in on second interview said the pressure was far worse than a police interview. On the day of the receipt of the recovery letter, client stated to me that she felt suicidal and had the pills in front of her. She phoned her husband who had to leave work to support her.

Needless to say, we are gathering the medical evidence, etc. for both appeals, and of course there will be legal assistance if the case goes to court. There are a number of other aspects to the case which will require scrutiny.

What I'm now wondering is whether advisers are getting similar cases around the country, or whether this is a simple blip of crass stupidity from the DWP. I'm also wondering if there is a data matching exercise going on between DLA recipients and certain classes of occupation, picked up via NI or tax records. If this is so, then an awful lot of people are going to be receiving similar treatment.

As many will remember from the BIP saga, it all ended in tears for the former BA after the poorly conceived BIP project got off the ground (curiously commencing during an election period, before the incomimg government took office), followed by a parliamentary select committee enquiry/National Audit Office report, etc. Still engraved in my my memory (from one of the official reports) is the case of a man with Down's Syndrome who was asked by a BIP officer when he had contracted his condition.

this is much worse than the BIP and is truly appalling.

Your client has reported on 3 occasions that she is working. DLA can be paid to people who are working, and there is no requirement that she had to report it as a relevant change of circumstances. It does however mean that there is no question of claiming fraudulently, and that she is under the threat of prosecution suggests that no proper scrutiny of the fraud investigation has taken place, or that there are no adequate safeguards in place, or that proper procedures have not been followed.

One difficulty you are likely to have is that the DLA Centre has gone mad on destroying its records. which makes one wonder how they can do any worthwhile pre-investigation checks, which ought to be done before a case is accepted for investigation. (what? check for disclosures before investigating for fraud? ha ha don't make me laugh!)

it must be unlikely that the case will be prosecuted. apart from anything else it would be a severe embarrassment to those ministers responsible for bringing in the 'reforms' being promoted, you could almost think that the civil servants are deliberately sabotaging government policy, if one didn't know better, and if the ministers weren't adept at embarrasing themselves without their help thank you very much. the benefit policing PRIORITY has reached the point of absurdity now - is the government completely unaware how damaging it is?

it leaves the question of why your client is still waiting for a decision of prosecution? in my opinion there are growing questions about the use of inappropriate interviews under caution - criminal prosecution is a very heavy and distressing threat...why didn't they realize after the interview that there is no fraud case? didn't they listen to her? did she manage to tell them that she had reported working 3 times?

the overpayment decision is extremely dubious - my guess is it is based on change of circs ie improvement in condition, which is based on assumptions made, not medical evidence of an improvement, from the fact that she started work - which she reported anyway! it is essential that if they do decide to prosecute, the DLA appeal is heard first.

i don't know about the specific data match question you ask, and i am not seeing DLA fraud cases here yet, some advisers in other parts of the country have reported cases on other threads here.

but data matching is seen as the way forward, and there is a real problem here if record keeping is as poor as it is in the DBC. the data match check could be even more simplistic than you suggest - matching employment (Inland Revenue records) with DLA claims. An extremely high risk match in the case of DLA, when work is not a bar to benefit. (requiring safeguards and checks) I have a case at the moment where SDP and AA threw up a mismatch - because the DBC have destroyed clients records! and someone else reported a 10 year overpayment calc'd on the basis of no record of the award, which in DWP rationality (based on its own papal infallibility dogma) can only mean she was paid in error, and i'm getting the same story. duh!

the IUC should have revealed the grounds for suspecting fraud, and if it was data matching, i think it's well worth asking questions about it. if it didn't, you can ask.

The Disability Discrimination Commission might be very interested in this case, and i'd think it is well worth getting an opinion on JR for maladministration and excessive use of power.

it's all very well requiring legislation to be compatible with human rights, but if the administrative policy is free to run rampant over peoples' rights it makes something of a mockery, doesn't it?

reducing your client's manager to tears in a voluntary interview?!!!!!! sounds like a very determined effort to get the weekly benefit savings. where do they go for their sensitivity training, gitmo?...shouldn't wonder if she thought twice about employing a disabled person again, (making Margaret Hodge's job that little bit harder) but maybe she'll give _you_ a witness statement?

shaking my head... how did we get to this?

jj