the original policy intention was not to prosecute people for making mistakes in their claims. social security is immensly complex in some areas, and even officials get it wrong.
see following extract from the handard link -
"As I explained to the Committee, it is not the intention that failures to notify caused by a genuine mistake should be treated as cases of fraud and prosecuted. In a case where a person is genuinely unaware of the relevance of a change of circumstances, the intention is that the safeguard of "reasonable excuse" would apply, and that, ultimately, the courts would decide what that constituted. Additionally, the legislation would operate within the framework of the Department's prosecution policy, which is to prosecute only where prosecutions are clearly in the public interest.
We therefore believe that the defence of "reasonable excuse" provides all the safeguards needed, should proceedings be brought. Nevertheless, concerns were expressed in Committee, especially by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), about the scope of the offence, particularly where it could be the underlying alleged offence for an offer of an administrative penalty under clause 15.
In practice, we would not expect a prosecution or an administrative penalty offer in a case where the claimant genuinely did not know that a change of circumstances needed to be reported. However, having reflected on the points made in Committee, the Government consider that it would increase confidence in the prosecution and penalty arrangements if the offence were amended to underline the policy intention. " ___________________________________________
the wording of sec. 112 relates to false representation for the purpose of obtaining benefit, and 112 (1A) brings in acts of omission as well as commission, but the wording in the creation of the offence requires that the claimant knows his benefit entitlement is affected by a change of circumstances. since an authority is bringing criminal proceedings against the claimant, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, in my view, more is required of the authority to establish knowledge, and intention, than ignoring whatever the claimant says, and deciding that he had knowledge because he was issued with a leaflet...
interestingly, the 2001 amendments link the change of circs to claimant's knowledge, not duties under the regulations - see following extract from the explanatory notes ( link below). semitone might also want to consider the authority's prosecution policy. bearing in mind that overpayments are recoverable, so the loss to the public purse can be recovered, what makes prosecution in his case 'clearly in the public interest', i wonder? ___________________________________________________ Explanatory notes - extract 176. The 1997 Act sought to remedy this situation by adding offences of omission to the existing offences of commission. The new approach was to make it an offence in section 111A to fail to notify a change of circumstances which regulations under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 required the person to notify. The same form of wording was also used in defining the summary offence in section 112(1A). Unfortunately, problems were identified with this approach. It proved an impossible task to draft regulations which set out the various changes in circumstances which would inevitably affect any individual's entitlement to any given benefit. This Act provides the first opportunity to revisit the primary powers in order to secure the original policy intention.
177. The proposed changes restructure the provision so that the offences are defined in terms of changes that a person knows will affect entitlement to benefit, rather than to changes that regulations require him to report. As increasing numbers of beneficiaries opt to receive payment of social security benefits through ACT, the need for this change has become greater.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2001/2001en11.htm#end
|