A Client (on JSA-IB) recently told me that he believes DWP investigation officers (probably fraud investigation officers) were snooping around his neighborhood, asking questions about the client from neighbors e.g. if client has a live-in partner, what time he comes in and goes out etc etc

Are these sorts of practices still prevalent and in light of EHR (right to privacy) are they legal ? Are such evidence admissible?

Hi Mouster

Just a quick reply for now. Yes, it is more prevalent now. There has been a case, not that long ago where the court (I can't remember which one) ruled that video surveillance did not infringe the right to pivacy, so it is hard to see how talking to the neighbours would.

I cannot remember the reference. Maybe Shawn or Ken could supply it.

Such evidence of course would be largely hearsay but would be admissable but would be given the weight it merits.

Regards
Paul

Typing as I'm thinking (never a good idea; but its getting late). Of course the appellant could call the neighbour who supplied a statement as a witness at the tribunal.

The tribunal could then draw the appropriate inference from any failure to attend or judge the credibility of the evidence (or of the witness) through closer questioning.

Evidence from an unidentified source should be given the contempt it deserves, unless ther is compelling evidence that there would be a risk to the safety or life of the source.

Thanks for the replies so far.....
I can live with the video evidence as it does not involves anybody else, the claimant's personal privacy may have been infringed discretely but his social standing not affected, but asking neighbors (as I am sure DWP officers introduce themselves) would indirectly reveal (a) claimant was claiming some sort of a benefit (b) there is question of some wrong doing.
Benefit claimants are entitled to respect and privacy but with the disdained image that the media has created/generated, people on benefit naturally wish to preserve their privacy and by having DWP officers asking question around the door step it is hard to keep matters private.

I believe the aspect of becoming the talk/gossip of the neighborhood is was makes this practice unacceptable and an infringement on HR as it subsequently affects the quality of the live of a claimant in their area/environment.

You make a good point and I would certainly attempt to construct an argument along those lines if it were my client.

But, just to play devil's advocate, how would you respond to the argument that the breach was permitted because the action which caused the breach was in pursuit of a legitimate aim of a democratic society (i.e. preventing fraud) and it was proportionate (i.e. legitimate enquiries from those who may be later called as witnesses in court).

Hi Mouster
From my days at DWP the practice that I was taught was that if the customer was not in (particularly on living together or working allegations) you should always knock on a neighbours door. You would never introduce your self, or state that you were from the DSS, however, a quick knock, "Hiya, I'm just trying to contact John next door do you know when he would be back", often got an answer that would back up the allegation, numerous working allegations, the neighbours would say, he 's out at work and will be back at 5.
Nobody ever put a neighbour under pressure and I would say 50% told yo to go away anyway anyway.
Legally/HR wise (morally even) I have no idea where this stands, but it was certainly common practice when I worked for them 6-7 years ago, and I dont think much will have changed.

In response to the devil's advocate……
Well I can draw the parallel of your argument with the recent 90 days detention without charge as a legitimate aim of a democratic society (i.e. to prevent terrorism). To answer that I am going to quote Sir Winston Churchill (telegram November 21 1943) who wrote: “The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or communist.”

There is no easy straight forward answer to your question, at least in an ordinary sense.
I would however suggest that the deeper answer could be found in questioning the fundamentals of the welfare system itself and in particular how it is being practiced presently (i.e. we need to change the paradigm of our understanding/outlook, if someone tries to cheat the system then we should examine why in just the same way that we should ask why do people commit terrorism against us)

I do not condone people trying to pull the fast one on the benefit system any more than condemning the system they are trying to cheat. It is easy to see the motives behind it, which in my opinion, is far more, than simple greed or need but probably the desire for emancipation from helplessness/poverty and strive for freedom which is the inner motive for all of us.
Let's just take the pathetic income disregards that the system allows, these have been frozen in time since the days of yore, so what incentive does somebody have to work. The whole system is severely unjust and as always it is unfortunately the poor that pay the heaviest price. Better stop here now.

I was enjoying your rant before you stopped prematurely. But, moving on.

I'm not sure the paralell with the 90 detention is entirely accurate. It is not the length of the detention that goes to the question of the legitimate aim as such, although that might be a consideration. In certain situations (national emergencty, war, etc)90 days may be legitimate. The legitimate aim of a democratic society (preventing terrorism) permits detention for questioning of determinate length.

The question would be, is 90 days proportionate? At present I think not. Reading between the lines, I think you may not also. But would asking the neighbours questions be proportionate to the mischief seeking to be prevented in allowing the human right (right to respect for private life) to be breached. I honestly don't know. I suppose it depends upon the kinds of questions asked and what guidelines exist for DWP officers (i.e. as in Iancity's post).

I don't condone fraud either but like you I find the questioning of the neighbours (choosing my words carefully), irksome.

I just think that if DWP worked within strictly defined guidelines that limited the kinds of questions they were allowed to ask and kept their identity hidden then I would be somewhat pessimistic in winning the HR argument. Wouldn't stop me trying though!

Regards
Paul

Such questioning of neighbours breaches confidentiality, which is a duty on the department, and invades privacy, which is a human right. I've an idea fraud investigators believe themselves exempt from the HR Act, but it is not a simplistic as they believe, and in any event, still leaves the matter of confidentiality, which is not lifted until a conviction has been obtained. The HRA exemption where there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud does not cover them if they are seeking information to provide the grounds, imo, and if they already have grounds, and are gathering evidence, they need to do better than hearsay evidence from neighbours. I think they are on very shaky ground with this, but seem to get away with all sorts.

i suppose, mouster, your client has been told the above by a neighbour, rather than just suspecting he is under investigation? i ask this because i have seen how once a person gets the idea that they are being investigated, it has an adverse effect on their mental health, and paranoia can take a hold. a couple of clients became convinced they were under surveillance, and i was unable to reassure them, even though it was extremely unlikely, and in one of them, it was confirmed not to be the case.

if they were asking neighbours about L/T and work, unless your client's circumstances suggest there are questions in those areas, so there is a possibility of both L/T and work being reported in a tip-off, it rather sounds like a fishing trip.

i'm not sure what is happening with new claims and review visits these days - all has gone quiet on the client front and they seem more occupied with the difficulties of phoning and delays in appointments - but the rules for claiming weekly benefit savings, which were the targets for these routine visits (not fraud visits), provided incentives for, shall i say, keen, or struggling VO's. This was that if a claimant signed off for any reason in a period after a visit - I think it was 12 weeks, but may have been longer, it was _deemed_ to be due to the intervention, whatever the real reason,and the VO claimed a WBS. (incidentally, any misleading inflation of the savings figures was not viewed as undesirable in any way.) as far as an unscrupulous VO is concerned, if the enquiries get back to the claimant, it may put sufficient pressure on him to produce the WBS.

If it's a fraud visit, the person may complain, and the investigator is safe in the knowledge that the complaint will be 'investigated' by the fraud section, which will just back him up.

it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to understand the destructive effect on a person's well-being, when they know that a friend, relative or neighbour has reported them to the DWP, but they don't know who, whether the report was baseless or had foundation.

the government's policy of creating an informant culture, which plays on fostering fear and division, strikes me as reprehensible. this is also not to condone fraud, but is a rejection of government manipulation of fear in citizens. there is no power more destructive of social stability than fear, and once unleashed, can spread out of control. what were they thinking of?

throughout my time in the DWP, in the 70s and 80s and later, i was encountering the residue of folk memory of the detested means test man of the 20s and 30s. then they just offended, humiliated and stigmatised. now add criminalise and demonize. the DWP has fed the government what it wanted to hear on benefit fraud, and between them, they have made a mess that may cost dearly and bitterly for years to come.

there is no longer even a department of social security, and as things stand, 'social security' will be effected by means of the National Identity Registration Scheme, intelligence gathering and enforcement by government departments. oh yeah,,, work will make you free,,, sorry - heard it before.

Phew, heavy stuff here....
Back to the first question, I think I can reassure you to a certain degree that when talking to neighbours, the DWP officers are always mindful of not letting on to the neighbour that the customer they are talking about is claiming benefit, it is drummed into you from the start that you should respect the customers confidentiality. Bearing this in mind, it is quite limited the actual questions you can ask a neighbour on the doorstep before the neighbour starts to say "where you from anyway". Unless you are particularly 'sneaky' or even tell lies, there must only be 3-4 questions you can 'get away' with asking. As its all hearsay anyway, and probably pretty useless for any formal investigation, all you are trying to do is get a feel for the case you have. If a neighbour backs up what the allegation says (all though there is always the risk that you are talking to the person who actually made the allegation) then its just another tick in your mind. I dont know of anybody who actually questioned neighbours to any degree - tbh its pointless as very very few neighbours would give a statement.
I think what I'm trying to say is, in my experience, I would imagine your clients neighbour was only asked one or two very basic questions, i.e. is he in, when will he be back. The neighbour may be elaborating when he is telling your client he was interrogated.

Just my tuppence anyway....

The Court of Appeal decision - Jones v University of Warwick might prove useful. It is about the use of video evidence which has been obtained by deception.

Jones v University of Warwick ......

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/151.html

I had one of these 'chats' with a neighbour included in a quite large submission for an L/T case a couple of years ago. The neighbour's assertion that the client in question had been living together for a year or so was set down in the submission but the neighbour wasn't identified and there wasn't any form of proper signed statement as evidence. I am pleased to say that the Chair completely discounted it as unsupported and unverifiable and we won the appeal.There wasn't a PO at the hearing and I have wondered what he/she might have done if the Chair had asked that the witness be produced or identified!

It seems to be a case of either put up or shut up!

pc

Slightly concerned that I'm agreeing with a BFO, but I have to say that from my experience of working in, what was, the DHSS many years ago, any evidence that the fraud officers secured byway of "informal" questions to neighbours or other parties were mainly used as a tool to either justify further surveillance, or as a lever to apply pressure to the claimant in question to come clean about the suspected fraud.

So, the question of hearsay evidence never really came into play, as the fraud officers wouldn't use the evidence obtained from neighbours as justification for decisions on any particular case, be it O/P or fraud related, but rather as one aspect of any ongoing investigations.

Where I would disagree slightly is the reluctance to accept that the neighbour in question felt that he had been interrogated - again, the fraud officers where i worked absolutely loved interviewing claimants under caution, taking delight in the fearful reaction of people being read their rights, and they used low level verbal intimidation as a tool to "help" people fess up - i.e. "come clean now and you'll save yourself a lot of bother, we're onto you and will make your life hell if you don't confess" - implications of knowledge about movements, life styles, attitudes, etc are all used as tools to try to get under the skin of claimants suspected of fraud.

I suppose that after a while, working in a job where you are out to catch people out inevitably leads to some underlying suspicion of almost everyone you encounter in a professional situation - it used to be the case, in the office I worked at, that officers could only work in fraud for 2 or 3 years, in order to try and avoid this problem developing.

As you note iancity, a problem with talking to neighbours is that they could well be the instigator of the inquiry, and it is my experience that malicious and vexatious accusations are definitely an unwanted feature of "shop-a-cheat" campaigns. And whilst the officer may well desist from directly mentioning benefits, in many communities, having someone sniffing around asking 'fishing expedition' questions about a person's whereabouts whilst declining to state a reason for those enquiries definitely becomes, at the very least, a subject of more discussion and rumour amongst those neighbours.

If I call snitch line and complained that the DWP 'reverse defrauded' my client of money by deliberately refusing to give relevant information or the wrong information, will that be investigated? Will secret cameras and phone-taps be set up to record the misinformation, misleading advice and deliberate mis-application of the law?

We have plenty of people willing to give personal evidence of the said 'offences' (including myself), so I don't think relying on hearsay will be a problem.

We, the taxpayers, lose incredibly more money through a social security system driven by suspicion culture and perpetuated with bearucratic ineffiency, inaccuracy and incorrectness, than we will ever lose through the actions of a few fraudulent claimants (or landlords).

Surely the shoe is on the wrong foot?

That's not to say that I condone fraudulent behaviour, I don't. But since more money is lost year after year after year through official error, surely they are barking up the wrong tree and condemning the poor claimant to a life of suspicion and negative stereotyping.

Politicians should get off thier ars*s and get with the real world for a change. I think a group of them should be given a young child each, have all their money taken off them, bunged in temporary or overcrowded accomodation and told to get on with it for a year or two - the system will soon change then (if they don't kill themselves first that is...).

Bring back the poor laws I say!
Hangings too good for them!
They come over here…!
They just don’t want to work!
All this living in sin!
Her down the road, gets disability. Nothing wrong with her!

I’m awfully sorry. I don’t know what came over me.

you've been reading the welfare reform bill again!

I think someone hit me over the head with it!

don't even think about going to A&E!!!

Why do we do this job...? Can we ever effect positive change?

Tony

When I was involved in politics in the early 1980's I guickly realized that we were never going to change the world in any meaningful way in my life time.

I got out of that game and got into welfare rights. I realized that I could not change the world but I could change a person's life or at least make a difference, even a small one. That is what makes the job worthwhile and I love it. Kicking the state at the same time makes it even more fun.

Keep the faith!

Paul

Hi Tony i think the answer to your question slightly paraphrasing Paul's comments are no and yes.

Firstly, the heads of lobbying organisations e.g NACAB,CPAG,Shelter etc etc are really the ones who need to take the lead and both challenge and publicise the inherent injustices within the system regardless whether it upsets the current regime in government, or the ones in waiting, because lets face it they espouse the same illiberal social and economic policies. Whether the lobbying groups supremo's have the desire, will or stomach to challenge those in power, well i don't know, but i won't be holding my breath.

Secondly, as for individual welfs well as Paul says we can make a difference to our clients lives, and orgs like NAWRA made of welfs are doing some really good stuff.

Similarly with Rightsnet, the likes of the usual suspects your paul's, jan's, stainsby and Shermers etc etc etc etc etc reading their postings, plus the myriad of other stuff provided by Shawn/Ken its like the university of welfdom, invaluable at the best times but for really impoverished little groups its the nearest many of us are going to get towards any formal quality training. Which all makes a big difference to getting our clients any semblance of social justice.

clinging to the faith despite witnessing the ongoing dismantling of the welfare state (i like the Nanny state i think it was something to treasure).

(oh gawd i feel depressed now, i think i'll count sheep there's loads around here)

andy

I think I probably have lost sight of the fact that we are making a difference for individuals, so thanks for picking that up Paul.

What techniques can WR, and others in similiar situations, use to deal with the stress of the constant injustice (apart from ranting on these forums that is... lol)?

The only thing worth counting from my office, Andy, is chimney pots - there are at least 66 visible from my office window! Not quite as interesting, but at least they don't move when you count them!

Tony

I don't understand this thread - how come it was stagnant for over a year, and then all of a sudden another 8 replies in the space of two days - whats happenned ?

to reply to iancity's post .... someone registered and posted to the thread earlier this week, which brought it back to the top .... but we needed to delete the post ....

I hadn't noticed

i was quite confused by it. : )