I have a very poorly client currently being investigated for working whilst claiming IB and sent in a letter to CFIS from her specialist confirming her condition and explaining she should not be put under the strain of attending an iuc - he even suggested in the letter that CFIS speak to him about it. He couldn't have made it any clearer about how it would affect her health. Even now, CFIS still insisting she has to be interviewd but now it's 'informally'. She's not on benefits now so there's no worry about them suspending. I really don't think she should be attending any sort of interview and have told her she doesn't have to go. Does anyyone know the code of practice/details of best practice for such circs please?

Sue

What exactly are you after Sue?

Something that might support the argument that she's not fit for interview. I thought the Counter-Fraud Investigation Service might have some guidance about when it's reasonable for them not to insist on an interview. I know they (should)look at individual/mitigating circs when it comes deciding on whether to prosecute or to offer a formal caution for instance so I thought perhaps they have something similar when it comes to interviews. I don't want to advise my client not to attend and which might then prompt them to recommend prosecution. They are now ringing me daily to ask when she's available even though they've had the specialist's letter.

Not aware of the specifics of your client's case so the following can only be general advice.

IUC are conducted under PACE Act 1984. Guidelines are contained in its code of practice. Where a person is suspected of having a mental disorder/handicap (its words) or is suffering from a visual, hearing or relevant speech difficulty then the interview should not proceed unless an appropriate adult is present. A list of appropriate adults is contained within the code.

If the above is not the case and there is medical evidence that the person is not medically fit to attend then the person should simply not attend and provide a copy of the medical evidence in support.

The DWP would then have a hard time convincing the court to draw an adverse inference for failing to attend when there is clear evidence of a potential (and obviously, fairly, significant) detriment to health. Each case, of course, has to be determined on its merits. Legal advice may, therefore, be appropriate.

The problem is that not attending may increase the likelihood of the case proceeding to court in the first place which is, obviously, what neither you nor your client want.

Unfortunately, there may be no easy answer to that other than writing to them and copying the letter to their legal department outlining your reasons for non attendance. Hope this is of some help.

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul. You've echoed what I assumed. I've just had yet another call from CFIS (3rd in two days) and they'll carry out an informal interview at home so it seems the best option as she can have her parents with her. I didn't want to put her under any more undue stress in further delaying matters by writing to legal dept.

Cheers
Sue

An informal interview at home with her parents present sounds like a sensible compromise. Let us know how it goes.

I'm always a bit suspicious of "informal interviews", the client usually gets asked to sign a written statement drafted by the interviewing officer containing admissions to everything from benfit fraud to the great train robbery which is shoved under their nose with a commment along hte lines of "yeah yeah don't worry, just sign this and we'll all go away, we're only interested in making sure you had the right money..."

At least an IUC is recorded so that any adverse pressure placed on the client is recorded so in some senses there is a higher degree of protection. Just my thoughts...

Yep! Its a very valid point and I agree with you. The problem is where the client is not robust enough to stand up to court proceedings. If the client is robust enough then his/her day in court may be the better option. I suppose that for informal interviews, the golden rule is not to sign anything.

Regards
Paul

Just to clarify. I'm talking of a situation where the option of an informal interview is a potential way of avoiding court proceedings where a claimant is not robust enough to withstand either an IUC or court proceedings. just to re-iterate: just don't sign anything!

Thank you both for your very valid comments and suggestions. IUC definite no no so informal interview and no signature it is then.

Sue