can anyone tell me anything about this?

i have a case where the LA owes a client #6500+, which took them 18 months to make their minds up - as in originally disallowed - months to reconsider - appeal- more months to reconsider - client gets representation - eventual revision without proceeding to tribunal.

this was after 3 page letter disclosing the sad background to her claim, involving abuse of her legal rights by the husband who sold their home without telling her, before he abandoned her whilst she was pregnant with third child, and some burden of proof/balance of probability stuff. the client was clearly very vulnerable, and from a vulnerable group,

three months after the award they suspended benefit payment while they investigate her for fraud.

she's committed no offense, but made a _terrible_ mistake in asking for the arrears to be paid to her not the landlords!!!!!

i know... it's not illegal....(and she has good reasons for this). (actually they are women, but i don't know whether i should call them landlords or landladies - any offers?... sorry for the digression...political correctness can be sooo tricky can't it?)

obviously, she deserves to be interrogated under caution by two male investigators...best not to take any chances with people like that, hey!

it's now 2 years since she claimed HB, and her rights are being abused, along with those of the other women whose vulnerability is being exploited by the authority to which confidential and culturally sensitive information was disclosed for the purpose of establishing the client's entitlement to benefit.

it seems to me that only the adoption of a pathological procedural presumption of lying-dogness accounts for the authority's actions in treating this client as a criminal, which must make a mockery of the diversity, equality and social inclusion policies it no doubt trumpets.

i've listened to the suckmeister IUC tapes, and i've been refused disclosure of evidence on the grounds of on-going investigation, which i'm not prepared to accept, but frankly i don't want to be drafting and re-drafting at length, so i would appreciate any good ideas, advice etc.

jan

I think that you must send them a Judicial Review pre action protocol letter demanding the disclosure of the documents you require, together with the facts of your case and what remedy you require, and give them 14 days to respond.

I think you have strong grounds that the Local Authority are acting "Wednesbury unreasonable". Whether the arrears are paid to your client or the landlord is irrelevant, the fact is they have to pay what your client is legally entitled to.

Fax the JR preaction letter to them (The fraud squad, the LA legal department and the chief executive. and the political leader of the Council, and a copy to the DWP solicitors)

That should stir (speed) things up a bit.

that's what i was thinking, only better. : ) thanks stephen

jj

Putting aside the merits or otherwise of the investigation. If there is an ongoing investigation then s29(1) of Data Protection Act 1998 is quite clear that data subject access rights are suspended in cases where disclosure might prejudice the investigation.

Going back to the case in point, the information you have provided does not describe the nature of the investigation/allegation (do you know it), or on what it is based. Without any information as to the nature of the investigation no one can make any judgement as to whether the authority's actions are reasonable or not.

It might be unreasonable to take a significant amount of time investigating what would otherwise have been a reasonably well founded allegation. It would definately be unreasonable to pursue an allegation which is already unfounded. Neither of those appear to be the case here. Without further information as to the allegation I don't see how the authorities actions (at the moment)could be questioned by anyone responding, Or how any constructive advice could be offered.

julian, this is a very difficult thing to talk about here, on many levels.
i think i need to approach this from a different direction, to respond to your points.

if you'll pardon me from starting from the bottom : )
i found stephen's advice sound because it draws the matter to the attention of <see above>, who are appropriate persons, in view of their responsibilities and duties. i'd realized i should JR, but hadn't got as far as thinking of who should get copies of the pre-action letter. my experience in this is very little and not overly successful, and i'm having enough difficulty assessing my stress levels to know that they must be too high. <grin>

i'm not ready to start it yet - i have an unresolved issue which i'm hopeful will be resolved very shortly. With regard to your point about not seeing how the authority's actions could be questioned at this momemt, this could be a blind spot - which i don't doubt, most if not all of us have.

if i am able to bring JR action, i won't be responding to the fraud allegation. there isn't a fraud allegation yet - there's a fraud investigation, and fraud action, eg the suspension of benefit payment - which is why the action is JR - i can't take it to the tribunal. (ADR anybody??) i've asked what question of entitlement arises, and i've been denied an answer. the obvious worry is that the case against the claimant will be contructed, or construed. i would have thought this was information that could be given, and should be given, but it appears that the fraud section is looking for grounds on which fraud may be established. that is, looking for reasons for disallowance.

the claimant has been informed in writing that she is being investigated because she may have committed an offense. <unspecified> she has been questioned for over an hour by two male officers. Phase one of the IUC was several minutes of introductions, the tape rituals and Police and Criminal Evidence explanation - ie spelling out that she faces criminal proceedings. Phase 2 was the lengthiest - going over old ground - information fully disclosed to the authority already - presumably for the purpose of finding or exposing contradictions etc. Phase 3 involved the application of pressure. Whatever else may be said on this, this is extremely heavy handling, by most standards.

reality check.


From where i'm standing, i see four vulnerable women (and some children) whose lives have been already adversely affected by the actions of the local authority, and, currently, its fraud team.
their lives were already difficult enough in many ways, not least of which is the status of women within their culture. the decisions to refer the case for fraud investigation, and to accept the case for fraud investigation, and that an IUC by two officers was appropriate, are questionable actions of the authority.

They don't appear proportionate in view of the whole of the evidence.
The claimant has been deprived of housing benefit for 2 years, 18 months of which were in deciding upon entitlement. This is a fact with enormous consequences upon the claimant's life. The arrears for that period have been delayed a further six months - 3 months of which were delays due to completion of the landlord vetting procedure or process, a process about which i confess my complete ignorance, including the legal authority for it, and 3 months under suspension of benefit procedures. the referral for fraud investigation occurred at some point in the three month period immediately following the consideration of the claim, which took 18 months, sorry to repeat myself.

the basis of the 'investigation' appears to be a legal request by the claimant in relation to the payment of arrears.

so there is a question - why wasn't any query regarding the payment of arrears raised overtly and directly with the claimant or her representative?

the fraud team are investigating the possibilities that her landladies live with her, for which they have obtained disputed evidence in the form of a statement from a third party at the landladies' address, and whether they are relatives,(they have a shared common name) and i expect that evidence is being sought to substantiate a case of the tenancy agreement not being commercial or that the tenancy is contrived. the nature of the regs relevant to the last two make it worrying, because they give weight to the opinion of the officers of the local authority (their contruction of the facts), so there's quite a nasty burden of proof loop, in favour of the authority, whilst at the same time, the actions of the authority influence the circumstances which the authority then takes into account. it should not be surprising if the influence of an adverse decision is one of deterioration in the claimant's life circumstances. it would be disturbing for many if the authority may be seen to be exploiting or in some way, taking advantage of circumstances, harmful or disadvantageous to the claimant, which it had a hand in bringing about, by depriving claimants of the help to which they have a legal entitlement, just in case they don't really deserve the help at all, regardless...

all of those possibilities exist on a claim, and the LA had taken 18 months already to decide the claim. so are we talking about a post award fishing trip based on narrow view blanket procedures which have a presumption of claimant dishonesty embedded within them? because if so, it is inevitable that local authorities will trample upon civil and human rights in some circumstances.

but it's not an academic exercise, it's real people's lives...

jj

I am confused about her being interviewed under caution, but not knowing exactly what is being investigated.

She would surely have the right at the interview to be told the allegations against her, and to see any relevant documents. They might be able to investigate ill defined allegations, but I don't see how that can go all the way to an interview under caution. Was your client not accompanied at the interview ?

sorry for being confusing about this - fraud allege that landladies live at the same address as claimant, this was put to her at the interview and their evidence, according to the IUC, is a statement they obtained from an occupant of the stated address, (the 4th woman in this), when they did an unnotified visit to landladies, and that's the basis of the IUC. client strenously denies this, so the investigation is on-going.
she wasn't accompanied at the IUC, but was able to obtain advice before attending.

JJ

I have looked at your posts from a fraud investigators viewpoint, it is obviously difficult without seeing it from the LA's perspective.

Having said that I can see area's of concern, when was the benefit suspended and how long has it been suspended for? Here we would only suspend when about to call in for IUC and only then if we are very sure that an O/P is being created by the alleged offence. We also try very hard to resolve matters quickly as there obviously can be the problem of eviction/hardship etc.

You mention that your clients do not know what the allegation is, but from your post it is around their relationship to landlords...was this put to them clearly at IUC. It should not be too hard to determine where the landlords reside, on the basis of your post if the only evidence they have is a statement from a third party then it does seem like a flimsey case.

You also mentioned listening to the tapes and "pressure" being applied, can you expand on that? Obviously in a general sense you have to be direct at times, and indeed challange if appropiate to responses given. However under PACE nothing that takes place in IUC should be considered oppresive, so if this is the case then the whole thing would be ripped apart by any half decent legal rep.

It also concerns me that the investigation is still ongoing (if I read your posting correctly) in my experience in the vast majority of cases once the IUC has taken place a decision can be made and case either sanctioned or no further action. Thery should really have good evidence before the IUC and not just use it as a fishing trip.

I am not sure how you resolve this, I presume that you have raised your concerns with the Fraud Manager. While we have a responsibility to protect the Public purse etc we are also dealing with welfare benefits, often the people that we deal with are facing many problems any way and we need to take these into consideration.

Sorry cannot be of anymore help (I would love to see the fraud file!)_ but not all fraud investigators are the same.

Regards

Andrew

hi andrew

you have asked really pertinent questions, and unfortunately, I feel the case is at a very delicate stage and i am not able to respond at the present time. i will return to this, because i have been outspoken on the matter and it wouldn't be right to leave it hanging, but i don't feel comfortable commenting at the moment - sorry - i hope you understand.
i will get back when i am able to.

on your last point - yes, i know - thankfully. : )

jan