I am a welfare benefit advisor. I have a client was on jobseeker's allowance but is now working and is not entitled to HB anymore but he continues to receive HB cheques which has been transferred to his bank but he has not used the HB money as he knows he is not entitled to it and he will return it. He has informed the local service centre but they continue to send him cheques. How can he stop them from sending him cheques? Do you think a complaint is a good idea?

Jeffery

What about putting them all in a high interest account. When the LA finally ask for them back he can repay the lump sum he owes and then pocket the interest? Or is there something in law which makes this inequitable?

Yes putting the money in a high interest account sounds good.

Amazing

We normally can't get them to pay and now we can't get them to stop!!

I agree get the interest.

He could always destroy them, and then when the LA invoices for an incorrect amount of O/P, the amount of compensation from the LGO would far and away exceed the amount of interest, and would also prevent temptation of dipping into the funds in case of emergency.

I mean, how many of us have had clients who have debts, and a pool of cash they have, but know they really shouldn't dip into, but do because of personal circumstance? I think that by advising him to cash, we are taking him somewhere he really shouldn't be...

Rightsnet is about respecting people as people, not just getting the best out of the system is it not?

Besides which, most of us will know that most LA's will not check the uncashed cheques log before issuing the O/P letter, invoice, and that is clear maladministration causing injustice is it not?

The 'time and trouble' of correcting the LA decision would be worth £50.00 if a penny! Moe work for the advisor, but is that not what we are here for?

Even if he only cashes them, and doesnt spend the money at all, KNOWING THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THEM, is that not fraud ????

Although I do agree its amazing that they are still sending the cheques out.......

How can it be fraud?

I would argue that he is entitled to take the adjudicating authority at its word. It sounds like he has taken more steps than most to resolve their problem for them and any HB he gets is going to result in a non-recoverable overpayment. Save them in a high interest account, appeal the overpayment decision, keep it going for as long as possible and then offer repayment at £2 a week if he eventually loses.

Is there anything stopping him from simply sending the cheques back?

"..any HB he gets is going to result in a non-recoverable overpayment..."

The OP will be recoverable because he knows he is being overpaid

He has to reasonably realise he is being overpaid.

If he keeps telling them about it and they keep sending him the cheques, how could he realise he is being overpaid? There has to come a point where he is entitled to believe what they are saying.

maybe he should send his cheques to the audit commission and ask them to sort it out - "i keep asking them to stop sending me cheques but..."

photocopy everything, if possible get it notarised by somebody impeccable like a ...actually that's quite difficult... ok, 6 - 10 peccable members of the community, and if possible video the whole thing upto and including the posting of the cheques in the letter box, doing the counting thing so that you can prove the tapes weren't doctored...

keep everything in a safe place, so that he can prove himself innocent if he gets investigated for fraud in a coupla years time.

and don't forget to ask the audit commission for a receipt!

jj

"HOW IS IT FRAUD"

The original poster said customer KNEW he was not entitled to the money. If he then cashes the cheque he is doing so KNOWING HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THAT MONEY. I would argue that is fraud.
It obviously depends on customers knowledge etc etc but if he said yes, I knew I was not entitled to the money and still cashes the cheques what else can it be?

I am curious now. What offence do you think would have been committed specifically?

Ian, this may seem like a climbdown, but its not - honest !
I was not talking about specific offences, as it is clear that somebody in this situation will never be prosecuted (although you can probably establish the three 'ingredients' needed, knowledge, action, and at a push intent) as he clearly reported the change.
My point was that, in general, if somebody does something that they KNOW they are not 'allowed' to do, in terms of claiming benefit, in general, is that not fraud!

Is that a wishy washy anser or what, but its the best I can come up with on a Monday morning

ian, there's nothing wrong with climbing down, and sometimes that's the best thing to do.

"he has not used the HB money as he knows he is not entitled to it and he will return it".

as a fraud investigator, you honed right in on the middle one of three statements expressed here -the one that you have an interest in, and ignored the context in which they occur...

that the claimant has made proper notifications, but they are not resulting in correct action being taken.

the claimant has received payments to which he is not entitled because the AUTHORITY has FAILED to act correctly and has paid him him in ERROR.

the claimant has sought independent advice for help in getting the payments stopped - we're not clear on what has driven him to do this, but i think you must see why it is objectionable that realistically, this man needs protection from being accused of fraud by the authority that made the mistakes.

jj

That was kind of my point really. There is probably a fine line between acting unlawfully and taking advantage of the details of the legislation. It may be morally wrong to keep the money, but that does not necessarily make it a criminal offence.

I understand that fraudulent claiming happens and I don't condone it. However, I think it is dangerous to shout fraud at every dubious action, particularly when it arises from a departmental mistake in the first place. I have many clients who are now to scared to claim their proper entitlement to benefit because they have been accused of fraud by overenthusiastic fraud officers who don't actually have a leg to stand on. They feel victimised and persecuted as a result of genuine mistakes.

This kind of reaction is, I suspect, unlikely to have any effect on criminals, while frighteneing genuine claimants out of claiming all they should.

i have a couple of extremely time consuming and worrying cases on the go at the moment - i'm sure i'm not alone...

a disabled JSA claimant, started working part-time as a s/e taxi-driver 2 and half years ago - advice obtained from personal adviser at jobcentre - borrowed a few thousand pounds for vehicle and start up costs, and was granted financial help by the jobcentre for purchase of taxi 'plate. can only work a few hours a week due to physical disability - gets high mob. after 4 months realized he needed an automatic - it's making his feet worse and causing him to attend chiropodist each week. borrows more money, purchases automatic vehicle - unfortunately is so broke he can't afford to tax it so it's off the road for months - from time to time tells personal adviser he's not making any money - P. A. says that's ok - he can carry on getting JSA as long as his hours are less than 16 and earnings under 20 quid are disregarded - that's ok then. then decides he should get a different vehicle- a people carrier type, borrows more money and buys a turkey - car keeps breaking down.

fraud now want to IUC him about working and claiming. he was quite calm when i saw him initially - quite clear that he hasn't worked over 16 hours and confident in his innocence. it wouldn't actually make sense for him to fraudulently claim JSA - he could legitimately claim WTC if he worked over 16 hours,and get more, but he only claims CTC- states he can't drive for long because it worsens his disability.

unfortunately the public defender service solicitor i referred him to has gone sick and the IUC has had to be deferred. so his JSA has been suspended. and he is very stressed because he doesn't know how he will manage financially until this is resolved. he has 2 kids, but is only getting £16 CTC 4 weekly due to in year adjustment. inland revenue owe him over £3000 from _previous_ tax year, local tax office have given him a print-out - unable to pay it in over 12 months due to 'the computer' problem.

concerns - was the personal adviser he saw at the jobcentre a jobcentre employee or a contractor? client isn't sure. !!!
will the fraud investigators check for JC records of disclosure of work - and further, will they be able to find them?
will he be able to give his account in an IUC?
he now tells me he has a history of nervous breakdown - will his health hold out? i've observed marked change in him in a few days, since benefit suspension.
he has kept receipts, but no profit and loss accounts - didn't know about this and wasn't given any advice - will fraud seize upon that?
operating at a loss, and never earning more than the disregard, will fraud seize upon the fact that he did not declare work when he signed on, whilst disregarding that he was not advised by PA to do so, and PA's knowledge of work. did PA record his knowledge of claimant's work efforts? will the quality of the advice he was given be considered? and of course, the big worry, will they take his DLA off him, because he is working?!

the other case is the data match case - i could say much, but i'm worn out by letter writing already - and my long letter to the head of the benefit service which blew i wrote for fun on my last day before xmas was just given to an admin assistant to phone me up and tell me she couldn't do anything about the CTB suspension until audit told instructed her to lift it. audit have told me that the matter is dealt with by audit, in the course of reply to my letter to them...

suffice to say, that audit, charged with protecting use of public funds, have chosen the most expensive way possible to resolve what was no more than a query arising from a weak data discrepancy - it's been over two months since he was called for IUC - and it's still outstanding. the information did not constitute reasonable grounds to suspect an offence had been committed but data matching is a fraud detection tool, so (automatic?!!) IUC?. his account was not accepted, even though an adult child (council employee) leaving home and getting her own home is not inherently improbable, and objectively there were no grounds to disbelieve him, but it's an IUC, so the burden and standard of proof that he hasn't committed an (unspecified) offence in the course of making his civil claim, is upon him to show beyond reasonable doubt!!! and his CTB is suspended without right of appeal, even though if his kid lived with him, (she pays council tax on her own home) only the non-dep deduction would be at stake...for added duress.

the QUERY, it was no more than that if placed in the hands of benefit administration, could have been cleared up by a letter and a response - virtually as soon as it arose over 2 months ago - the only possible motivation for the least value for taxpayer's money approach is most likely explained by the possibility of obtaining a 'result', in fraud terms.

i have an aggrieved client who feels 'treated like a criminal', who still has faith in the justice system, and the political system - he has asked me to write to the ODPM, but who is beginning to wonder if his civil rights amount to a hill of beans. i have done hours of work on his case, which also comes out of public funds, and may yet have to involve a barrister...but there is an inequality in arms, and perhaps i will have to advise him to placate the bullying system and not test his rights after all...because of costs...

i should add, my anger is not directed at the investigating officer, but the uncorrected and serious system flaws that produce these injustices. there is a need for an urgent reality check in fraud policy and administration, and maybe a real respect agenda (respecting citizens and the law) before irreparable damage is caused, imo. fraud investigation needs to be objective and impartial, not biased. the DWP, and the audit bodies are in prime position to collect, collate and analyse objective and meaningful statistics with some rigour, to contribute towards fact - based policy. it would be a start if fraud and error figures were separated, and the designation 'fraud'was not lax and vague. best of all would be underpayments were recognized as serious as overpayments, and the authorities were 'enabled' to be self-critical instead of blaming claimants for everything. the current policy otherwise, must unevitably conflict with all other policies.

again, i must apologize for length.

jj

Has anyone seen an increase in clients being prosecuted ?

I don't see enough cases to be sure (and would refer them straight to a criminal solicitor) , but I has wondered.

Particularly after seeing an elderly couple, man in an electric wheel chair, being prosecuted for £5000 overpaid benefit which they had being paying back for 6 months. (And which was a claimant error, but quite obviously NOT fraud - in fact they had failed to claim other benefit to which they were entitled). There also just seem to be slightly more IUC, and court documents coming through...

Victoria J

In answer to the question posed: yes, yes, yes.

I've also noticed that the quality of the information on which allegations are based is far higher than it used to be. All of the cases I've dealt with recently have been exposed by data matching exercises between DWP, HMRC and the Council HB/CTB section. I know they also trawl through lists of holders of Hackney Carriage Licences - presumably nobody would pay for a licence if they don't actually work as a cab driver.

JJ, one thing I picked up from your posting … your client is on "high mob." So that should entitle him to "free road tax for a vehicle" SO why the "he can't afford to tax it so it's off the road for months"…

I appreciate this may not be the core issue but felt it should be highlighted ..

it's a good question...client has his own car, and has the exemption on it...i believe he can only claim exemption on one vehicle...

just to add, client has found the 'Session Record' of his 'pre-start counselling' - difficult to know what it all means...not surprised client wasn't sure who it was he saw at the jobcentre...

5 pages of proforma -in very small font top left 'Birmingham Chamber',
over European Social Fund logo. Bottom of page has logos for European Regional Development Fund, Advantage West Midlands and Business Link...

on back page there a 4 tick boxes under heading 'Programme eligibility' - 2 differently funded 'Enterprise Programmes', new Deal for under 25s and Other Government Funded Training Programme - none of which were ticked, but there was a note "Employment zone eligible??"

mainly one word answers - the longest sentence was "Qualified to drive 13 years" -the sole entry under heading "Training Needs Analysis". pretty scary 'pre-start counselling'- but at least the action sheet on the front states -
"see J.C. re: Employment Zone - via Pertemps"

i'm assuming JC stands for jobcentre, not the messiah, so i hope these fraud guys have got a good explanation for suspecting client of fraud...