Does anyone know why fraud departments (DWP and LA's) often just do nothing when they decide not to pursue a case? Its a frustrating source of anxiety for clients to simply not be told what's going on...

Also, we've begun to advise clients that our experience shows that fraud departments often use cautions/administrative penalties (adpens) where there are NO GROUNDS for prosecution, as opposed to an ALTERNATIVE to prosecution (which is the proper application of such penalties). We think this increases the ability of our clients to make a fully informed choice (and yes we do refer for legal advice).

We are interested to hear the experience of other advisers about the use of administrative penalties and the advice/information you give to clients in such situation.

Thanks,

Hi Tony,

I have had the chance to speak to quite a few HB fraud officers over the years, and it seems a lot of cases start with 'twitching curtains' reports from neighbours etc, that look quite promising at the start. However, the lack of resources to get the hard evidence to proceed onto the prosecution stage, sometimes means the cases trail away and fade. So far as I can see, there is no duty to tell claimants they will not be prosecuted after all.

Not come across any Adpen cases of the kind you describe, but is it still the case that LAs get a 'bounty' from government funds for issuing Adpens etc?

I think we are in the wrong game.

Steve

No, the LA's don't get any bounty from this work. In fact all fraud related performance measures have been removed gradually over the last couple of years......

Tony, I think you know this, from the tone of your post, but LA's CANNOT offer an Adpen or caution where they do not have sufficient grounds for a prosecution - in my experience its the DWP who are much more guilty of this (offering a sanction where there is not sufficient grounds to warrant a prosecution), than LA's.

Tried to add this bit in an edit but wasn't quick enough !!!

Regarding why we do nothing (!) we would always send a 'closure' letter to someone who has been interviewed (either formally or not) so they know where they stand, and I believe most LA's operate a similiar policy (the DWP never did in my time there, and don't think its changed much

I readily agree to Ian's observation that LAs SHOULD NOT seek adpens and cautions other than as an alternative to prosecution.

The reality, as Tony has inferred, is somewhat different. It is far from unusual for adpens to be offered is a manner that it thoroughly intimidating and makes it (almost) impossible for clmts with little knowledge of HB/CTB to be aware that there is no legal basis for having to accept the caution.

*Some* LAs do this precisely because they know that a prosecution is likely to fail, but rely on the lack of legal advice / knowledge to, frankly, frighten claimants into accepting the adpen.

Another poster on this forum, Neil Bateman, has commented on more than one occasion about the quality of prosecutions.

In my actual experience, as an albeit sweeping generalisation, the quality of LA prosecution cases is all too often abysmal.

I was under the impression that there were still performance indicators relating to fraud.

PM16 used to be the number of successful sanctions per 1000 caseload.

Is that not the case any more?

PM16 does, at least in theory, still exist until April 2008, but the DWP stopped collecting and publishing the information in September 2007.

somw links -

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/news/newsletter/bulletins/2008/g3-2008.pdf

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/faq/webpage-security-pms-update-jan08.doc