× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

Compliance interview

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Just flagging this up to see if anyone has encountered similar recently (and to share any tactics- have already contacted CPAG advice line about it- thanks CPAG).

Client (significant physical disabilities- LP on ESA) was contacted by ‘local service compliance team’ (based at Brighton JC+) who interviewed her by phone. She was told there had been an allegation that she was living with a partner. She confirmed she has a boyfriend (who maintains an address in another town and has always done so). He stays at weekends on a fairly regular basis and whilst they have discussed the possibility of him relocating/moving in with her they have no immediate/firm plans at this stage. She was then sent ‘statement’  (with instructions for her to sign and return) which includes the comment:

‘We have been talking about moving in together and so I will speak to him about it and come back to you by 22/4/16. I understand that if I don’t make contact with you then my benefit will be suspended. I also understand that if we decide not to move in together then I will need to have a further interview to go over all the details’.

The statement also contains a shopping list of all the changes she must report including:

‘I must inform the department of any intention to go on holiday in advance’

Client tells me that during the conversation she mentioned that she tries to put by £5 to £10 per week of her benefit income with a view to building up sufficient funds to take her children on holiday when she can. She was apparently told she should be using her benefit to support herself and her children and that not only did she have a duty to tell the DWP if she goes on holiday but that they will be asking questions about how she was able to afford it….

Client is (unsurprisingly) having difficulties sleeping and her health problems have been exacerbated by the stress this is causing her. She feels she is being pressurized/bullied into making a decision she does not feel she yet want to make in terms of her future plans regarding her boyfriend (and that she is effectively being accused of being a bad parent).

I’ve not come across the ‘local service compliance team’ previously- they seem horribly reminiscent of Concentrix or similar- but I fear this may be the start of things to come.

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

In the context of an investigation into what might be alleged to be a possible criminal offence, drafting a statement which includes things that a potential defendant never said, might be viewed by some as being an attempt to pervert the course on justice.  Perhaps a formal referral to the local constabulary?  Also might be a case where a possible offence of misconduct in a public office may be relevant?

I have come across these teams before.  Quality and attitude does seem to vary, but then what’s new?

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Further to what Neil has just posted…....would this telephone interview have been recorded?

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

past caring - 19 April 2016 04:04 PM

Further to what Neil has just posted…....would this telephone interview have been recorded?

I was told not too long ago that JCP have two phone systems; one’s recorded and one isn’t. In my case it was a conversation with the compliance team I was after so I wouldn’t get your hopes up.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’ve requested a transcript of the telephone interview so we shall see what they come back with (if anything).

I must admit it’s been a while since I went ranting around the office quite so stridentlly as I did when I read the ‘statement’. I’ve come across similar scenarios in the past (clients asked to attend ‘informal’ interviews at local JC rather than IUCs who have then been put under significant pressure to terminate their claims for one reason or another) but this is a new approach on me. I suppose that in view of what the DWP expects to get away with when drafting UC claimant comittments, etc, why not try the same sort of tactics in other areas too?

Neil, I was rather wondering whether it could amount to misconduct/misfeance in a public office.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Just won one of these. Taken best part of 2 years and much stridency on my part (as well as having to explain the difference between a mandatory recon. and a supersession). Vulnerable adult client with overpayments of IS, HB and CTR. Several interviews to “gather evidence” for which no transcripts apparently exist and an IUC at which the parent was not allowed to speak even though they were clearly a responsible adult. Client and parent were “persuaded” that there was enough to prosecute and thus accepted 3 recoveries plus admin. penalties. Case concerned accrual of capital. Transcript voluntarily offered up by interviewing officer who appeared quite proud of it!

Nearly 30 pages, which showed not one suggestion of fraud. Indeed the only possible reading was that the claimant had no knowledge of capital limits or whether they were applicable and no insight into how much their capital was but repeated attempts were made to lead them to say both. An insight into the legitimacy of this can be gained by listening to the parent. They advised me that before the IUC it was made clear by the two officers that they couldn’t believe the capital had been accrued from simply not spending the benefit. They believed the offspring was working and wanted to know where. None of this is on the record. It’s interesting to note that over the best part of 30 pages there is not one question about where the capital came from.

Of course there wouldn’t be if you’d realised moments before going to tape that the claimant hadn’t a hope in hell of obtaining employment. It was only when it was put to them that it seemed dreadfully unlikely that they’d sit there for however long it was and not ask where the capital came from. Parents story seemed entirely true. The breaches of PACE were obvious and it was only when the danger of it ending up at an appeal hearing became obvious there was much backtracking.

Full refunds of all recovered overpayments plus the admin. penalties. Just wondering where to go next with it given the breaches of PACE and the outrageous IUC.

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

The briefest of summaries from Wikipedia about misconduct in public office (a criminal offence) and misfeasance in public office (a tort): 

“Under English law, misconduct (or misfeasance) in public office is an offence at common law which dates back to the 13th century.

The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is confined to those who are public office holders, and is committed when the office holder acts (or neglects to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence say that the elements of the offence are when:
1.A public officer acting as such.
2.Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself. (In English legal language ‘he’ includes ‘she’.)
3.To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.
4.Without reasonable excuse or justification.

The similarly named malfeasance (or misfeasance) in public office is a tort. In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI malfeasance case it was held that this had 3 essential elements:
1.The defendant must be a public officer
2.The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
3.The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers

“Misconduct in public office” is often but inaccurately rendered as “misconduct in A public office”, which would mean something different.”

Mike - have you considered a disability discrimination claim in your case? 

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Ironically, no. Good point.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

As it wasn’t a PACE interview I would have told them that the only answer I will give is to the question “are you living in the same household as Mr….” and that answer to that is unequivocally No!  As for the rest then they could stuff it.  Don’t tell me how to spend my money or threaten me ever again or I’ll have your guts for garters.  Next, a strongly worded letter to the complaints team threatening a civil law suit, copy to the DWP solicitors, report to the MP and the police.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

We’ve amended the ‘statement’ to reflect what the client actually said in respect of her boyfriend (and to remove some of the other stuff including the part about her understanding her duty to report any holiday plans in advance) and have returned it with strongly-worded covering letter and a request for a transcript of the interview.

I shall keep you posted…