I've been asked by a colleague to post this question.

Follwing a fraud investigation, a decision is made that a claimant has been overpaid benefits amounting to £30,000, which is never appealed.

During the criminal proceedings, the claimant pleads guilty but only of committng a fraud for a portion of the time alleged. The overpaynent for this portion of time would have been £3,000.

The claimant is later asked to pay back the full £30,000.

Is there any potential for linkage between the civil and criminal proceedings, and if not is there any argument for a late civil appeal on the basis that the claimant had assumed both matters were interlinked?

I can't answer your queries but I assume the criminal proceedings were a prosecution. What was the Court's decision? If the claimant was found guilty in respect of the whole £30,000 then he has presumably been found so on the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion.

If that is the case, is there really any possibility that he could be considered to be not guilty on the less stringent "balance of probabilities" test in civil proceedings?

No, criminal court found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for only a portion of the alleged period, which would have amounted to an overpayment of around £3,000 had the civil proceedings followed the same period of time.

It's a question of jurisdiction basically - the criminal court doesn't have any in relation to the overpayment decision which needs to be separately appealed.

Depending on the facts, you can try late appeal, if within 13 months of the overpayment decision, or supersession for change of circumstances if the Court proceedings revealed any favourable facts.

Richard Atkinson

A client of ours who had been found guilty of benefit fraud (investigation triggered by working while on DLA HRM) persuaded a Tribunal that the (indisputable, on the facts) overpayment was not recoverable as her recovery had been so protracted that she was not aware of just how much she had improved. So it can be done.