I was challenging recovery of an HB overpayment because the overpayment was notified before the client went bankrupt. Now LA says that the overpayment was notified as part of a fraud investigation, and that they can therefore recover, bankruptcy or not...

Can anyone point me to the regs.? I have impatiently had a flick-through but not found what I need...

Cheers.

Simply being part of a fraud investigation is insufficient. There must actually have been a conviction or caution. Without that, it's not "fraud".

What are they saying? Surely if they notified the overpayment (& I assume demanded the money back) then they had made their decision. If they had not decided to ask for an adpen (which - if accepted - is an admission of fraud) or decided to prosecute then I don't see on what grounds they can now argue it is fraud.

It is of course an offence for the bankrupt to make any payments to creditors (unless they are for rent arrears, or are taken by deduction from ongoing benefits) so the LA - if they wish to pursue this - will have to do so with the OR & put their case that it is fraud to him/her.

<sigh>

They are trying to argue that although she wasn't found to be fraudulently claiming, because she was being investigated for fraud, they are recovering the overpayment. You both seem to agree that they're clearly wrong, so I guess it's just a case of hunkering down for the long battle of letters that I'll ultimately win anyway...bless them.

Thanks, both.

This is preposterous!

So they investigate because they think (for some unknown reason) it is - or may be - fraud, find it is not so simply make a decision it is recoverable, & then try to argue it is fraud after all!!

They cannot go on recovering unless it is fraud. And it is not fraud just because they happen to want to think it is - it has to be admitted (eg by Adpen) or proved.