‘informal’ interviews

We have had several recent cases of clients who have been ‘invited to attend’, generally at extremely short notice, what are described as informal interviews, both by DWP and LA.  These turn out to be interviews with Compliance or Fraud Officers, at which the client is closely questioned.  Because the interviews are not conducted under Caution they attend alone and without obtaining advice.  There is no record of what transpires, and clients report being placed under considerable pressure.  The interview ends with the client signing a Statement, which is always written for them by the interviewing officer.

Our concern is that the interviews are deliberately conducted ‘informally’ to circumvent the protection which interviewees are afforded when conducted under PACE rules.    Am I becoming paranoid in my old age?  Does any other organisation have similar experiences?

I’m not sure how much help this will be.  Frankly, it’s a bit of a rant.  Another one :-).

Even IUCs are, on occasions, conducted in a manner that leaves much to be desired.  I have seen transcripts and heard tapes that bear little relation to the picture subsequently painted by the DWP / LA.  As for the “informal” interviews, nothing surprises me anymore.  I would even summise that the short notice is quite deliberate, to give claimants as little time as possible in which to have a chance of establishing their rights.  After all, can’t have claimant’s knowing when / how to tell the DWP / LA to take a running jump….

In the event you get a client BEFORE such an interview, my approach would be to write to both the LA and the DWP, seperately, requiring each to identify the legal basis on which an interview is being requested.  If an impression is being given that attendance is compulsory / “required”, I would ask for the legislative basis for that too - LAs certainly have NO power to REQUIRE an interview.  They can ask, but definitely cannot insist.  Not so sure for DWP benefits.

Even if attendance can be “required” for DWP benefits, I would largely advise claimants to do the whole “no comment” + “please put your questions / concerns in writing”.  I am personally aware of at least two cases in the past 3 years where claimants have “admitted” to something that did, in fact, not amount to an admittance of any kind whatsoever.  By way of analogy (I’ve used this before me thinks), a motorist is stopped by the Police and immediately “admits” to speeding at 39 mph..  However, it turns out that the speed limit was 40mph.  In short, there was nothing to “admit” too in the first place.  An equivalent can quite easily apply to benefits.  e.g. a HB/CTB clmt on ESA “admits” to not notifying a LA of a change of circs about earnings as s/he didn’t think it affected HB/CTB .  LA take the usual subtle action etc….  THEN, it transpires the earnings did not exceed £95.00 AND the average weekly hours were less than 16 and these circumstances fell within the “exempt work” rules for ESA.  Such earnings do not affect HB/CTB (entirely disregarded) and, as such, there is no duty on the clmt to notify the LA of the change (the duty only extends to changes the clmt might reasonably be expected to know might affect HB/CTB).

Good luck.

Is there any official good practice guidance on how ‘informal’ interviews should be conducted or recorded?