Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
Interview Under Caution - to go, or not to go?
Hi everyone
I have a client…. lone parent being investigated for LTAHAW. She has had one IUC (3 hours) and then it was suspended and she sought advice from me. The fraud investigator called me today and wishes to hold a second IUC he was vague when asked to clarify what further information was needed.
My instinct is saying the client should politley refuse not to attend and leave the ball in the DWP’s court - she can’t be any worse off !
Thoughts/guidance would be much appreciated.
Chaos
We have no evidence (yet) that the boyfriend has a household somewhere else, the only evidence we have relates to no sharing of finances (utility bills etc) which is only a part of the LTAHAW picture. Hence my problem.
Hmmmm…
If it were me I would be referring the client to a criminal solicitor and liasing with the solicitor as things progress. I wouldn’t want to make the call on whether or not she should attend a further IUC. She needs representation if she does in my opinion.
Unfortunately cannot afford solicitor and legal aid will not cover this until she has been charged!
See
http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/imageUpload/File/Advising and Representing Clients at Benefit Fraud Interviews - talk to SSLPA by Andy Malik.pdf
Hi Paul
Your link didn’t work however I have read the Garden Court info.
The second paragraph on page 4 concerned me a little as it stated “this advice is only applicable where the client has no entitlement to current benefit and no defence under S.71…” which left me wondering why? why is the option not to attend an IUC only applicable to these clients?
Local criminal solicitor has advised me to advise the client to attend and answer ‘no comment’ to all questions however this concerns me as inferences can be drawn from the lack of comment.
My head is a mess and its only Monday.
A safer way then might be for your client not to attend but to send in a written prepared statement drawn tightly so no adverse inferences can be drawn.
I thought about that but the statement would have to be word perfect (I’ve had a look at McGarry case which deals with this), I am not convinced I am up to it!
I think you might be selling yourself too short.
I think you might be selling yourself too short.
Ah bless you made this tired girl (!) smile
Then I shall bid you adieu. I’m off to the pub.
Enjoy
IUCs are a double edged sword - irrespective of whether the person being interviewed has something to hide.
In the first instance, my advice (generally) is for a letter to be sent to the DWP/LA acknowledging the interview request and suggesting, IN PRINCIPLE, a willingness to attend but subject to:
1) (if the interview request contains wording that implies attendance is compulsory): “Your letter states I am “required” to attend the interview. Please confirm the LEGAL basis for this.”
2) “Please explain why you have asked me to attend the interview and set out clearly exactly what it is you wish to interview me about”.
Irrespective of the response, my advice (generally) would be for a clmt not to attend or, unless accompanied by a KNOWLEDGABLE, COMPETENT solicitor, to “no comment” throughout unless the clmt knows exactly what s/he is doing (not likely very often). No one else can assist a clmt, hence the reference to a solicitor - must be one that knows SS law or it’s waste of time and/or could cause more damage than good.
The difficulty is that those undertaking the interviews often don’t know the detail of the relevant law in question. For example, how about this as a starter for 10:
DWP/LA: “You do know you have to tell about changes in circumstances?”
Unwary clmt: “Yess…”
Now, see what happens if you know your rights….
DWP/LA: “You do know you have to tell about changes in circumstances?”
Clmt with knowledge: “Only those changes that I (not any old Tom, Dick or Sally) might reasonably be expected to know might affect my entitlement….”
The difference is manifestly obvious. Taking it a step further…
DWP/LA: “We have information you’re living with a partner…”
Unwary clmt: “Well, my boyfriend, he loike stays over sometimes and we go out ‘n stuff…” (cos, obviously, all clmts talk like that…).
Knowing rights…
DWP/LA: “We have information you’re living with a partner…”
Clmt with knowledge: “My boyfriend is not a member of my household….he has his own place and lives entirely independently….nothing else is relevant. No other detail about the relationship is relevant and I will not be adding anything further”.
As for cases involving income / capital, my experience is/was that investigators are often woefully lacking in knowledge about how some types of monies are treated and/or potential disregards.
Oh Kevin, that did make me laugh. The IUC transcripts I’ve read which have been exactly like that.
Oh Kevin, that did make me laugh. The IUC transcripts I’ve read which have been exactly like that.
Me too…
I have given the client her options and possible ramifications of each and she has elected not to attend. I have now written to the DWP and enclosed the evidence we have regarding the client’s position. If the DWP insist on an IUC I will insist on this being done at a police station at which time Cl will qualify for legal aid solicitor (I have one lined up). Will keep you posted.
I don’t know about you guys but this is my third IUC client in a row - with lots of new fraud investigators names cropping up.
Chaos