Interview under caution

I am advising a client who has been invited to a IUC for HB. He was unable to attend the first interview as he needed to get legal advice and that interview was cancelled. Another IUC was arranged a short time later which the client informed the LA he was unable to attend as he was ill. He has now received another request for an IUC attendance which states that this will be his last chance to the interviewed and as he failed to attend two prior IUCs due to ill health the interviewer requires him to provide medical proof confirming this.! Is is allowed? As the client is under no legal obligation to attend, then what right has the interviewer to demand to see medical evidence or ask the client to provide proof that he was unable to attend?

With regard to another client, on his HB application he only gave details of 3 of his bank accounts, one of which incidentally due to the amount makes his ineligible for HB. He has two other joint accounts (with his sister) which he did not disclose on his application as he states the money belongs to his sister. The LA appear have made a mistake and assessed him as eligible and paid him for 6 months. Due to a data matching exercise showing up his other accounts, they have now suspended this HB and invited him for an IUC. My question is that even through he disclosed the bank statements which made his ineligible can he still be deemed to have failed to disclose all bank accounts and hence be liable for administrative penalty or caution? Also does he now have to take all his bank account details, including joint accounts to the IUC even if the joint accounts as he states contain just his sister’s money?

You really do need to discuss this with a good criminal law solicitor as there is considerable criminal law caselaw about non-attendance or no comment and/or when an advserse inference may be drawn. 

This leaflet may also help:  http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Benefit_fraud_Leaflet.pdf

My tuppence worth of advice (as an investigations officer) for what it is worth:

There is clearly no legal requirement to attend an interview under caution, or to answer questions if you do attend, so there cannot be a legal requirement to provide medical evidence showing why he has not attended.  However, my guess is that the investigator is considering what action to take next and whether to continue in the absence of an interview under caution.  If your client is able to show medical evidence that he is unable to be interviewed, then this may sway the investigator in deciding that there is no public interest in pursuing the case.  It would therefore appear to me to be in your client’s interests to provide this information (if it supports your client’s version of events).

As to the second scenario, it would appear that offence under question is one of making a false statement with the intention to claim benefit.  The interview will be around the issue of firstly whether the capital is the claimant’s or the sister’s (but starting from the premise that it is in an account in the claimant’s name) and secondly why he didn’t declare it upon the application form.  A false statement offence does not necessarily require there to be an overpayment attributable to the offence (in the way a failure to report change of circumstances offence effectively does following Passmore).  Neither does the fact that he declared an account which should have excluded him from benefit exonerate him, since the counter argument will undoubtedly be, (i) if he knew the first account would exclude him, then why make a false statement by omitting the other accounts and (ii) if he knew the first account would exclude him, then why did he apply for benefit in the first instance?  The implication here is that he did not know he would be excluded by the first account and so the question remains why omit the other accounts (and was it because he expected to be excluded by those accounts)?.  However, in deciding whether to take the matter further, the administrative failure will be a factor in the decision making process.

However in answer to your point about an adminstrative penalty, any overpayment will have been caused by Local Authority error and so cannot be subject to an administrative penalty.