× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

Advance payment fraud: client as victim

 < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I’m not really seeing it. Claimants get called in for IUCs all the time simply because DWP have run out of VOs to do the fishing. I don’t see a groundswell outraged by that. There’s no ideal world here were the distinction would be valid between victim or perpetrator etc. People “involved” in a crime or any aspect of it would always be interviewed under caution. There’s nothing extraordinary about that and it’s only right that they’re not being told for what purpose as what would be said if a supposedly innocent witness gave out some information which led the interviewer to conclude they were possible involved in the crime.

In these UC cases we are doubtless going to find some where the claimant was a wholly innocent victim and others where there was an element of something else. I don’t see that UC claimants acquire the right to some information about an IUC in advance which would not be given out in other types of crime.

[ Edited: 1 Jul 2019 at 01:42 pm by Mike Hughes ]
Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Would you report a crime if you knew you were going to be treated like that?

‘People “involved” in a crime or any aspect of it would always be interviewed under caution.’ - is that correct? Everyone? Witnesses too? Victim too? (genuine question)

You yourself use the word ‘fishing’. They are looking for someone to prosecute, and maybe just maybe they can nab the victim.  Meanwhile the actual perpetrators are laughing.

What vulnerable claimant will come forward after being cheated if they are going to be subject to a fishing-trip just in case they can be caught out?

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I think you’re getting very agitated on behalf of a claimant. Laudable as that may be. The reality is that you don’t know what the IUC is for and yet everyone invited to same can ring up for clarity if that’s what’s needed. I doubt much will be offered and I think there are sound legal reasons for that. The rest of your post appears to be speculative so I’m not sure what else can be added. At this stage, unless you or they ask, you have no idea what they’re looking for.

I was the victim of a hate crime some time ago. I was asked to attend a police station and advised in advance it was an IUC. I can’t see why I would ever have perceived that as victim blaming. A failure to do an IUC is potentially fatal to certain cases.

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

Vonny - 10 May 2019 11:28 AM

Schedule 2 of the claims and payments regs is interesting
the identity of the sender of any claim is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the person whose name is recorded as such on that official computer system

Can your client prove she didn’t make the claim?

Any claim or information delivered by an approved method of electronic communication on behalf of another person (“P”) is to be deemed to have been delivered by P unless P proves that it was delivered without P’s knowledge or connivance.

I think this is actually helpful. It’s an example of the true sense of the exception proves the rule: there is a rule that if P does prove not having knowledge or connivance, the claim cannot be deemed to have been made by P.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

To Mike H - ‘I was the victim of a hate crime some time ago. I was asked to attend a police station and advised in advance it was an IUC….A failure to do an IUC is potentially fatal to certain cases.’

That’s the sort of thing I needed to know. Sorry you were a victim and you had to find out the hard way.

I still can’t find any reference to DWP IUC as anything other than a way of potentially incriminating the interviewee however (as opposed to gathering relevant information for prosecuting someone else though presumably the information may be used either way)  I can find quite a lot of fraud guidance but none on DWP IUCs.

The perception of victim-blaming is very much present with this claimant.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I’m happy to be corrected by those more familiar with this aspect of the law than me but I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for Andrew. It basically falls to us to persuade people that this is (relatively) normal and how it feels isn’t necessarily how it plays out. We have to do that in the context of knowing that DWP and PACE are poorly acquainted and the interview techniques of those doing IUCs leave something to be desired. Not easy, and any reassurance you do offer, could be undone within the 1st 5 minutes of the IUC (and in some cases I’ve had… before they’ve even entered the room!).

I must be honest at this point and say that my IUC looked neutral to me but actually started off as an attempt to victim blame. Fortunately I was in a position to be able to give that very short shrift but I do appreciate that absolutely isn’t how it’s going to play out for most claimants in their heads even when they know there is nothing to be concerned about.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Margaret Greenwood MP just raised a question about this case with the IUC (at least I’m assuming it’s the same case).

Minister is “looking into it”....

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Just seen this - today’s DWP questions at 15.18, Ruth George asking the question. (Margaret Greenwood was next up)


The client I’m thinking of has mental health problems - any protections for vulnerable claimants available vis a vis IUC?

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Andrew Dutton - 01 July 2019 03:39 PM

Just seen this - today’s DWP questions at 15.18, Ruth George asking the question. (Margaret Greenwood was next up) ...

Here’s a link: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/7da29b0f-2998-4f35-818e-8e440c22cc8d?in=15:18:10

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Looks like there is quite a lot here, I’ll continue to read –
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/799788/fraud-guide-part-1.pdf

P 504 When to Interview Under Caution
1. If there are grounds to suspect a person or persons of committing an offence they must be cautioned before any questions about the offence are put to them. If the interview is not conducted under caution this is a breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 or could fail the Test of Fairness. 2. ‘Grounds to suspect’ are described in PACE as: • “There must be some reasonable, objective grounds for the suspicion, based on known facts or information which are relevant to the likelihood the offence has been committed and the person to be questioned committed it”
(….)
9. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Steering Group on Investigative Interviewing approved the following seven principles, which apply equally to the interviewing of witnesses and suspects: • the aim of investigative interviewing is to obtain accurate and reliable accounts from victim’s witnesses or suspects about matters under investigation • investigators must act fairly when questioning victims, witnesses and suspects. Vulnerable people must be treated with particular consideration at all times • interviewing must be approached with an investigation mindset. Accounts obtained from the person who is being interviewed must always be tested against what the investigator already knows or what can reasonably be established • when conducting an interview, investigators are free to ask a wide range of questions in order to obtain material which may assist an investigation • investigators must recognise the positive impact of an early admission in the context of the criminal justice system • investigators are not bound to accept the first answer given. Questioning is not unfair merely because it is persistent • even when the right to silence is exercised by a suspect, investigators have a responsibility to put questions to them
(…)
22. Consider whether the claimant requires an appropriate adult or interpreter.
(…)
33. If the investigator has any suspicion, or is told in good faith, that the person to be interviewed may have or there is an indication of severe mental health issues, the investigator must seek advice from the Team Leader (TL) or Higher Investigations Leader (HIL) before arranging an IUC.
34. If the decision made is that an IUC is appropriate, in the absence of clear evidence to dispel that suspicion, the person should be interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

andrew, as Mike already pointed out, the DWP’s fraud team’s acquaintanceship with PACE (or rules of evidence) is minimal to the point of non existance…..

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

All of which indicates, loud and clear, that legal advice is needed before attending a meeting and that a solicitor should be present to point out any breaches of the rules.

It seems as if DWP is a one-club golfer?

It strikes me as scandalous that the govt’s response to these frauds is to promise to investigate and then apparently do nothing, bend their energies to keeping people on UC no matter what, and to treat fraud victims in this manner.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Again, not sure I agree. If you allege fraud then fraud investigative processes apply and if claimants might be party to some of that fraud then why would you change the UC decision until it was clear what had happened?

The scandal here is simply that such a basic fraud was effectively structurally designed into UC and thus inevitable. That all DWPs anti-fraud “measures” could not forsee that at any point in the past decade!

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Andrew Dutton - 02 July 2019 09:17 AM

All of which indicates, loud and clear, that legal advice is needed before attending a meeting and that a solicitor should be present to point out any breaches of the rules.

you assume solicitors know anything much about benefits?

why do you think people end up convicted of benefit fraud and then later tribunal decide there was no problem (whatever it was said to be)

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

ClairemHodgson - 02 July 2019 10:06 AM
Andrew Dutton - 02 July 2019 09:17 AM

All of which indicates, loud and clear, that legal advice is needed before attending a meeting and that a solicitor should be present to point out any breaches of the rules.

you assume solicitors know anything much about benefits?

why do you think people end up convicted of benefit fraud and then later tribunal decide there was no problem (whatever it was said to be)

I’m thinking more about what you and Mike have said about making sure DWP staff follow the correct rules of evidence.

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

DWP now has a ‘dedicated team’ on the issue ...

We routinely gather intelligence to assist our understanding of anyone seeking to abuse the safety net that Universal Credit offers. Any exploitation of advance payments is not acceptable, and we are seeking to identify the perpetrators and ensure we take appropriate prosecution action. We have a dedicated team of investigators working on this issue and we regularly raise awareness with our front line staff who understand the risks and raise concerns as appropriate through referrals to Fraud colleagues.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2019-06-26/269775

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

DWP response to us pressing the case that a fraudulent claim (very vulnerable client who did not understand what was happening) cannot stand:

‘We have carefully considered the circumstances. However, we cannot reinstate [the] former ESA legacy benefit as she has received an advanced payment of UC into her own nominated bank account. [Claimant] has therefore, benefited from the advance payment and has engaged with UC as a result.’

In response I asked:

May I have the legal reasoning for the decision that ‘we cannot reinstate [the] former ESA legacy benefit as she has received an advanced payment of UC’

DWP’s rejoinder:

‘I regret that we are not required to provide details of our legislation which dictates [the] former ESA Legacy benefit can [sic] be reinstated following her claim for UC. Related guidance will be available via our official http://www.gov.uk website.’

What…….?

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

‘I regret that we are not required to provide details of our legislation which dictates [the] former ESA Legacy benefit can [sic] be reinstated following her claim for UC. Related guidance will be available via our official http://www.gov.uk website.’

well perhaps pointing out that ALL legislation is publicly available to all on http://www.legislation.gov.uk, and that in fact all you need to know is which bits of which regs they rely on…

gordon bennett….

[ Edited: 5 Jul 2019 at 01:03 pm by shawn mach ]
Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

And referring me to nonexistent guidance…..!

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Andrew Dutton - 05 July 2019 10:13 AM

DWP response to us pressing the case that a fraudulent claim (very vulnerable client who did not understand what was happening) cannot stand:

‘We have carefully considered the circumstances. However, we cannot reinstate [the] former ESA legacy benefit as she has received an advanced payment of UC into her own nominated bank account. [Claimant] has therefore, benefited from the advance payment and has engaged with UC as a result.’

In response I asked:

May I have the legal reasoning for the decision that ‘we cannot reinstate [the] former ESA legacy benefit as she has received an advanced payment of UC’

DWP’s rejoinder:

‘I regret that we are not required to provide details of our legislation which dictates [the] former ESA Legacy benefit can [sic] be reinstated following her claim for UC. Related guidance will be available via our official http://www.gov.uk website.’

What…….?

What a load of complete tripe and how condescending too. Letter before action in the offing perhaps?

Pete at CAB
forum member

Welfare Benefits Adviser’ for Citizens Advice Cornwall

Send message

Total Posts: 380

Joined: 12 December 2017

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 05 July 2019 11:41 AM
Andrew Dutton - 05 July 2019 10:13 AM

DWP response to us pressing the case that a fraudulent claim (very vulnerable client who did not understand what was happening) cannot stand:

‘We have carefully considered the circumstances. However, we cannot reinstate [the] former ESA legacy benefit as she has received an advanced payment of UC into her own nominated bank account. [Claimant] has therefore, benefited from the advance payment and has engaged with UC as a result.’

In response I asked:

May I have the legal reasoning for the decision that ‘we cannot reinstate [the] former ESA legacy benefit as she has received an advanced payment of UC’

DWP’s rejoinder:

‘I regret that we are not required to provide details of our legislation which dictates [the] former ESA Legacy benefit can [sic] be reinstated following her claim for UC. Related guidance will be available via our official http://www.gov.uk website.’

What…….?

What a load of complete tripe and how condescending too. Letter before action in the offing perhaps?

I was concerned about the reference to ‘our’ legislation. Clearly legislation (in so far as it belongs to anyone) ‘belongs’ to everyone. Does this really mean something in the ADM which, as we all know, doesn’t have the force of law.
Sorry to state the obvious but did/does the cl. actually have access to the bank account that UC was paid into- if not then its hard to see how they ‘benefited’ from the payment.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

‘Sorry to state the obvious but did/does the cl. actually have access to the bank account that UC was paid into- if not then its hard to see how they ‘benefited’ from the payment.’

Yes, the advance went in to the claimant’s bank account, but the fraudsters (whom she knew, at least slightly) took her to the bank and got her to take out the lot and hand it over. So DWP’s bit of sophistry has that to it - providing they ignore the basic facts, the vulnerability and suggestibility of the claimant, the deliberate,abusive actions of the men who knew that she was vulnerable and the great unlikelihood that the claimant really knew what was going on.

I assume DWP does not know how to respond properly and is playing for time, but yes, (in reply to Paul) I think a letter before action will have to be considered - ‘we have made a decision we refuse to explain it, wait for guidance which may or may not turn up’.

 

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220777/Benefits-worker-told-ignore-wave-bogus-claims-bosses-terrified-Left-wing-critics.html

Borrowed from the ‘latest press reports’ page, with my favourite typo (DWP is ‘running sacred’ of critics) some extremely nasty comments below the line and the usual need to check for reporting bias, this is interesting nonetheless.

‘senior managers at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have told staff to approve applications for advanced payments even when the claims are obviously fake, the whistleblower says, for fear of attracting more negative headlines.’
Allegedly:
• One man entered the names of three made-up children as Fish, Chips and Beans – yet still received his advance payment;
• Some fraudsters fleece the taxpayer for as much as £1,500 a time in advance payments
• Gangs of organised criminals are coercing vulnerable people into making fraudulent claims, then splitting the proceeds;
• Senior officials admit that a large fraction of claims are bogus, but say stopping the fraud is not ‘a priority’.

‘Even more concerning than the individual fraudsters were the reports aired during the telephone conference about gangs of criminals coercing vulnerable people to make bogus claims.’

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

From the BBC this evening:

- tens of millions of pounds of public money is believed to have been stolen
- in one job centre more than a third of claims are currently suspected of being bogus
- £100,000 of fraudulent activity each month was recorded at another branch
- DWP estimates 10% of the 100,000 or more advances paid monthly are potentially bogus.

More: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48887753

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 958

Joined: 24 November 2017

shawn - 08 July 2019 08:03 PM

From the BBC this evening:

- tens of millions of pounds of public money is believed to have been stolen
- in one job centre more than a third of claims are currently suspected of being bogus
- £100,000 of fraudulent activity each month was recorded at another branch
- DWP estimates 10% of the 100,000 or more advances paid monthly are potentially bogus.

More: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48887753

Note the quote at the end from Baroness Buscombe effectively says the victims are at fault for not being more careful!

Benny Fitzpatrick
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer, Southway Housing Trust, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 627

Joined: 2 June 2015

So much for the enhanced ID verification process for UC, and explicit consent, reducing levels of fraud as claimed by Mr Couling.

How come tackling the fraud of up to £20 million taxpayers money is “not a priority”. They don’t say that when chasing a measly £65 “fraud”, do they? (Perhaps they think Farage may be involved. He appears to be the only person above the Law at the moment).

Usual DWP omnishambles. Deny problem until it can’t be denied any more, then admit it but attempt to blame the claimant. Typical.

Jo_Smith
forum member

Citizens Advice Hillingdon

Send message

Total Posts: 325

Joined: 3 October 2018

Ianb - 08 July 2019 09:24 PM
shawn - 08 July 2019 08:03 PM

From the BBC this evening:

- tens of millions of pounds of public money is believed to have been stolen
- in one job centre more than a third of claims are currently suspected of being bogus
- £100,000 of fraudulent activity each month was recorded at another branch
- DWP estimates 10% of the 100,000 or more advances paid monthly are potentially bogus.

More: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48887753

Note the quote at the end from Baroness Buscombe effectively says the victims are at fault for not being more careful!

“The first the victim knows that it is actually a scam is often when the DWP writes to say they are now on universal credit, and that any other benefits they are on are being stopped immediately.”

So do we think - AGAIN - that stop notices are often premature?

 

 

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Sorry, late to the party.

On the subject of proving an individual didn’t make the claim… yes you can prove they didn’t make it you can even trace the location of the IP address although that’s often a proxy; I’ll bet it’s not in the same location as the claimant though.

I haven’t seen this yet but my first step will be making a Right of Access Request for the service logs when I do.

[ Edited: 10 Jul 2019 at 10:06 am by Dan_Manville ]
Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

NAWRA has had a reply to our letter to Amber Rudd - apparently the Department ‘takes any suspicious activity very seriously’ but it fails to say what it’s actually going to do or to respond to our recommendations.

See Fraudulent universal credit claims being made to obtain advance payments