DLA fraud case

Got a client who’s claiming DLA high rate mobility and low rate care. Has done since 2006. She received a letter asking her to attend an interview under caution and we suspect this is in relation to her claim and potential overpayment as I suspect DWP will have evidence of her walking and will be arguing she doesn’t met the mobility criteria.

Probably. It may request another DLA form to be completed as well. However, if the improvement in mobility is the only thing that affects the award, this would appear to be the appropriate date from which to supersede the decision. My experience of fraud cases is that where there is video evidence, the claim is superseded from the date where this happens, even if it is probable that the needs reduced before then. You won’t know why the decision has been made until you appeal or request a full statement of reasons.

I had a very similar case come my way a while ago and the claim was superseded from the date the evidence was collected, i.e. the date the video footage was made as this was, in the DM’s words, a “safe date”.

Good luck.

Thanks for the reply Edmund.

I may have misunderstood the postings from The Padster, i hope i have.

It is stated, “client has advised me that she had a change of medication in 2011 and this has improved her mobility”.

However, your comment, “not sure if she should create a doubt about her improvement ie the medication appears to have helped but only sometimes”, reads as if you are considering advising her to make a false statement. If so this would be very unwise for your client and for you as an adviser.

Amongst other things such a course of action does not sit well with s111A Social Security Administration Act 1992.

As the onus is on the DWP to prove this and prove client should have reasonably known she had a duty to declare - I would be inclined to first see the cards held by the DWP before making any admissions. 

In some cases the evidence is weak and wouldn’t pass. 

Improvement doesn’t automatically result in a supercession. 

The client doesn’t have to prove she is entitled to DLA. The burden is on DWP need to prove grounds for supercession are met. 

If the claimant felt her condition still satisfied HRM and the improvements were temporary - it is essential this is recorded in the IUC. DWP have a duty to consider ‘good day’ bad day and overall ability. 

The test for overpayments is again slightly different so it is important that a claimant does not make any incorrect admissions which cause problems in appealing the supercession/overpayment later.

I would advise the client gets a Criminal Solicitor, preferably one with benefits experience, to attend the IUC (I think legal aid remains for this type of IUC).  A solicitor can often get pre-disclosure before the interview begins and find out what evidence is held.  Also with representation you can ask for a break to consult with your representative.  These interviews can be scary for individuals and the DWP are usually less likely to try any underhand tactics whilst someone is represented. 

In cases where I attended IUC ‘s with clients, in the past, I have even drafted statements for the client to ensure that our client’s position did not at any point get misconstrued in any way. 

In cases where claimants make an admission to fraud it is often difficult for them to get entitlement in future as the DWP will often rely upon earlier admissions of guilt so it is important to advise correctly. 

iS IT   CORRECT TO SAY A wro LIKE MYSELF WOULD   NOT   BE ABLE TO GET   PREDISCLOSURE- IF   NOT HOW   DO i APPLY FOR   IT   ON BEHALF   OF A CLIENT?

The clients who I have spoken to post IUC have found the experience confusing and expect to be treated fairly at the subsequent   Lower Tribunal.

What do you want predisclosure of, and prior to what proceedings exactly?

See para   in same thread form N’ham solictors beginning “I would advise…”

I’m not sure.  My instinct tells me that only a solicitor or an accredited legal representative (that is someone who works for a firm of solicitors) has that right.  That would be because you have a right to a solicitor to assist you formally but not a right to other representation other than on a non-formal basis.

I do know of trainee solicitors attending IUC’s, these are often neither qualified or accredited and disclosure has been granted. That may be because the Interviewing Officers just assume they have the right to disclosure. I havent checked the rules though recently.  So I wouldn’t like to guess

Client has a date for IUC but solicitor cant attend, can a request for a new IUC date be made and who could do this? The client or the solicitor?

Either, in writing and keeping a copy.

Thanks, nevip. Just one more before I head off home. Should a request for new IUC date be set by client/solicitor or would they, DWP, just fix another date?

It would be up to the DWP.

Firstly thanks to the replies and advice towards my post. This has been extremely helpful.

Thepadster - 02 April 2014 01:25 PM

Firstly thanks to the replies and advice towards my post. This has been extremely helpful. Secondly I have a further questions relating to prosecution of benefit fraud. From what I understand, my client will soon be attending an IUC. The interview is to establish facts and whether the claimant has a change of circumstances relating to her mobility and therefore she should have declared this. Having had more time to look into the circumstances it appears that there has been a slight improvement in the clients condition, i.e. new medication which I believe are disease modifying drugs. However this change has been temporarily leading to some good days. Going on the assumption the DWP have a video of her walking, this evidence may have been taken on a good day! Client still feels she meets the mobility criteria as there are more bad days than good but is keen to avoid any potential prosecution and doesn’t want to claim DLA anymore. Does anyone have any thoughts, using previous experience, at what the potential outcome and options available to the client would be in this case?

She may feel she still qualifies but what about your opinion and credibility.  Notwithstanding this she needs to take someone with her if you can get a solicitor for the IUC go in as well. Usually 2 fraud officers question a client. If she is accompanied by a solicitor he should be able to find out the evidence against her.

In my experience the FOs do no have a good grasps of the law. If as you say the change in medication helps her to live with her disabilities. However, this doesn’t mean she no longer qualifies for the benefit. Failure to notify the authority about a change in circumstances is not in itself a crime. As with all benefit overpayments the DWP are obliged to offset ant other benefit that the client would have beeN entitled to.