Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Possible fraudulent claims
We wondered whether any other advice workers have any thoughts regarding assistance to clients that are suspected of fraudulent or non legit claims
I think keeping an open mind at the outset helps. Social Security law is vast and there are a wealth of avenues which actually assist a client in challenging decisions.
More often than not decisions and consequential overpayments are wrong and need to be challenged.
Recently a client of mine had JSA, HB and CTB overpayments exceeding 75k (10 years : 2004-2014). This has now been reduced to 1 year o/p.
Criminal Lawyers put it best insofar they see it as they are facilitating and achieving justice and a fair outcome in line with sentencing guidelines.
Agree with the first reply. However I also think it needs saying that no welfare rights adviser would collude with or assist a claimant to make a fraudulent claim. That may not be what you are suggesting, I hope it isn’t.
Just dealt with an allegation of fraud - we must always remember that’s what they are, till proven otherwise - allegations.
Clients accused of fraud should always have legal advice, but we should be giving accurate benefits advice and supporting with appeals where appropriate. Correct advice may minimise overpayments, or even prove that not only was there no fraud, but no overpayment either.
A case many years ago always springs to mind - disabled pensioner accused loudly of fraud by visiting officers, in front of a housing scheme manager in a shared space. Officers denied he had told them his wife had come out of hospital and gone back to work.
They kept up the fraud proceedings even as we found proof that the client had both written to and called the relevant department to tell them his wife was back home etc, on the very day that she came out of hospital.
A Tribunal judge chucked out the overpayment claim on the grounds of official error and the fraud trial collapsed. A waste of public money all round.
So as advisers we give the client impartial, unbiased advice, we never collude with fraud, we appeal (etc) where it is relevant to do so, and never give way even in the face of the most bullish allegations, as the truth may be very different.
..no welfare rights adviser would collude with or assist a claimant to make a fraudulent claim.
Someone in DWP Contact Centre today did ask if i had “complicit consent”.
If there is a suggestion of a prosecution for fraud (rather than eligibility / overpayment issues) the client should be referred to a solicitor specialising in criminal law. Benefit fraud is a criminal offence (and advice workers do not have a right of audience before the criminal courts).
It is always worth ensuring that the solictor is aware that a challenge to the civil decisions (eligibility / overpayment) has/should also be made and this is not an area that will be funded under criminal Legal Aid.
[edit] I see Andrew has just posted the same point!
We frequently deal with cases where DWP/LA are pursuing a fraud prosecution and their case is so poor we are succesful in an appeal against the entitlememnt / overpayment decisions and therefore the criminal case collapses (all at the taxpayers expense).
I once saw a case where the DWPs barrister had included a note in the bundle which said ” this case is **** why are we prosecuting”
[ Edited: 13 Aug 2014 at 04:04 pm by Peter Turville ]Just dealt with an allegation of fraud - we must always remember that’s what they are, till proven otherwise - allegations.
Clients accused of fraud should always have legal advice, but we should be giving accurate benefits advice and supporting with appeals where appropriate. Correct advice may minimise overpayments, or even prove that not only was there no fraud, but no overpayment either.
A case many years ago always springs to mind - disabled pensioner accused loudly of fraud by visiting officers, in front of a housing scheme manager in a shared space. Officers denied he had told them his wife had come out of hospital and gone back to work.
They kept up the fraud proceedings even as we found proof that the client had both written to and called the relevant department to tell them his wife was back home etc, on the very day that she came out of hospital.
A Tribunal judge chucked out the overpayment claim on the grounds of official error and the fraud trial collapsed. A waste of public money all round.
So as advisers we give the client impartial, unbiased advice, we never collude with fraud, we appeal (etc) where it is relevant to do so, and never give way even in the face of the most bullish allegations, as the truth may be very different.
Exactly - very well put.