Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that DWP would ONLY investigate someone for suspected benefit fraud if someone had reported them..?

52 replies

MistyMountainHop · 10/01/2012 14:49

i dont want this to turn into a benefits bunfight! and before i start i have no problem with people on benefits for whatever reason. i have been there myself.

but my friend has just been called in for a formal interview at the jobcentre. its pretty obvious what its for but she knows she hasn't done anything wrong and is really worried. i think someone has maliciously called the hotline as i really don't think the DWP would just do random checks, but she is convinced no one would do that to her Hmm

perhaps i am paranoid, but if it was me i would be hopping mad and trying to think of who i might have pissed off lately :o

OP posts:
Original poster
MistyMountainHop · 12/01/2012 08:25

i wonder if they use facebook to check people out?

as i know people on my facebook who i am pretty sure are fiddling and they put all sorts on there Hmm

i would never say anything though.

OP posts:
BustersOfDoom · 12/01/2012 19:23

Yes they do. Investigators don't go on fishing expeditions and try to find benefit customers at random but if they got a referral FB would be once place they would look.

An example from last year. Sorry Daily Mail link

littlemisssarcastic · 12/01/2012 20:26

AFAIK, DWP do carry out spot checks, but they also receive thousands of malicious calls every year, and it just wouldn't make sense financially to call every single person who they have received a call about into the jobcentre without first investigating the claims of fraud.

DWP have the power to go through your bank statements without first informing you, and AFAIK, banks will submit information to DWP if asked.

They will also target particular companies to investigate, to see whether anyone is working with them on a self employed basis who is also in receipt of benefits. It is common for these to include domestic cleaning companies, pubs, restaurants, and even adult chat line companies where the operators work on a self employed basis. Imo, they wouldn't go to all of this trouble unless they had reasonable suspicion to believe someone was defrauding the system.

Also, a compliance interview at the job centre is a fairly regular event. I'd be more concerned if I was asked to attend an interview under caution at the benefits agency. OTOH, as many posters have already pointed out, if your friend has done nothing wrong, there is no need for her to be concerned.

AnarchyAunt · 12/01/2012 20:36

Surely only those people dozy enough to have a public profile and photos will ever be caught out by FB checks though?

BustersOfDoom · 12/01/2012 20:47

Yup AnarchyAunt but you'd be amazed how many people don't restrict their profiles. I was recently trying to find a relative of mine with a fairly unusual name. FB search brought up about 30 people, none of whom were obviously the person I was looking for. Over half of them had open profiles and I could see all their wall posts, photos and friends. I eventually found my relative by recognising the names of a couple of their friends that I'd forgotten about. My relative has now been advised to change their settings.

BasilRathbone · 12/01/2012 21:04

What does being interviewed under caution by the DWP actually mean?

Is it the same as being interviewed under police caution?

(When the police give you a caution, doesn't that mean you have admitted guilt for a crime but they aren't going to waste resources by having you prosecuted?)

BustersOfDoom · 12/01/2012 21:27

Yes, it is the same as a being interviewed under caution by the police when they say "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It is a legal requirement to ensure that the person in question is fully aware of their rights.

Being given a 'caution' however is different. That is when someone is arrested for something fairly minor and admits guilt. Cautions are offered to adults who admit they are guilty of first time minor offences. An individual has to agree they are guilty to receive a caution.

BasilRathbone · 12/01/2012 21:29

Oh right, so it's not admitting that you've been frauding then?

I remember someone I know was called in to be questioned under caution, I think it was by the DWP. She didn't know what that meant and as I didn't know her at all well, I never found out what happened. Never heard anything about it, I guess I'd have heard if she'd gone to prison!

BustersOfDoom · 12/01/2012 21:54

No absolutely not. All it means is that at the start of the interview you are given the same caution as you would be in a police interview. It might seem heavy handed but it is just to ensure that people are absolutely aware of their rights to legal representation and to remain silent if that is what they wish, whilst being interviewed. IUCs tend only to be used when it is believed there might be a realistic opportunity to prosecute to ensure that the 'accused's' legal rights are protected. I have been present at IUCs where the customer has subsequently been proved to be wholly innocent, before legal action has even commenced, so an IUC is absolutely not an indication of guilt.

Original poster
MistyMountainHop · 13/01/2012 08:15

omg am absolutely Shock at that DM link !

what a dozy idiot! :o

OP posts:
Hecubasdaughter · 13/01/2012 08:53

AFAIK they investigate everything even if it's fairly obvious that no fraud is being commited. I was reported for working while claiming benefits and they contacted me. You would have thought that the investigation would have stopped as soon as they checked the records and found out that I wasn't and at that point never had claimed any benefits. At that point it was pre DC so hadn't even claimed CB.

Original poster
MistyMountainHop · 13/01/2012 15:28

how completely ridiculous hecubas i bet you were really pissed off.

i got falsely reported once by my now-DH's nutty XW saying he was living with me when i was claiming as a single parent. he had his own place and certainly didn't live with me. not at that point anyway. the benefits officer actually visited my house, i admitted that i was seeing someone but he didn't live with me. i even offered to show him round and show him in my bedrooms, bathroom, cuboards etc (lol) to prove man was living with me. and he was really nice and said there was no need and apologised to me for wasting my time and said it was clearly a malicious report with no grounds in fact. Hmm it must waste loads of time and money when these idiots with no lives make false accusations.

OP posts:
Original poster
MistyMountainHop · 13/01/2012 15:29

ffs i meant to prove NO man was living with me of course! Blush

OP posts:
Hecubasdaughter · 13/01/2012 15:32

Tbh the the only thing that annoyed me was the waste of time and money in them contacting me.

chocoroo · 13/01/2012 15:32

Many moons ago I worked in "Overpayments" at the then-DWP. We were closely connected to the Fraud department.

Back then, and I'm talking 10 years ago, queries would be raised from a variety of sources - audit, fraud hotlines, staff members raising questions. Any of these things could lead to someone being called in for interview. I can't imagine things have changed all that much tbh.

If your friend hasn't done anything they have nothing to worry about.

Boomerwang · 13/01/2012 15:33

Inconvenient and possibly embarrassing, definitely intrusive, but would you rather they didn't bother at all and then never catch the real cheats?

Original poster
MistyMountainHop · 16/01/2012 09:24

yeah i agree boomerwang but i was fortunate in that they didnt stop my benefits while they investigated, it seems that in most cases these days they do stop benefits. which can really fuck innocent families up :(

OP posts:
Fixx · 18/01/2012 13:44

I have had a compliance letter today, telling me I gave to go to the job centre next week. I had my IS 6 month meeting last week and confirmed that I was now getting DLA for my son and Carers for myself. (Last time I had applied for it and was waiting to hear.) Could this be the reason why?

coppertop · 18/01/2012 13:55

I had a letter from a DWP compliance officer a couple of years ago. They asked for proof that I received DLA (as I received extra credits on the basis that we did). I couldn't find the award letter so had to phone the compliance officer. She was lovely and gave me plenty of time to get a new copy of the letter and post it to her.

The letter said that they carried out random checks. I don't think anyone had reported us as I tend not to talk about financial stuff with other people and so I doubt anyone would have even known about the DLA.

Once the documents had been received, I got a letter telling me that everything was fine.

Fixx · 18/01/2012 14:06

I called up and they said not to worry, but then again they would say that.

Fixx · 18/01/2012 14:07

Sorry, I'm being thick.... did you say that you got extra IS or tax credits because of your DLA?

coppertop · 18/01/2012 17:19

No it's my fault. I meant to type "tax credits" but missed out a word.

Fixx · 18/01/2012 17:44

I have the tax credits, but not until after I filled out a huge IS form a few months ago. So maybe they didn;t know about that yet. As tax credits are from Inland rev.

I;m sooooo stressed about it now. Why can't they just do it over the phone straight away and save all this hassle?

dontuseme123 · 25/11/2014 23:21

Do the fraud investigators not gather evidence first before issuing letters, like photo,s etc, or what about after the interview would they have someone watch you without you noticing them or would that be wasting their time & money

FryOneFatManic · 26/11/2014 08:07

Zombie thread, which I didn't spot at first.