Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Dwp 3rd compliance meeting

108 replies

Ladyluk · 14/04/2019 16:58

Hi everyone I'm looking for advice plz . I went to my 3rd compliance meeting over being reported that my partner lives with me when he doesnt. We have a son together and he stays 2-3 nights a week and goes. We have thought about moving on together but I'm not ready for that. They are ringing me tomorrow to see if I want to change my circumstances and close the case. If not they say there is a financial connection to him at my house which they wont tell me about and will file for me to have a meeting under caution and be prosecuted. I've told them I've done nothing wrong but they believe that due to my son's age and the time I have alleged had him moved In they believe there is a case. I've not eaten or slept and I've booked to see a solicitor . Any advice would be appreciated many thanks

OP posts:

MissPollyHadADolly19 · 14/04/2019 18:39

@Ramdogs if you are claiming housing benefit you are only eligible if you stay at the property for more than 3 nights a week.
But alot of people confuse that with this type of situation.

Shutuptodd · 14/04/2019 18:39

Say not way.

DrinkFeckArseGirls · 14/04/2019 18:39

Do you have any evidence for domestic violence? Police or GP evidence/ notes? Not sure why you’re continuing seeing him

NoBaggyPants · 14/04/2019 18:41

People are confusing moral and legal issues here.

The OP may well be playing the system in choosing to live apart from their partner in order to claim benefits. That may be immoral, but it's not unlawful.

The DWP so far have offered no evidence to support their assertion that the couple are living together. They cannot sanction or prosecute the claimant without evidence to prove their claim.

OP you need to see a solicitor, and if possible have them attend the IUC with you. Then they can get disclosure of the evidence the DWP claim to have and, based on this information, advise on the best way forward.

Ramdogs · 14/04/2019 18:43

@MissPollyHadADolly19 no you must be permanently resident to claim HB unless temporarily absent for other extreme reasons like fleeing DV. Where does this '3 night' rubbish come from?!

unlimiteddilutingjuice · 14/04/2019 18:46

Welfare Rights Advisor here OP:
Lots of people have relationships that are something of a grey area. The DWP takes a series of factors into account:
1.Do you live together

Do you share finances

3.Do you share arrangements for shopping/cooking 4.Do you present yourselves as a couple to the outside world. I. E: would your friends describe you as a couple. It sounds like you have good reasons to keep this relationship at arms length. I certainly wouldn't do as the DWP suggest and cement the relationship by adding this man to your claim. Particularly as you say he has been violent in the past. It's good you're seeing a solicitor. Consider taking him with you if you attend the interview under caution. It may also be worth discussing with your solicitor whether you should attend or not. There's no obligation to do so. Really the only purpose of the interview is to allow the DWP to extract a confession or other evidence they could use against you. Many people find themselves in an interview under caution purely because they fear the benefits will be terminated if they don't comply. It's worth bearing in mind that the issue of entitlement is separate (although connected) to the issue of whether a fraud has occurred. Although you have an obligation to provide the DWP with adequate information to allow them to establish entitlement, there is no reason that this has to happen in an interview under caution. In your position, I would be tempted to write to the DWP politely declining to attend the interview under caution and asking them to make a decision on entitlement based on the information you have already provided at the compliance interviews. Then I would prepare myself for a mandatory reconsideration followed by an appeal. Obviously this will involve a loss of income in the short to medium term but if the DWP are convinced you aren't entitled there may be no way around this in any case. Good luck OP. Feel free to DM me if you'd like to discuss in further detail.

user1486131602 · 14/04/2019 18:46

Go online check your and his credit record at your address.
If they are telling you there a financial link you will be able to find it there.
Maybe he has gotten credit at your address? Is/was he on the electoral roll?
If he stays, even one night a week and you are socialising, eating and sleeping together you CAN be classed as a couple.
I had a similar situation but admitted nothing and put in a request for my records under freedom of advice formation act, plus the threat of being sued for harrasment under incorrect information......the threat went away! Keep all your info on socials private.....they have teams that do nothing but search them all day gathering intell, this from someone who works at the DWP.
Get proper legal advice.
Good luck

SouthWestmom · 14/04/2019 18:50

I agree with pp. stuff like this is what gives benefit claimants and single mothers in particular a bad press.

MissPollyHadADolly19 · 14/04/2019 19:04

@Ramsdog no you aren't getting what I'm saying.
If you live somewhere but also have another address or are in between addresses your HB will be for the address where you live the majority of the time.
Similarly, if you have a child that you share custody of then the main carer (more than 3 nights in a week) will be the one eligible for CB/CTC and not yourself.

ceecee32 · 14/04/2019 19:10

In your position, I would be tempted to write to the DWP politely declining to attend the interview under caution and asking them to make a decision on entitlement based on the information you have already provided at the compliance interviews

Just be aware that if you follow this advice, and the DWP have sufficient belief that you are not telling the truth that the police may be approached to assist in an arrest and search of your property. This would be considered appropriate if the evidence held goes back some years and any overpayment would be significant.

unlimiteddilutingjuice · 14/04/2019 19:17

It's possible I suppose.
At the moment OP is under no obligation to be interviewed. The only way to compel someone to be interviewed is to arrest them.
In general: I would not volunteer myself for an interview under caution that I wasn't required to attend. As I said before: the only purpose of an interview under caution is to extract a confession or other compromising statement from you.
Talk it over with your solicitor OP.

GeorgeTheFirst · 14/04/2019 20:09

He has to support his child though - so if you aren't a couple then he should be paying child maintenance. And if you are a couple then you can't claim as a single person.

SchrodingersBrexit · 14/04/2019 20:26

This is bizarre, they obviously have evidence. You have checked your credit file, but have you checked his?

There's a link him and your address, that wouldn't necessarily show up on your credit file. Only joint things will. It's not a credit file for your address, it's one for you.

Putthatlampshadeonyourhead · 14/04/2019 20:28

The OP may well be playing the system in choosing to live apart from their partner in order to claim benefits. That may be immoral, but it's not unlawful.

However, since he technically is of 'no abode', has no proof that he lives elsewhere (probably due to uncle claiming council tax discount), doesnt pay maintenance etc it's enough to add up to being unlawful.

Either he is with her or he isnt and pays maintenance.

And to top it off, someone is reporting to them. So bets are they are presenting as a couple.

I very much doubt, he stays there 3 nights a week and doesnt pay anything. Now is that maintenance or is that contributing to her bills?

Or the OP is being a complete walk over and letting him take the piss.

I think it's quite obvious why they think she is claiming fraudulently. Its sounds like they are pushing the rules to breaking point, but they now have enough to add everything together.

unlimiteddilutingjuice · 14/04/2019 20:45

I think people are being very harsh on the OP. Did you all miss the part where she said there had been domestic violence?
Mumsnet is usually a great champion of women who have been in that situation.
And yet here we see people encouraging the OP to give up her financial independence and enter into a joint claim, tying herself in more tightly to a potentially violent relationship.
Throw benefits into the mix and everyone's perspective changes.
Based on the actual law (not someone's moralistic reckon about what the law should be) I feel that it is somewhat ambiguous whether OP is part of a relationship for benefit purposes. That doesn't make her a fraudster. It makes her a person in a complex situation, as many people are.
I think perhaps the question may have to be resolved at tribunal. Hopefully OP's solicitor can help her avoid this veering into criminal charges and keep the focus on entitlement.

Madein1995 · 14/04/2019 20:45

😂 at the thought you can refuse to attend the interview under caution. It's not an invitation, nor is it optional. If you refuse to go to the interview they can issue s warrant for your arrest. My boss is a former fraud investigator and did this a few times. Obviously they need to have credible evidence but to be quite honest they need credible evidence to do an interview under caution anyway.

They work with the police a lot. Try refusing to attend and you can have a warrant out for your arrest. Your home could be searched.

The claimant is not the one in control here

unlimiteddilutingjuice · 14/04/2019 20:57

I have personally been involved with cases where the claimant has not attended.
She was a very vulnerable person and I felt she wouldn't cope well.
I had her write a letter explaining her position and politely declining to attend. The letter about the interview under caution contained the line: "You have the right not to attend" so we simply wrote "I note that I have the right not to attend. I will be exercising that right" followed by an explanation of her situation/finances.
Her benefits were terminated but she was not arrested and no criminal charges were pursued. We won the benefits back at tribunal.
Had she attended an interview under caution it's very possible she might have been led to make an admission.

ILoveAllRainbowsx · 14/04/2019 22:18

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

RainbowFox · 14/04/2019 22:36

I dont want him to move due to domestic violence previous

Does this mean DV from him? Or from a previous partner? I can understand someone in a previous DV relationship being more cautious in a new relationship. But we don't know how old the child is or how long the current relationship has been on going for.

LakieLady · 14/04/2019 23:02

They take into account several of the things mentioned above, plus others, like:

where does he keep his clothes, tools and other personal possessions
what address does his employer have for him
what address is held by his GP, dentist etc
what address does official correspondence go to
what address is his car registered at

I'd also advise you to get help from a benefit advisor from CAB, law centre or similar. Compliance interviews can be tricky and I've never known someone be asked to attend 3.

Have the two of you ever entered into a joint credit agreement at your address or anything? It would be worth knowing in what way you are "linked" in their eyes, then you can explain how that came about.

Bibijayne · 14/04/2019 23:05

You have the right to take someone with you. You can take a lawyer or other advocate.

Babyroobs · 14/04/2019 23:23

You have a child together, he stays half the week. I can absolutely see where they are coming from.

LilQueenie · 14/04/2019 23:28

the financial connection is the issue. Has he used your address without your knowledge?

Putthatlampshadeonyourhead · 15/04/2019 04:41

And yet here we see people encouraging the OP to give up her financial independence and enter into a joint claim, tying herself in more tightly to a potentially violent relationship.

She absolutely shouldnt move in with him
She needs to stop him coming to the house. Find the financial connection and sort that out. Stop having him over, claim cms and break up with him.

As its stands, she cant continue to keep doing what she is doing.

unlimiteddilutingjuice andbif they have enough evidence to prosecute her, how does not turning up help. How does having her benefits stopped, help?

custardcreams1 · 15/04/2019 07:42

When I moved into my council property and the neighbourhood officer came to visit me to Check I'd actually moved in, I asked what's acceptable for someone staying because I wanted my mum to stay for a few nights after having my son so she could help me. He said that if the person staying has own address and not claiming benefit from that address they can stay for whatever amount of nights if no contributions are made. When two people have separate addresses and claiming separate benefit but staying at one of the addresses this becomes a problem. Or single person claiming and someone staying and paying towards food/bills even if that person works and not claiming any benefit they are contributing to that single claiment even if its one night per week it is classed as fraud.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5