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
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

fraudulant legal aid claim

85 replies

shanzu · 17/04/2011 22:14

what would happen if I didnt declare some savings in an application for legal aid? would I get caught? I have already been to 1 solicitor and was turned down because my savings were too much - is this tracable?

OP posts:
ChristinedePizan · 18/04/2011 20:03

there isn't

chickchickchicken · 18/04/2011 20:24

OP please do try and think about the other parents who need access to legal aid monies more than you do. i was on a low income (child with severe sn so impossible to increase work) when i separated. i was told as i owned a house that even if i could get legal aid i would have to pay it back when house was sold. i didnt want any charge put against house as i have to make complicated (as yet not done) arrangements for safeguarding child's supported future) through researching solicitors i found one who would handle legal separation and divorce for me at a set price. i borrowed the money to pay for it. i was lucky that i could borrow money. think about the people who cant and leave legal aid monies for them

fwiw as soon as you access state monies you sign a declaration which allows them to investigate your finances without informing you of any action they intend to take. people can and do get caught

Original poster
shanzu · 18/04/2011 20:32

Katie - you were telling me that I will be caught if I make a fraudulent claim- therefore by sourcing your information, you would not be assisting me to commit fraud but helping to prevent me.
In order to demonstrate 'valid mitigation' I would have to spill my guts - I am not going to do that. I am not asking for your blessings. I was after practical/ legal/factual advice.

Christina - this is not a total strop....I am frustrated with your moral judgements - as I said, I am uninterested in that. Its tedious wading through your pious laudings to get the facts that I asked for. Your patronising and totally call for a f**k off emoticon. talking about being unethical/ immoral in the same breath as talking about divorce lawyers is laughable.

smokinaces -sorry, yes I get WTC and CTC. I dont know what CB is. I may be claiming more soon - Im new to this. - my wages are low as very part time for the now and I have no savings, apart from these damn investments I am very eligible for LA.

Earlybird 10K, I think the limit is 8K?

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 18/04/2011 20:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
shanzu · 18/04/2011 20:54

How an earth do you know that I am ignoring the advice????

I take issue with all the drivel offered along with advice...but as yet I have not made a fraudulent claim for legal aid Wink

OP posts:
Collaborate · 18/04/2011 21:11

Good grief. It's her kids money, not hers, whatever account it's in. You dont have to understand that. As long as OP does then I'm happy with that.

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 03:54

Collaborate - the taxman wouldn't see it as her kids money since its in an ISA in her name, using her NI number and her ISA allowance. There are extremely specific rules about how money held for your children has to be designated, and holding it in your own name doesn't wash with the taxman and certainly won't wash with legal aid.

Its not even as if its hard work to ensure the money is properly designated - my parents gifted money to my daughter, and it took me all of about 5 mins to ensure that I was compliant with the law!

Collaborate · 19/04/2011 06:44

Not sure what the link adds.

boss I disagree. I regularly come across situations in divorces where the court has to determine whether assets are held by a spouse for themselves or for another. And I see it in reported cases too (ie High Court and Court of Appeal).

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 08:17

Collaborate - this is a legal aid application, not a divorce case. Entirely different - the rules are strict.

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 08:40

All of which takes away from the key point that this is easily solved. All the OP has to do is put the money into her children's name, whether that be via an investment vehicle such as an ISA or a bank account, and she no longer has the savings in her name. Assuming that she also has no significant income and no other significant assets such as a house. Not complicated, really.

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 08:45

I would also counsel the OP to never sign an agreement drafted for her by a financial advisor without making sure you fully understand the implications - in this case your own entitlement to legal aid support, and other benefits etc which may be affected by having savings. Pretty daft to do such a thing.

Collaborate · 19/04/2011 09:01

Both are governed by the law of property and trusts. If you're not beneficially entitled to savings they won't serve to count against you for eligibility for legal aid or benefits.

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 09:17

Read the OP, the savings are in her name only, with no trust and nothing to prove that the savings belong to the children rather than her. So she has nothing to show she is not benefically entitled.

OP even admits that she knows it is fraudulent, just wants to know if she could get caught. Not sure why you are trying to convince anyone of anything different.

Collaborate · 19/04/2011 09:29

You seem to have diffculties understanding what constitutes a trust. I have already accepted that she may have probelms prooving she's not beneficially entitled to the money, and if she were my client I wouldn't sign her up to legal aid without that proof, but it doesn't need to be in the form of a trust deed. A letter from the father setting out the basis upon which the money was transferred might well do. It is a regular feature of many a divorce solicitor dealing in money cases that someone will be holding money on behalf of another. It's just that they don't have half of MN vilifying them. The OP does suggest in her initial post that she's considering fraud, but reading her next few posts it is apparent to those with a clear head that it is not a fraud situation.

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 09:48

Nope, no difficulties at all.

You however seem to have difficulties with understanding the fact that she has NONE of the things required to show she doesn't have a beneficial interest in the money. No trust, no letter, nothing at all.

If she is prepared to tackle this by getting a letter, then she MAY be able to convice the LSC that the money isn't hers without moving the account into her children's names, and even that isn't always enough. Without a letter, she has no hope at all.

So her safe option is to put the money in the children's names. Her sole reason for now not moving the money into the childrens names is that it might cost her something. Diddums.

And personally I think only the most naive or equally grabbing wouldn't see this as a fraud situation.

Collaborate · 19/04/2011 10:22

Oh dear. You are a little cosseted aren't you? To never have had experience of parents holding money for their children such that you think that the OP must be lying about it. A trustee can choose to invest the money as they think appropriate. Merely moving the funds into the name of the children won't satisfy the LSC that it isn't or wasn't her money. No so much the safe option then.

I would also think your'e a tosser of the highest order if you think it grabbing of a solicitor to sign up a client to a legal aid divorce for £169 (for around 5 hours work) as opposed to the £1000-£1200 they'd get if it were funded privately. We are, thankfully, still a profession, with professional standards, required to act ethically in the client's best interest at all times.

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 10:39

Forget it, if you can't have a discussion about what is possible with legal aid without calling someone a tosser, I have no interest in engaging with you. Its also against MN policy to personally abuse someone, so I;m reporting your post.

Collaborate · 19/04/2011 11:00

I find it easy to take offence at being called naive and grabbing. I do not see this as a fraud situation. Some of the criticism being heaped upon the OP is out of order and ill informed.

Collaborate · 19/04/2011 11:02

And if they remove my 10.22 post they'll have to remove half of the posts in some of the threads.

Gooseberrybushes · 19/04/2011 11:08

Hang on, I've got a lot of money saved up and entirely allocated to my children's education. It means I can't claim a damn thing. I've just been turned down for a contributory benefit which I would have got anyway. Beyond that, I don't expect anything and if I did want to claim I'd shift the money over into an education trust or something.

It's not rocket science OP and I cannot believe you are arguing and describing as "drivel" the posts which say you are planning fraud and didn't ought to.

Bramshott · 19/04/2011 11:13

Goseberry - but that presumably is your money - the money the OP is talking about is her father's money, meant for the children, and presumably he wouldn't be too impressed if she decided to spend it on herself (even if that was on solictors fees).

I think everyone is agreed that the OP's father made a bad decision by suggesting that she invest the money meant for the chidren in her name. The question is, whether having that money in her name means she's not entitled to legal aid, and I think the answer probably (sadly) is that it does.

OP - I would tread very carefully, even if you moved the money into your DCs names, or paid it back to your dad, the legal aid people might still decide that you had deliberately deprived yourself of it - they will still see it as yours, as it's in your name, regardless of whether it's morally yours or not.

Gooseberrybushes · 19/04/2011 11:15

In law it's the same kind of money, exactly the same.

Collaborate · 19/04/2011 11:26

No it isn't. You have earmarked the money for a particular use, but in law you can change your mind. I am putting savings aside for my kids' higher education but it's mine until I spend it on them. If we fall out with our kids, or they flunk their exams and drop out of school, or even if we don't fancy spending it on them, we can do what we want with it.

If we're made bankrupt the trustee in bankruptcy can grab it for our creditors.

You can always put it in an account in the name of the children - perhaps call it "little gooseberry education trust". But you'll no longer be able to do what you want with it.

In OPs case it was never hers. But if she wants legal aid she'll have to satisfy the LSC that what she's saying is true.

TheBossofMe · 19/04/2011 11:27

Bramshott - good point about deliberate deprivation.