To provide the best experiences, the site uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site BUT we do not track you personally or use information about you in marketing &c. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Hi Auntie,
I hope that you are well. Can you help clear something up for me please? We are currently discussing the merits/pitfalls of IUC’ing partners. I have an example at present and the details are as follows:
• Mr D makes a claim for benefit for himself and his partner Miss S.
• She is a self employed beauty therapist and has declared a NIL income since 2010.
• They are both very well known to this Department with their fraudulent activities but with a lack of evidence we have never been able to progress the cases opened at various times over the recent years
• I have discovered some undeclared accounts of Miss S which in a year had over £6.5K paid in by cash.
• I suspect that this is her earnings
• I have been advised that I should only IUC the claimant. I already know that he will deny knowledge of the said account and the contents.
• I feel that as a partner on his claim (she is benefitting from the Benefit) I should be IUC’ing her?
Can you advise where this leads me if I wish to progress this case and whether we should be IUC’ing partners (the DWP are not) but we have done so in the past and in some cases have successfully prosecuted in some instances
Kind regards
K
Dear ‘K’,
I’d certainly interview both : separate interviews but at the same time, in order to avoid collusion. You need to establish whether or not she told him of her monies and, if not, why not. If you can show that she knew that he was claiming benefit, that her income had an effect and yet she did not tell him she had earnings, you could consider prosecuting her for knowingly allowing him to make a false statement. If they are not legally married, you could consider a case of conspiracy to defraud (two or more persons conspire together to defraud the LA / DWP). You say that they are known to you – I presume, therefore, that there are statements etc. showing that she and he knew what to report and what effected the claim…
Under Authorised Officer powers, you can require her self-employed accounts. You could also use ‘new’ AO powers to access the bank account and look for linked matters. You should put the income to her and ask her to establish the source. If she says gifts or the like, ask her from who, when, why ; you can then go to those people and ask for proof (such as bank statements showing withdrawals) ; if they are also on benefit, you could reasonably ask where their money come from. If it transpires that these people have lied, you could consider including them in the conspiracy.
I do hope this helps,
Auntie
Hello Auntie ITS,
Hope you haven’t got too soggy with the recent weather!
I would appreciate your advice on a chap I am investigating who has submitted a Right to Buy and is about to complete on the purchase. He has been on benefits for many years so when asked how he plans on funding the purchase he declared that a family friend who owns a business will be loaning him the money (£30,000).
It appears the monies will be coming from the business and not from the family friend directly.
The business is a UPVC company dealing with facias, soffits and guttering. They do not have a property portfolio or have any assets in property.
Due to the amount and that the money is not coming from a mortgage/finance company, do you think we (local authority) should report it to SOCA as a suspected money laundering case??
Appreciate any views xx
Dear Nikki,
My first thought would be that your must report the transaction, as it exceeds the Money Laundering limits.
Secondly, I would wonder what guarantees have been given, in order to obtain the loan ; one, in particular, I would check is whether the person has undertaken to sell the property in the future to the lender – this would invalidate any discount.
Thirdly, I would discuss with HMRC ; it is well to confirm that the company has declared this transaction in its accounts.
Fouthly, if the company is LTD, is loaning money to non-participants or employees part of its articles with Companies House?
Hope this helps,
Auntie
Dear Auntie,
Please can you advise – I am looking at an ’employee fraud’ case where it is alleged that the LA employee is working for another company whilst off long term sick (from LA). As there are no Benefits (HB or CTRS) in payment, please can you advise what legislation is most appropriate to request this information from the company -and if only DPA then if they refuse to provide the information I am guessing we would need to obtain a Court Order? Your help greatly appreciated and looking forward to being able to attend your CF course asap 🙂 Kindest, YK
Dear Yvette,
You are correct to assume that the only route at the moment is to make a request using the DPA. If they do not wish to cooperate, you could seek a court order but you would be unlikely to get it – it would look rather a lot like a ‘fishing trip’. That might leave you a little ‘high and dry’…
I rather think that some low-level surveillance might be in order. Could you consider being outside the new offices in order to watch the member of staff entering?
Kind regards,
Auntie.
Hello Auntie,
I have just been approached by the Housing Team Leader who has a tricky customer.
The customer has lived in the US on and off for years and is married to an American, they have 3 kids. She presented herself as homeless after arriving back in the UK earlier this year, she is currently living in an old caravan with her 3 kids. She states her husband is still living in the US and they are applying for him to come and live here permanently with her and the children.
The officer has just had a call from someone saying that the husband is living over here too and is working cash in hand. They also said that the couple own a property in America which they are renting out and receiving rental income from.
Can we do a check to see if they own a property in America? If so how would we do this and under what legislation would we be using? The officer is not sure that she has the power to look into this, but was wondering if I can as the Corporate Fraud Investigator?? Also can we do a credit check to ensure she has declared all accounts as she has provided her bank statements and none of these show any payments from America?
Thanks
Hannah
Hi Hannah,
Any officer who is taking steps to protect public funds, as part of their duties, could make enquiries ; having said taht, all enquiries are better made by the investigation team.
Credit check – yes, if you believe fraud may be being committed then you can consider any steps to investigate that are both proportionate and necessary. If a credit check is such a step, then you may use s29(3) DPA to allow the action.
If hubby is here on a USA passport, then immigration may have a record of his entry. If he is here without a visa, he may not normally work, so they may be interested in sharing info & having him deported.
Landreg in the USA is state based. The Wiki article is useful and can be found here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_%28real_estate%29.
Kind regards
Auntie.
Hi Auntie,
In light of the impending SFIS, I am attempting to branch out from the traditional HB & CTB/CTR cases and have received a CTax single occupancy discount case. Although we could have looked at these in the past, we never did beyond bulk data matching. The source of the referral has supplied evidence that makes the case quite strong. It will cover around 4 years and I calculate around a grand has been overpaid.
My question is what possible sanctions can we consider? I understand post IUC that if we have a strong enough case we could consider prosecuting under the Fraud Act, but with the overpayment, we would look at other options. Can we caution? I understand there’s a £50 negligence civil penalty? I presume we can’t Ad-Pen?
Need to know our options to decide whether these cases are worthwhile and would appreciate your advice.
Many thanks,
Carl.
Dear Carl,
You could prosecute under the Faud Act, as you rightly point out, or using s.17 of the Theft Act ’68, if a false application was made.
There are no ‘Administrative Penalties’ but a Civil Penalty may be imposed if the person has failed to notify the authority, without reasonable excuse, of any matter which affects entitlement to discount.
I would think that such a case at least merits interview ; I cannot comment on how worthwhile an individual case is as it would need to be reviewed under the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Kind regards,
Auntie
Dear Auntie
I’ve just started looking at RTB files and have come across one where the applicants had held a joint tenancy for the property they wanted to buy for 11 years. Prior to this, Mrs Applicant had held a tenancy at one address for 6 years and another for 1 year. This would make the total eligible discount 18 years. However Mr Applicant also previoulsy held a 5 year tenancy on another property, which was added to the discount period, giving the couple 23 years discount in total. This doesn’t sound right to me – I’ve been told by several sources that it’s incorrect as the discount should only have been calculated on one applicant’s qualifying years (whoever has the greater number), however I can’t find out where in legislation this is stated. In section 119(2) of the Housing Act 1985 it states that “Where the secure tenancy is a joint tenancy the condition in subsection (1) need be satisfied with respect to one only of the joint tenants”, however ‘need’ isn’t the same as ‘must’! Any ideas?
Thanks
Emma