If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
p i p s stopped - followed by d w p investigation officer
imcj
Member Posts: 5 Listener
Was taking dog for short walk noitced men &women following me didn't think of anything bad thought their were after my dog went for a long walk to get rid of them didn't want to return home didn't want them to know my address a week later the came to my address I phoned the police and complains about these men police gave me a crime number since then I know it was the d w p investigation officer can I go to a tribunal and explain my case please help me thanks
Replies
We have lots of information about appealing a DWP decision here. It may be worth you getting some advice, you can speak to the CAB or to the Scope helpline on 0808 800 3333
Senior online community officer
With legal matters it is always good to get some proper advice, as I said you can speak to the CAB or to the Scope helpline on 0808 800 3333
You might also like to check out The Law Centre?
Senior online community officer
What level of Mobility were you getting?
Did you happen to have a paid dog walker before this incident?
If they take you to court, which it looks like, the the minimum will be to pay back the money.
If anyone else gets asked to attend an interview under caution, take a solicitor with you!
The next step would be a summons depending on what they have seen and recorded of your movements and what was said in the interview during the interview.
The rate of mobility you are receiving will play a large part as well as the amount of time you have been receiving it.
They will look at your bank and credit cards and even your freedom pass if you have one to see where to go.
They will talk to your neighbours.
Get a solicitor
Sorry to be a downer.
Good luck
It does however depend of what the mobility award was - hope that it was not enhanced!
None of these posts of @imjc stack up, with reference to counter fraud work undertaken by DWP.
In particular, the DWP arriving at his front door following an alleged counter surveillance activity by them, of his dog walking event.
Or that he engaged a solicitor to draft a statement on his behalf.
I note with interest, he has not posted anything, since 4.05pm.
I am sure @imjc would wish to throw further light, on his situation, to enable the community to assist him as much as possible.
It would be normal to send a letter requesting an interview under caution.
Why did that not happen?
Nothing in this is suspicious or unusual in any way. It happens daily somewhere. Equally there is nothing in walking a dog which of itself would prevent a legitimate PIP mobility award. Idle speculation is just that and it’s hugely unhelpful. Trying to establish facts on a forum is a waste of time. That the OP was walking a dog tells you nothing. That they walked further than normal tells you nothing without the context of knowing how that then impacted. Could they do it repeatedly etc.
Equally it’s wholly irrelevant as to whether any report had malicious intent. I’m not even sure what that means. No-one reports alleged fraud out of the goodness of their heart so all such reports are driven by ill intent to some extent. However, the fact is that you will never learn who made the report so it’s a moot point.’
Ditto how long it’s been going on for. DWP will video at less than a weeks notice if possible. Few investigations last more than a few weeks. Again though it doesn’t matter.
There has been an IUC but I’m not clear whether the solicitor attended or just helped with a statement to DWP or with the MR.
I see no mention of an intent to prosecute and the IUC has been and gone so a solicitor is not relevant at this stage. You just need a WR representative.
mikehugescq
I grant you that malicious intent may not be relevant in this case as the investigators have followed the poor fellow for 5 days already without asking him for an informal meeting.At the first point of contact with the fraud department the malicious intent of the informant is very relevant and it is important to point that out to the investigator.
Most people know or have a very good idea of who has reported them.
The fraud department gets many untrue malicious allegations against people and they do not have the time to run around investigating false malicious allegations.
The malicious intent of the informer can play a large part or can tip the balance as to whether to drop the investigation or to continue.
For example: If you are having a feud with an antisocial neighbour and trying to have them evicted. it is important for the investigator to know this.
It makes the informants report and evidence of your mobility suspect as well as their motive for reporting the alleged infraction.
I object to you referring to other peoples advice as "tosh".
At the time of writing we did not know that he was not receiving enhanced mobility.
The time for a solicitor was at the time of the interview under caution in this case.
The mans PIP has been stopped and he has been followed for 5 days by investigators . He has had an interview under caution.
To do that the department has spent considerable resources which it is short of.
I would be taking this seriously and talking with a good solicitor so he is up to date and ready for any summons that comes.
Get a benefits adviser on the case and find out why all your benefits have stopped.
From what you have said you have cooperated so they need a reason for stopping your money.
This might put a little more light on the situation.
Where you end up with that is that unless you actually have evidence of a dispute with someone who has made previous unwarranted accusations about you then you have zero evidence of malicious intent.
More to the point, investigators couldn’t care less about malicious intent. They’re merely gathering information to pass on to a DM. Their interest will remain focused largely on what evidence supports the accusation and what doesn’t. Hard fact rather than speculation as to why something was reported in the first place. If an accusation is unfounded then there will be no supporting evidence and it stops there.
In talking to colleagues over the years about fraud cases literally a handful of us have had cases where malicious intent even played a part. Where it did it played no part in the case ending. The case ended for lack of evidence. It used to come up in “leaving voluntarily without just cause” type UB cases many moons ago but the law doesn’t work like that for overpayments.
You may object but “panic mongering tosh” was the phrase I used and I stand by it. If you want more precision then I’ll be more precise. You assert the next step will be a summons and the OP should get legal advice immediately. Wrong on both counts and likely to scare the OP witless without good reason.
At present benefit is suspended. It is suspended because a question as to entitlement has arisen. It’s a wide ranging power age as @yadnad says it’s to prevent/reduce the possibility of further overpayment.
The next step will be either the lifting of that suspension following referral to a DM or the issuing of a supersession decision to reduce or remove benefit. Neither of those require anything more than some basic WR advice. The supersession letter must be accompanied or followed by a letter stating there’s a recoverable overpayment. Only then could there even be a suggestion of a prosecution because prior to both those decisions/letters an overpayment doesn’t legally exist.
If a case is considered likely for prosecution then, depending on the amount at stake, many IUCs involve an offer being made to the claimant starting along the lines of the investigators stating they believe they have enough to prosecute. What they then do is offer to not proceed with that if the claimant ends the claim themselves and agrees to an administrative penalty on top of any recoverable overpayment. Many sign on the dotted line immediately. Often foolishly so. Often times this is, to be blunt, poor practice and often founded on very poor fact finding.
Few such conversations takes place if we’re talking serious amount of money - high 5 figures rather than 4 but even then you still need a supersession and recovery letter.
So, until we move from suspension to a letter detailing a recoverable overpayment this person needs no advice at all although they may want to seek reassurance at this stage from a WR specialist. IF, and only if, a prosecution case is started, they will need legal advice to run in parallel not instead of.
Likely answer to why all benefits were suspended relates to their interdependence. Losing PIP removes premiums on means-tested benefits and that in turn could end entitlement to those. Again though it won’t take a solicitor to advise on the mechanics of that.
So, telling someone they need a solicitor when we’ve not even got a decision to supersede is both wrong and panic mongering because it implies an urgency which as yet does not exist. If there is an urgency then it’s obviously the removal of income but again that just needs timely WR advice.