Some of the social security fraud investigators in our fair city ended up with egg on their faces last week when they lost an appeal, largely due to their own slackness.
The appeal concerned a woman they had accused of cohabiting while she was claiming benefits as a single parent. Social security fraud investigators like to target single mothers. Cohabitation appeals are almost the only ones they ever turn up to, for most types of appeal they don't bother. This particular appeal was graced with the presence of not one but two presenting officers (as they're called), one from the Jobcentre and one from the housing benefit department.
Fraud investigators tend to rely on being able to intimidate single mums into giving up their benefit claims, by presenting them with what amounts to very little evidence that they have been cohabiting with a partner. In this particular woman's case, all they had was information that he'd used her address for a few things, like applying for a passport, (he did this without her permission, because he didn't have a fixed address of his own) and after they'd watched her house for a month, they saw a car regularly parked outside, which the DVLA told them was registered to her ex. (So it was; he'd bought the car for their daughter for her eighteenth birthday, and had used a common ploy of registering himself as the main driver because older drivers get cheaper insurance.)
The investigators called the woman in for a fraud interview, apparently expecting that when she was presented with this "evidence" she would be frightened into giving up her claim. It seems they are used to single parents simply caving in, and so are becoming a lot less thorough in their investigations. In this case, that proved to be a mistake. The woman appealed against the decision, and thanks to the investigators' slackness (they couldn't begin to prove their case on the "balance of probabilities") she won her appeal. She also managed to produce three witnesses at the appeal hearing, who confirmed that she had left the ex-partner after the birth of her youngest child, ten years ago, because he had battered her. He has kept popping up from time to time ever since, late at night and bevvied out of his nut, to shout abuse at her from the street because she won't go back with him.
This fact only came out at the appeal because the woman was still too frightened of him to mention what was going on, even to her appeal representative. It shows the sinister and appallingly sexist side of benefit fraud investigation: single mothers are forced back into financial dependence on men who are abusive, because the state has cut off their benefits and threatened them with starvation. It is in fact official DWP policy to make single women dependent on men. The written guidance given to fraud investigators is that they should not make a move too soon on women they suspect of having partners "in case they prevent a stable relationship from forming." This is breathtaking arrogance.
The fraud investigators were clearly just a bit peeved at being prevented from doing the woman for several thousand pounds worth of benefit overpayment. (*) They are paid according to whether they meet targets for the number of people they "persuade" to give up their benefit claims, and the amount of money they therefore save for the government. This was one target they missed.
The moral for any single parents in the same situation is: get advice and put in an appeal. You'll probably win. And if they cut off your benefits, you can put in a new claim straight away because you have had a change of circumstances - which is, your "partner" has moved out. If they want to prove he hasn't, they'll have to start a brand new investigation from scratch.
(*) - investigators grossly exaggerate the amount of benefits that the claimant has been overpaid, so that if they decide to prosecute them for fraud, the court will impose a stiffer sentence. Unfortunately, most criminal defence solicitors don't know how to do benefit calculations, so they fail to challenge this.
Fraud investigators tend to rely on being able to intimidate single mums into giving up their benefit claims, by presenting them with what amounts to very little evidence that they have been cohabiting with a partner. In this particular woman's case, all they had was information that he'd used her address for a few things, like applying for a passport, (he did this without her permission, because he didn't have a fixed address of his own) and after they'd watched her house for a month, they saw a car regularly parked outside, which the DVLA told them was registered to her ex. (So it was; he'd bought the car for their daughter for her eighteenth birthday, and had used a common ploy of registering himself as the main driver because older drivers get cheaper insurance.)
The investigators called the woman in for a fraud interview, apparently expecting that when she was presented with this "evidence" she would be frightened into giving up her claim. It seems they are used to single parents simply caving in, and so are becoming a lot less thorough in their investigations. In this case, that proved to be a mistake. The woman appealed against the decision, and thanks to the investigators' slackness (they couldn't begin to prove their case on the "balance of probabilities") she won her appeal. She also managed to produce three witnesses at the appeal hearing, who confirmed that she had left the ex-partner after the birth of her youngest child, ten years ago, because he had battered her. He has kept popping up from time to time ever since, late at night and bevvied out of his nut, to shout abuse at her from the street because she won't go back with him.
This fact only came out at the appeal because the woman was still too frightened of him to mention what was going on, even to her appeal representative. It shows the sinister and appallingly sexist side of benefit fraud investigation: single mothers are forced back into financial dependence on men who are abusive, because the state has cut off their benefits and threatened them with starvation. It is in fact official DWP policy to make single women dependent on men. The written guidance given to fraud investigators is that they should not make a move too soon on women they suspect of having partners "in case they prevent a stable relationship from forming." This is breathtaking arrogance.
The fraud investigators were clearly just a bit peeved at being prevented from doing the woman for several thousand pounds worth of benefit overpayment. (*) They are paid according to whether they meet targets for the number of people they "persuade" to give up their benefit claims, and the amount of money they therefore save for the government. This was one target they missed.
The moral for any single parents in the same situation is: get advice and put in an appeal. You'll probably win. And if they cut off your benefits, you can put in a new claim straight away because you have had a change of circumstances - which is, your "partner" has moved out. If they want to prove he hasn't, they'll have to start a brand new investigation from scratch.
(*) - investigators grossly exaggerate the amount of benefits that the claimant has been overpaid, so that if they decide to prosecute them for fraud, the court will impose a stiffer sentence. Unfortunately, most criminal defence solicitors don't know how to do benefit calculations, so they fail to challenge this.
Comments
Display the following 3 comments