A cheat is a cheat no matter how old they are, but I am concerend about the tone of some of this article
First of all there is nothing at all wrong with refusing an interview under caution if a solicitor is not present. I have recently advised one of my own clients to do just that.
As for deprivation of capital, the rules are or should have been clear for decades, if it can be shown that a claimants significatn operative purpose in expending capital wwas to secure benefit, then the deprivation rule comes into force, the intetion to secure benefit does not have to be the dominant purpose.
O f course the burden of proof lies with the Council in showing that therewas deliberate deprivation, and thats just the way it should be.
