Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

I have heard that the DWP will announce that HBMS matches can go straight for using SSFA to obtain bank statements without the need for an IUC; the reason given is that this reduces the stress on the customer and will stop people committing suicide upon receipt of an IUC letter.
Has anyone heard anything about this as I dont remember seeing any publicity on it?
The thinking seems to be that there have been no challenges to use of SSFA so lets push it further…

• This topic was modified 1 year ago by admin. Reason: testing

[Anonymous]

There’s no need to IUC before using SSFA to request bank statements anyway – where did you get this idea from – , BUT you should have made some attempt to get them from the claimant first (unless this would jeopardise the investigation).

[Anonymous]

…well PACE states you should IUC when you suspect an offence has taken place, the HBMS match can be considered a good source of intelligence and dependant on the data certainly suggests that an offence has been committed, an informal interview could be conducted or a letter sent but this could be viewed as entrapment so an IUC covers the investigators back and protects the right of the claimant (or so the textbooks say); the case cant be jeopardised by asking the claimant so….

[Anonymous]

yes – the referral can be considered intelligence, but intelligence is NOT evidence. You can IUC whenever you like, and as many times as you like as long as it doesn’t become oppressive, but you really ought to have some evidence to support your allegation before you IUC.

[Anonymous]

of course and here is where the DWP stance seems a tad contradictory in that any match warrants use of a most intrusive piece of legislation prior to any contact. This based on the suicide of claimants waiting to be IUC’d about it supposedly. Just seems a bit spurious to me.

[Anonymous]

for what it’s worth, this is how we treat these cases here.

HBMS referral comes in. Benefits staff check against declared accounts. Assuming not declared (cos sometimes they are), claim suspended by Benefits, who write to cl’t advising them of reason and requesting said accounts. If supplied, Benefits calculate any OP then refer to us to interview as to whether any offence. If not supplied/no response, case referred to us and we then go down SSFA route. In both scenarios, IUC not done until actual evidence of offence obtained.

[Anonymous]

that was how we used to do them until the city solicitor queried the letters and the without prejudice / caution element.

but has anyone heard of these suicides, I am intrigued as surely there would have been a huge amount of media coverage regarding it and I havent seen any?

[Anonymous]

[i:4469e3105c]that was how we used to do them until the city solicitor queried the letters and the without prejudice / caution element. [/i:4469e3105c]

I assume jimbob you are referring to overpayment letters you send out with a “without prejudice” paragraph. This seems to be a DWP convention which they try to tell us we should be doing but you need to understand that their procedures are very different from ours. They don’t calculate the overpayment until [i:4469e3105c]after [/i:4469e3105c]they have done the IUC. In my opinion we do not need to be including them in all our bog standard overpayment letters on the offchance that one of the claimants will later be found to be fraudulent. No wonder your solicitor wasn’t happy about it. We also had problems with NAFN who wouldn’t use SSFA powers on our behalf until we had done IUC, whereas I agree that you should not do IUCs until after you have all the evidence. Write to the clt first (as has been suggested) and then use SSFA – oh, and get your own staff PINS 9A trained!

[Anonymous]

We have come across similar difficulties – mainly to do with interviewing customers prior to SSFA (normally older customers), cautioning them at the outset as we hads reason to believe an offence had been committed, then potentially waiting on them providing information, or a long wait with the bank via NAFN. There were a number of cases that we decided we were potentially putting the customer under stress having to wait, and it may make no difference to benefit entitlement.

After discussion with NAFN, they confirmed that if a strong enough case was put on the necessity and proportionality part of the SSFA request, then they would make the request without having to speak to the customer first. At least this way, we will have evidence before deciding what to do.

[Author]

Posts