Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

I have some difficulty with fraud officers (ex DWP) who lapse into a LT interview whenever they do an IUC in an undeclared partner investigation. In particular they plough on with the LT interview even when the clt has not admitted that the partner is there all the time. It appears that this is the advice in the FPI manual. I therefore posed the following question to “somebody” at DWP (impossible to find a contact point for fraud enquirires):

[i:425c04c33a]I have questions regarding the procedures to be adopted by investigating staff when interviewing under caution claimants suspected of LT (as recommended in the FPI Manual). The guidance suggests that the IUC should cover the nature of the relationship in order for the DM to reach a decision. This IUC will, generally speaking, conclude a period of surveillance. In this situation there are two most likely outcomes. Either the clt will admit the existence of a partner or they will deny it. I would suggest that a LT interview is neither appropriate nor necessary in either case. The third possibility is that the clt will admit the existence of another party but will deny the relationship. I believe that this is the only situation where an LT interview would be appropriate[/i:425c04c33a]

The answer is that she cannot comment on technical guidance which is mandatory on JC+ staff. La’s can basically do what they like! (Nothing new there then) What do other people think?

[neilo]

Now i’m really confused! How do you get to part three of your explanation in deciding to interview?

Surely you have to interview under caution and then decide which line the clmt is going to go down.

Are we to stop asking questions and testing clmts answers just because they don’t agree the evidence presented before them? And no, I’m not ex DWP, but I do believe the IUC is an integral part of any co-habitation investigation, if only for the clmt to invent weird and bizarre tales of untruths.

[Anonymous]

I think you’ve misunderstood my question (but at least you’ve answered it!). I am talking about IUCs where we have reason to believe that there is an undeclared adult in the clt’s house following a period of surveillance. What I am saying is that if the clt then goes on to admit the person is there, why bother to go through LT interview as well? If the clt denies the other person is there, or there permanently, again an LT interview is not apropriate. In my view you only do LT interviews where the other party is admitted but the nature of the relationship is denied. Just for the record I usually have LT interviews done by non-fraud officers. My fraud officers are interviewing about non-disclosure of another adult. Once they have established that fact they could close the interview at that point as that is the offence. The nature of the relationship is for a decision maker to pronounce on (in my opinion).

[neilo]

I’m sorry but I disagree with you. 😕

If you adopt your approach, ie “if the clt then goes on to admit the person is there, why bother to go through LT interview as well?” What have you achieved? An admission to a non dep. Ok, fine, but is it the truth? Probably not, because all avenues have not been explored.

I suppose it all depends on your overall agenda and the standard of evidence that you look to achieve, probability, or beyond reasonable doubt, the later being far more difficult.

As for non fraud officers conducting interviews, I take it you don’t mean interviews under caution? If you do, then how can they be qualified to conduct such an interview?

[Anonymous]

I mean ordinary VOs (who’ve had appropriate training) doing LT interviews. In my opinion LT is not a fraud issue

[neilo]

That’s an interesting opinion, obviously not one that I share, simply because I’m from a fraud background and not a benefit background.

How can LT (Living together as husband and wife) not be a fraud issue?

Serious cases of L/T are dealt with under Section 17 (1) (a) Theft Act 1968, commonly referred to as false accounting. Clmts have been given prison sentences up and down the country for this.

People become confused on the term “interviewing.” People think they have conducted an interview when all they have done is had a chat with a clmt. These so called interviews carry no legal weight and are inadmissable in a court of law. Acceptable for TAS, but not the Criminal Court. If there was no caution as per 10.1 code c, PACE 1984, then the conversation is inadmissable as evidence.

[Anonymous]

It all goes back to your definition of LT I suppose. I am starting from the position where the other party has been declared by the clt, but perhaps as a LL or a joint tenant, or a non-dependant. The clt may genuinely not see them as a partner so we would do an LT interview to clarify the position. Don’t see how the clt can have committed a criminal offence in these circumstances. At one point this was DWP’s position as well but they seem to have changed it in recent years.

[neilo]

I don’t disagree with you on that scenario, but, it goes back to your original point, “why conduct the LT IUC?”

I’ve just dealt with one, exactly as you described. Cmt lodging correctly with landlord. Not realated and all above board. Claim received and paid in 1993.

She begins the relationship with him in 1994. If we hadn’t interviewed and put the evidence before her, we probably would have struggled for a criminal conviction. Everything was circumstantial, only built up the picture, and was questionable as to the admissability of it. During the second IUC she cracked and coughed the lot, chapter and verse. If we hadn’t explored then we wouldn’t have got it.

8 counts of false accounting on the indictment and 2 of 111 1A SSAA 1992. All because the relationship changed. Crown Court sentance was, and I’m trying to find a polite way to put this…………rubbish! But it’s not my job to pass sentence, only to get them there to receive sentence.

Interesting topic of discussion though and I do take on board what you are saying and understand why you adopt that approach.

[Author]

Posts