Mrs T was about to start a new job which required her to undergo a police records check. She contacted us when the Council told her they were investigating her for benefit fraud. She was extremely worried because any conviction would show up on her record and could have led to her job offer being revoked. Fortunately, we were able to persuade the Council to deal with her case as a ‘compliance’ issue rather than a criminal one, meaning Mrs T was spared a criminal record and could keep her job.
Mr M was being investigated by the DWP for a large amount of money that they discovered in his bank account when he was claiming benefits. With our help, Mr M demonstrated that in fact the money was not his; he was simply holding it in his account on someone else’s behalf. We quickly arranged for a formal trust to be set up and this convinced the DWP that Mr M had not acted fraudulently so they dropped the prosecution.
Miss A was accused of living with her partner when she had claimed benefits on the basis that she was single and living alone. The DWP and the Local Council had put together a detailed case against her but, with our years of experience in this area, we identified a number of problems with the evidence and eventually proved that although Ms A was in a relationship she was still living alone.
Mrs S was a respected professional who attended an interview under caution without any legal advice. Without specialist representation she was unable to put her case across properly and the DWP took the decision to prosecute her for a massive overpayment of benefits. She came to us just before her magistrates’ court hearing and we stepped in to represent her on the day. As a result of our expertise in this area, we persuaded the magistrates to treat her leniently which meant that Mrs S stayed out of prison and was able to keep her job.
Mr G went to his interview without obtaining any legal help. Some months later he received a summons to his local magistrates court charged with benefit fraud offences under Section 111 of the SSA Act 1992 on the basis that he acted dishonestly. After discussing matters with him he accepted he had committed an offence but he denied acting dishonestly. We therefore drafted submissions to the CPS prior to his hearing. In those submissions we requested the charge be lowered to the less serious offence under Section 112 of the Act and this was agreed. This meant that in court we were able to obtain a conditional discharge for him.