Benefit Fraud - advice needed

[boyfriday]

As others have said, you haven't committed any offence and there is no requirement for you to provide a statememt to the dwp.

There would be though if it was part of a criminal investigation, if that is the case under NO circumstances should the OP lie..he only need to look at the outcome of the Vicky Pryce trial to see what can happen when 'innocent' lies escalate.

[onewheeldave]

There would be though if it was part of a criminal investigation, if that is the case under NO circumstances should the OP lie..he only need to look at the outcome of the Vicky Pryce trial to see what can happen when 'innocent' lies escalate.

 

??Who suggested the OP lie? Certainly not the person you quoted-

As others have said, you haven't committed any offence and there is no requirement for you to provide a statememt to the dwp. Probably best in future to spend a bit more and not have armed robbers attending to your horticultural needs in future though.

 

and he's right- the OP is under no obligation to provide a statement to the DWP.

[Ghostrider]

We had this before when we were employing part time staff.

All that happened was that the DWP sent a form with the persons details on it, and it asked how many hours they did, and the hourly rate.

[Titanic99]

As others have said, you haven't committed any offence and there is no requirement for you to provide a statememt to the dwp. Probably best in future to spend a bit more and not have armed robbers attending to your horticultural needs in future though.

 

That isn't correct, the original poster could be investigated for collusion in the Fraud.

 

Here's some information the OP might find relevant.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-employer-investigations.pdf

[boyfriday]

??Who suggested the OP lie? Certainly not the person you quoted-

 

The men who the OP employed to do the work, I never suggested the poster I was responding to had suggested the OP lie.

 

I have given them cash for the work , not much in all honesty but

they are asking that I lie to the authorities about how much I have been giving them.

 

..and if the OP is questioned as part of a criminal investigation, he may well find himself in difficulties if he refuses to comply with legitimate questions.

[andygardener]

That isn't correct, the original poster could be investigated for collusion in the Fraud.

 

Here's some information the OP might find relevant.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-employer-investigations.pdf

 

That relates to employers. The OP is not an employer in the context of the relevant acts. To be fair it would make life a lot easier for genuine tradesmen if there was an onus on householders to confirm that tradesmen were registered self-employed and not claiming benefits, backed by fines for non-comp;iance, maybe a HMRC card with the UTR on it and a requirement to provide receipts bearing the same might be one way of doing it.

 

However that would be something for the future, as it stands a householder has no obligation to check tradesmens employment/immigration/tax status.

 

If the DWP happen to have filmed them working on his property and they ask him for details then it may expose him to criminal sanction if he lies, however it's not very likely. He certainly doesn't have to proactively volunteer information, which of course in an ideal world he would, but if an armed robber who knows where he lives gets wind of him being a "grass" then he's probably going to get more grief from him than the DWP. All in all a cautionary tale about having work done by criminals "on the cheap".

[boyfriday]

That isn't correct, the original poster could be investigated for collusion in the Fraud.

 

Here's some information the OP might find relevant.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-employer-investigations.pdf

 

That's it Titanic, here's the relevant extract for the OP

 

Obstructing an Inspector or Refusing to Furnish Information

 

An offence under Section 111 of the SSAA 1992;

 

the term inspector in this context relates to an officer authorised under section 109A/110A of the SSAA 1992;

 

The employer has intentionally delayed or obstructed an Authorised Officer in the exercise of their powers, usually when attempting to obtain information under Section 109B or 109C of the SSAA 1992; and

 

The employer has refused/neglected to answer any question, to furnish any information or to produce any document when required to do so, usually when an Authorised Officer is attempting to obtain information under Section 109B or 109C of the SSAA 1992.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2013 at 11:11 ----------

 

However that would be something for the future, as it stands a householder has no obligation to check tradesmens employment/immigration/tax status.

 

You've forgotten the hot water Baroness Scotland got herself in over her maid, andy?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214567/Law-chief-quit-illegal-house-maid.html

[andygardener]

 

You've forgotten the hot water Baroness Scotland got herself in over her maid, andy?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214567/Law-chief-quit-illegal-house-maid.html

 

As I understand it she employed the maid and was therefore subject to the requirements of an employer including record keeping, due diligence etc. If there is no employment contract then as I understand it none of the duties of an employer are created. (there are some specific rules in the construction industry with regard to record keeping of subbies which I don't know the details of but are a bit more exacting than normal).

[Hairyloon]

You've forgotten the hot water Baroness Scotland got herself in over her maid, andy?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214567/Law-chief-quit-illegal-house-maid.html

There is a significant difference between contracting someone to do a task, and taking on an employee.

[boyfriday]

There is a significant difference between contracting someone to do a task, and taking on an employee.

 

Is there? So if I paid someone £1 million pounds to do a 'task', I shouldn't have any expectation of being questioned about it by the Inland Revenue and/or Department of Work & Pensions?

 

To be honest, I don't know the definitive answer to the OP, but in his case it's pointless playing 'clever' with the DWP, he has nothing to gain as he owes the people he employed nothing by way of supporting a fraudulent claim they're making for benefits and potentially something to lose if he prevaricates or lies over providing any requested information.