Post by nickd on Jan 31, 2011 21:39:32 GMT 1
Today I received a letter which pleased me greatly, it gave me a lift - always a good way to start a Monday, however, the same letter also angered me.
The letter was from someone I'll call Mr Tom.
Mr Tom approached us a good while ago, he was facing allegations of benefit fraud, he'd been caught out working and claiming. Despite his crime Mr Tom struck me as a genuinely open and up front man. He'd battled with addiction to drugs such as cocaine, heroine for many years - it happens to people. Mr Tom accepted drugs had scrambled his head, he'd been to hell and back, - drugs had become his master. Despite his crime, he held his family together - loving his family dearly. He was actually pleased he got caught, it's complicated to explain why but it all made sense when he explained it to me.
Mr Tom accepted he'd done wrong, he wanted to come clean, he knew he was facing a very serious situation, he told me how he was sick of looking over his shoulder. He wanted to make a fresh start, he'd managed to kick his habit and now wanted to regain some of the life he'd lost - but he realised that before he could move on he needed to pay a price for his wrongs, it struck me as honourable.
There was no denial, he put his hands up to it all, no harsh interview under caution was needed, he couldn't have been more cooperative with the prosecuting authorities - you'd think people would be entitled to be given credit for confessing their sins. Paying the price was important to Mr Tom - it was part of the rehabilitation and recovery process.
Mr Tom came to see us, we work closely in conjunction with criminal defence solicitors - they rely on us at CAB for our specialist knowledge on welfare benefit cases, we often work as a team. They do their bit, we do ours. We've even attended the Crown Court as expert witnesses for them - our specialist knowledge has met the Crown Court test.
One of the problems we identified in this case - concerning an overpayment of £52,000 in overpaid state benefits - was the accuracy of the way the DWP had worked out the amount and the way they had arrived at their decision. I felt there was a case on the basis of using argument connected with a dispute over the earnings figures, the fact the DWP hadn't taken into account the correct lower and upper permitted working periods and issues connected with a dispute over 'assumed earnings' relating to seasonal work. I tell you this kind of case is complicated Mr Clarke, far more than you seem to think. It requires methodical attention and a knowledge of the law relating to the assessment of income.
An appeal was made - after months, the DWP made a cursory response; providing me with two lines of wording as their 'full statement of reasons' behind their decision. I rejected their reasons as inadequate and demanded more.
In the mean time the DWP was keen to get on and prosecute Mr Tom, they wanted to throw the book at him. Mr Tom subsequently entered a plea of Guilty - the DWP were pushing hard to get Mr Tom sentenced in the Crown Court; the DWP wanted to use Mr Tom as an example.
I contacted the criminal lawyers, they tried to get an adjournment until the appeal over the overpayment was heard. The Crown Court wouldn't agree to wait; Mr Tom was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment, it was immediate custody - in a blaze of publicity - horrible publicity. Some would say he deserved it, it's not for me to judgemental - it's my job to be impartial and to advise upon the law - people like Mr Tom are judged enough without us adding our own moral equation - we just get on with the job.
I rang Mrs Tom, she was shocked but resigned to the inevitable, the DWP had plastered their glee all over the paper, all over the internet, the comments were cruel. The word benefit fraudster always looks good in the headlines, the public seem to love it.
The appeal had to go on hold as far as Mr Tom was concerned, but not as far as I was concerned. I went through the calculations - it took many hours, the DWP's case was flawed in a number of areas- and yet Mr Tom was in prison. He feared prison would be the place where he'd end up tempted back onto the toxic drugs which he'd cleansed himself of - this was his biggest fear. Complicated (yes complicated - Mr Clarke) submissions were made - they were the subject of numerous directions being issued in the First Tier Tribunal. The place our politician's think are 'user friendly' - they are - but not to a point where users don't need legal help - believe me, they do.
A decision was made to wait until Mr Tom was released from prison. When he came out, he'd lost his sun tan - he looked gaunt, but he was okay, he'd dealt with it well, he felt he'd paid the price for his crime - and yes he realised it was a crime. Yet, he still wanted to battle on. He wanted to pay back what he owed - but only what he owed.
And so the case came to a final hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal - they agreed the DWP was wrong and referred the amount back to the DWP for a recalculation with guidance - in the form of very detailed directions - on how to calculate the overpayment.
Mr Tom carried on paying the amount back at the amount he had agreed, he wanted to pay back the overpayment and had no qualms over doing so. He made very reasonable repayments but awaited the revised calculation with patience.
The DWP didn't tell him what the revised amount was, but today he sent - with his letter - confirmation that the overpayment had been reduced from £52,000 to £23,553.78- still a substantial sum but under half the original amount. The DWP didn't even bother to let us know.
Mr Tom's words of gratitude - expressed in his letter - are very touching, they made me glad I do this job. They also left me with a bitter taste of the injustice which had gone on here. It's debatable whether Mr Tom would have gone to prison, the judge was considering alternatives such as a community service at the time of sentencing, but he felt the 'amount' warranted an immediate custodial sentence.
This wasn't just fraud by a person who confessed to his crime, it was government inefficiency, it was also our work as dedicated and professional specialists which got the amount reduced. We did so because we know the law concerning social security, we are proper specialists Mr Clarke. We are dedicated and committed and know our subject - this isn't work which can be undertaken by anyone Mr Clarke, our work is important to justice and preservation of liberty.
Oh how I'd love to show Mr Clarke the work we do, I just don't know how he can contend we just dish out 'basic mechanical advice' - it's a view which simply astounds me; today it angered me.
And I don't suppose the DWP will ask the press to re-print the headlines and say sorry for their mistake, I don't suppose that would make good headlines at all- such headlines would be of no interest to anyone other than those involved with this long old battle.
Oh and by the way Mr Clarke, we haven't been paid a penny for our work yet - that will only happen now I can mark Mr Tom's case 'closed'.
The letter was from someone I'll call Mr Tom.
Mr Tom approached us a good while ago, he was facing allegations of benefit fraud, he'd been caught out working and claiming. Despite his crime Mr Tom struck me as a genuinely open and up front man. He'd battled with addiction to drugs such as cocaine, heroine for many years - it happens to people. Mr Tom accepted drugs had scrambled his head, he'd been to hell and back, - drugs had become his master. Despite his crime, he held his family together - loving his family dearly. He was actually pleased he got caught, it's complicated to explain why but it all made sense when he explained it to me.
Mr Tom accepted he'd done wrong, he wanted to come clean, he knew he was facing a very serious situation, he told me how he was sick of looking over his shoulder. He wanted to make a fresh start, he'd managed to kick his habit and now wanted to regain some of the life he'd lost - but he realised that before he could move on he needed to pay a price for his wrongs, it struck me as honourable.
There was no denial, he put his hands up to it all, no harsh interview under caution was needed, he couldn't have been more cooperative with the prosecuting authorities - you'd think people would be entitled to be given credit for confessing their sins. Paying the price was important to Mr Tom - it was part of the rehabilitation and recovery process.
Mr Tom came to see us, we work closely in conjunction with criminal defence solicitors - they rely on us at CAB for our specialist knowledge on welfare benefit cases, we often work as a team. They do their bit, we do ours. We've even attended the Crown Court as expert witnesses for them - our specialist knowledge has met the Crown Court test.
One of the problems we identified in this case - concerning an overpayment of £52,000 in overpaid state benefits - was the accuracy of the way the DWP had worked out the amount and the way they had arrived at their decision. I felt there was a case on the basis of using argument connected with a dispute over the earnings figures, the fact the DWP hadn't taken into account the correct lower and upper permitted working periods and issues connected with a dispute over 'assumed earnings' relating to seasonal work. I tell you this kind of case is complicated Mr Clarke, far more than you seem to think. It requires methodical attention and a knowledge of the law relating to the assessment of income.
An appeal was made - after months, the DWP made a cursory response; providing me with two lines of wording as their 'full statement of reasons' behind their decision. I rejected their reasons as inadequate and demanded more.
In the mean time the DWP was keen to get on and prosecute Mr Tom, they wanted to throw the book at him. Mr Tom subsequently entered a plea of Guilty - the DWP were pushing hard to get Mr Tom sentenced in the Crown Court; the DWP wanted to use Mr Tom as an example.
I contacted the criminal lawyers, they tried to get an adjournment until the appeal over the overpayment was heard. The Crown Court wouldn't agree to wait; Mr Tom was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment, it was immediate custody - in a blaze of publicity - horrible publicity. Some would say he deserved it, it's not for me to judgemental - it's my job to be impartial and to advise upon the law - people like Mr Tom are judged enough without us adding our own moral equation - we just get on with the job.
I rang Mrs Tom, she was shocked but resigned to the inevitable, the DWP had plastered their glee all over the paper, all over the internet, the comments were cruel. The word benefit fraudster always looks good in the headlines, the public seem to love it.
The appeal had to go on hold as far as Mr Tom was concerned, but not as far as I was concerned. I went through the calculations - it took many hours, the DWP's case was flawed in a number of areas- and yet Mr Tom was in prison. He feared prison would be the place where he'd end up tempted back onto the toxic drugs which he'd cleansed himself of - this was his biggest fear. Complicated (yes complicated - Mr Clarke) submissions were made - they were the subject of numerous directions being issued in the First Tier Tribunal. The place our politician's think are 'user friendly' - they are - but not to a point where users don't need legal help - believe me, they do.
A decision was made to wait until Mr Tom was released from prison. When he came out, he'd lost his sun tan - he looked gaunt, but he was okay, he'd dealt with it well, he felt he'd paid the price for his crime - and yes he realised it was a crime. Yet, he still wanted to battle on. He wanted to pay back what he owed - but only what he owed.
And so the case came to a final hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal - they agreed the DWP was wrong and referred the amount back to the DWP for a recalculation with guidance - in the form of very detailed directions - on how to calculate the overpayment.
Mr Tom carried on paying the amount back at the amount he had agreed, he wanted to pay back the overpayment and had no qualms over doing so. He made very reasonable repayments but awaited the revised calculation with patience.
The DWP didn't tell him what the revised amount was, but today he sent - with his letter - confirmation that the overpayment had been reduced from £52,000 to £23,553.78- still a substantial sum but under half the original amount. The DWP didn't even bother to let us know.
Mr Tom's words of gratitude - expressed in his letter - are very touching, they made me glad I do this job. They also left me with a bitter taste of the injustice which had gone on here. It's debatable whether Mr Tom would have gone to prison, the judge was considering alternatives such as a community service at the time of sentencing, but he felt the 'amount' warranted an immediate custodial sentence.
This wasn't just fraud by a person who confessed to his crime, it was government inefficiency, it was also our work as dedicated and professional specialists which got the amount reduced. We did so because we know the law concerning social security, we are proper specialists Mr Clarke. We are dedicated and committed and know our subject - this isn't work which can be undertaken by anyone Mr Clarke, our work is important to justice and preservation of liberty.
Oh how I'd love to show Mr Clarke the work we do, I just don't know how he can contend we just dish out 'basic mechanical advice' - it's a view which simply astounds me; today it angered me.
And I don't suppose the DWP will ask the press to re-print the headlines and say sorry for their mistake, I don't suppose that would make good headlines at all- such headlines would be of no interest to anyone other than those involved with this long old battle.
Oh and by the way Mr Clarke, we haven't been paid a penny for our work yet - that will only happen now I can mark Mr Tom's case 'closed'.