Housing benefit

The overwhelming majority of those claiming welfare benefits in Medway are honest law-abiding citizens. This policy is only directed towards the small minority who commit benefit fraud and, by their actions:

• steal from the taxpayer;
• deny others much-needed resources; and
• tarnish the welfare system.

The council seeks to confront benefit fraud with a combination of approaches:

• prevention;
• detection;
• investigation;
• sanction; and
• redress.

Prevention

The best means of combating benefit fraud is to prevent its occurrence in the first place. Therefore, all claims for benefit will be verified thoroughly inline with performance standards and guidance issued by the Department for Work and Pensions

Detection

The single biggest deterrent of benefit fraud is the fear of getting caught. Therefore, all legitimate means available will be deployed to detect and expose benefit fraudsters, including the sharing of data with other enforcement agencies, surveillance and the naming and shaming of those convicted.

Investigation

The council will proactively search for fraud in whatever areas it has concern, including landlords, agents and employers. It will also investigate allegations of benefit fraud. Investigators will seek to secure evidence to ensure that the correct amount of benefit has been paid to the correct person for the correct period and, if appropriate, will take legal action against offenders.

Sanction

Those who steal from the taxpayer should be punished. Nevertheless, as a means of encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their actions and lives, the council undertakes not to prosecute if a person comes clean about their true circumstances, either of their own volition or as part of the verification process. However, any resulting overpayment of benefit will be recovered vigorously.

The decision as to whether the council will take sanction action will depend upon two tests that will be applied to each individual on a case-by-case basis, namely the evidential test and the public interest test.

• The evidential test
  In order for a sanction to proceed there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction for each offence brought which means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict.
• The public interest test
  The council accepts the principle of public interest as given in a statement by Lord Shawcross in 1951, which has been adopted by the English legal system since, "It has never been the rule in this country; I hope it never will be that suspected criminals must automatically be the subject of prosecution." The council has at its disposal three forms of sanction:
  • prosecution;
  • formal caution; and
  • administrative penalty (adpens).

Prosecution

The council will consider prosecution having weighed up the following factors:

Factors for prosecution will include

• If convicted the court is likely to impose a sentence demonstrating that they consider the matter significant enough for them to deal with.
• Taking into account other mitigation the sum involved is of an amount that if not prosecuted confidence in Medway Council by the general public could be undermined.
• The period of the offence is prolonged.
• The individual was is a position of trust - this includes any council employee.
• There is evidence that the offence was premeditated and dishonest.
• There is evidence that there was collusion between two or more people.
• The individual has a previous sanction for fraud/deception.
• The offence would have continued if not caught.
• The offence is widespread in the area.

Mitigation against prosecution will include

• The offence was committed more in foolishness and misjudgement rather than dishonesty.
• The individual has made a genuine and significant effort to make repayment of the overpayment (but individuals should not avoid prosecution solely by repayment).
• The individual will suffer significant physical and or mental harm if prosecuted.
• The individual has demonstrated genuine remorse and acknowledged what they did was wrong.

Formal caution

When there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, but the council considers that it is not in the public interest to prosecute then a Formal Caution will be considered. For a formal caution to be offered the individual must demonstrate remorse and acknowledge what they did was wrong. The refusal of a formal caution does not automatically mean the individual will be prosecuted, but not to prosecute should be rare and supported with good justification

Administrative penalty

The council will consider an administrative penalty having taken into account the following factors:

• The Adpen will not increase the debt the individual finds himself or herself in.
• A prosecution or formal caution would not be in the public interest or cause unfair punishment to the individual, for example the loss of employment.
• The individual has the means to pay the Adpen in one single payment at the time of the Adpen interview. Should the individual choose to withdraw from the agreement within 28 days the money will be repaid, but a prosecution must follow
• The individual has repaid of the overpayment in full (but individuals should not avoid prosecution solely by repayment).

Redress

The council maintains that criminals should not profit from their crimes. Therefore, it will use every means at its disposal to recover all overpayments considered to be fraudulent. Redress is not to be seen as an additional activity to sanction, but as an integral part of tackling benefit fraud. In case where an investigation has takem place, but no sanction action has followed, Medway Council will still seek to recover by civil means any overpayment of benefit that has occurred.

^ (back to top)