Cas Response To Social Security Administration And Tribunal Membership Scotland Bill

Local authorities cannot authorise directed surveillance unless this involves a criminal offence punishable by a maximum term of at least 6 months’ imprisonment. The ultimate choice of charge remains with the prosecutor, not the investigator. Investigators are required to keep under review the level of crime they are investigating. Below is a link to the Home Office guidance for local authority investigators.

During the course of the claim by failing to notify a change of circumstances which affects entitlement to benefit – an omission offence. When considering the public interest questions under the Code, it should be borne in mind that benefit and tax credit fraud has an impact on communities and taxpayers by reducing the amount of public monies available. This Standard is designed to assist prosecutors in selecting the most appropriate charge, in the light of the facts that can be proved at court, at the earliest possible opportunity where benefit or tax credit fraud is alleged. HMRC and LA officers participating in the SFIS pilot and authorised by the Secretary of State under Section 109A of the SSAA can seek information for the purpose of investigating all social security offences .

Section 204 of the NHS Act creates offences of failure to comply with a requirement to produce documents and making a false or misleading statement in purported compliance with a requirement imposed. If a Newton hearing is ordered the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the amount alleged is correct. Usually the Decision Maker will be required to attend court to explain how he arrived at the adjudicated overpayment calculation. Section 17 of the Social Security Act 1998 states that the overpayment is final and should remain as it is until repealed, superseded or rescinded by the Secretary of State. If the defence dispute the amount of overpayment, the proper course is to appeal to a first-tier tribunal against the overpayment decision.

Broad headings include old age, disability and survivors, sickness and maternity, work injury, unemployment and family allowances. Sub-categories within these sections provide information on legislation, coverage, source of funds, qualifying conditions and benefit rates. Demographic and other statistics related to social security are also given.

Alternatively, as was the case in Eyeson v Milton Keynes Council EWHC , Moses J held that, “Section 116 does not refer to any public interest requirement but focuses particularly upon a sufficiency of evidence requirement in the opinion of the local authority. It is not, therefore, open to them to delay on the basis that they need more information before deciding whether it was in the public interest to prosecute the lady”. Local Authorities cannot decide on the suitability of an administrative penalty as a disposal for offences connected with DWP administered benefits. Local Authorities can under Section 115A and of the SSAA 1992 enter into an agreement with DWP to undertake the process of offering an administrative penalty.

Prosecutors will advise the offer of a simple caution only in exceptional circumstances. It was DWP policy to offer these penalties where the case is deemed to be not so serious that prosecution should be considered in the first instance. The offer of an administrative penalty was generally made, as an alternative to referral to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute, where the gross overpayment did not exceed £4,000 and there were no aggravating features . This £4,000 overpayment upper limit was DWP policy, and is not prescribed in statute. However, contrast the above with the recent decision in R v Woodward EWHC 1008 which related to offences brought under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.