Wednesday, 4th June 2008
Thurrock Council has contacted local people in 88 cases where they had been accused of benefit fraud between 2004 and 2006 and told them the allegations and sanctions have been withdrawn and removed from the record.
A full and thorough investigation within the council, verified by independent auditors, has shown the evidence supporting some benefit fraud sanctions was insufficient.
The council has also been in contact with the local Citizen's Advice Bureau to advise them of the situation in order that they can offer independent advice if requested and has set up a helpline.
Angie Ridgwell, Chief Executive of Thurrock Council, said: "On joining the council, as soon as I was made aware of this situation by our interim benefit fraud manager, I instructed that a full and thorough investigation take place.
"We have now undertaken a painstaking and deep case-by-case review and this has been independently validated by our auditors and legal staff.
"I have personally written to everyone affected by this, offering my sincere apologies and arranged for repayments to be made where appropriate."
She added: "We have also kept the Government's Department of Work and Pensions fully informed and have been working with their Performance Development Team, who have confirmed that our current procedures and processes for investigating benefit fraud are robust and fair.
"We've ensured that all staff in the current benefit fraud team are fully trained in the correct procedures.
"We regret these mistakes were made and in identifying the problem have made a full and frank disclosure - we are seeking to do all we can to support those individuals affected.
"At present the total cost to the council is £74,000, plus overpayments and compensation. There will be no extra burden on the council tax payer."
Administrative penalties: Administrative penalties are normally considered where the case is not so serious as to warrant prosecution as a first option. No admission of guilt is required before offering an administrative penalty, although there is a statutory requirement that there are grounds for instituting criminal proceedings, which require a certain level of admissible evidence. A person may be offered the choice of agreeing to pay an administrative penalty as an alternative to criminal proceedings being taken against them.
Caution: A formal caution may be offered as an alternative to prosecution as long as certain criteria are met and the case is one the Department would wish to see in court if the caution was refused. Cautions are generally aimed at frauds where the offence is admitted and where the value of the overpayment is less than £400. It is thought to provide an additional tool for deterring those offenders who would not normally be prosecuted or offered penalties. Unlike an administrative penalty in the case of a caution, the offender must admit to the offence. To be able to offer a caution requires the same standard of criminal evidence as for a prosecution and should only be offered if the Department is in a position to prosecute, should the caution be refused.
Copyright © 2025 · All Rights Reserved · Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation
Warning: Undefined array key "User_id" in /home/irrvnet/public_html/forumalert/inc_footer.php on line 4