Social welfare fraud.

Big Davey

If the Dept of social protection is charging someone with welfare fraud is the case heard in private or in an open court ? Say circuit court ? I have a non paying and overstaying tenant who has been keeping rent allowance for several months. I have a case coming up in Jan or Feb against them with the PRTB but am interested if they are charged with welfare fraud for keeping the rent allowance.The social welfare man is not at all bothered and is totally unhelpful also my tenant has a family member working in their local welfare office till recently and they moved to another office the same time as my tenant stopped paying ! I think I smell a rat...................

NoQuarter

I haven't got a clue what half of that post says but to your question; welfare prosecutions will be heard in public so you are free to go along.

Big Davey

NoQuarter wrote: »

I haven't got a clue what half of that post says but to your question; welfare prosecutions will be heard in public so you are free to go along.

Thanks.
What parts did you not understand ?
Non paying tenant.
The court case for non payment is coming up with (private residential tenancy board)
Tenant is on welfare and keeping rent allowance instead of paying rent (fraud?)
Tenant has a family member working in dept of social protection.
Social welfare man who deals with rents is unhelpful (I wonder why)

Pro Hoc Vice

A SW case involving fraud is usually held in public. It may or may not be fraud. I did think you had a minister looking after this though he should be able to answer you.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0006.html#sec6

Pro Hoc Vice

Big Davey wrote: »

Thanks.
What parts did you not understand ?
Non paying tenant.
The court case for non payment is coming up with (private residential tenancy board)
Tenant is on welfare and keeping rent allowance instead of paying rent (fraud?)
Tenant has a family member working in dept of social protection.
Social welfare man who deals with rents is unhelpful (I wonder why)

1. A non paying tenant is usually not fraud, 2. the fact of a court case could invoke double jeopardy, 3. Is it fraud because he is on welfare or not paying rent, in either case lots of people in Ireland must be guilty if fraud. 4. So, unless you are claiming that the family member arranged for payment of SW when none was due, 5. Might not be able to do anything.

Big Davey

infosys wrote: »

1. A non paying tenant is usually not fraud, 2. the fact of a court case could invoke double jeopardy, 3. Is it fraud because he is on welfare or not paying rent, in either case lots of people in Ireland must be guilty if fraud. 4. So, unless you are claiming that the family member arranged for payment of SW when none was due, 5. Might not be able to do anything.

Surely if the dept of social protection gives a person "rent allowance" that money should be used for rent ? If the persons chooses to keep or spend the money on something else is that not fraud ?

Pro Hoc Vice

Big Davey wrote: »

Surely if the dept of social protection gives a person "rent allowance" that money should be used for rent ? If the persons chooses to keep or spend the money on something else is that not fraud ?

The money is paid to the tenant not the landlord for I assume reasons. If the person does not use any of his SW or rent allowance to pay his lawful bills that may not be fraud. I set out the legal definition. If you think it's fraud go to AGS.

Big Davey

infosys wrote: »

A SW case involving fraud is usually held in public. It may or may not be fraud. I did think you had a minister looking after this though he should be able to answer you.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0006.html#sec6

The ministers under study gave me an appointment to come to his office I travelled a 100 mile round trip to meet him and he stood me up no phone call, text, nothing ! The deeper I get into this thing the more I see what other people have told me about civil servants etc does anybody working for this government care or do their job ? I will make another appointment with the minister if I need to and see how it goes.

Big Davey

infosys wrote: »

The money is paid to the tenant not the landlord for I assume reasons. If the person does not use any of his SW or rent allowance to pay his lawful bills that may not be fraud. I set out the legal definition. If you think it's fraud go to AGS.

I don't think it is anything to do with AGS as it's the dept of social protection that takes thud case against them ? They would probably be as unhelpful as the rest. It's about time landlords got together and formed a group to support and advise each other things are dire at the moment. The more you try to do with your life the harder you work the more this system slaps you in the face.

Pro Hoc Vice

Big Davey wrote: »

I don't think it is anything to do with AGS as it's the dept of social protection that takes thud case against them ? They would probably be as unhelpful as the rest. It's about time landlords got together and formed a group to support and advise each other things are dire at the moment. The more you try to do with your life the harder you work the more this system slaps you in the face.

If there is a fraud it's against the landlord not the SW. So it is AGS, unless you are saying there was lies told to SW, if the person is entitled to RA then there is no fraud against the state.

Big Davey

infosys wrote: »

If there is a fraud it's against the landlord not the SW. So it is AGS, unless you are saying there was lies told to SW, if the person is entitled to RA then there is no fraud against the state.

Ok

OwenM

Non paying tenant - then evict him.
The court case for non payment is coming up with (private residential tenancy board) - is this a case you are taking against him?
Tenant is on welfare and keeping rent allowance instead of paying rent (fraud?) - not fraud, but DSP should be taking an interest.
Tenant has a family member working in dept of social protection. This seems to be you implying that his relative is giving him favourable treatment, this (if true) might be fraud on the relatives part but is none of your business, be careful you don't end up being sued for slander here.
Social welfare man who deals with rents is unhelpful (I wonder why) - ask to speak to his supervisor, again be careful about slander here, have you any proof? If you talk to his supervisor stick to the facts, don't 'wonder' out loud

Big Davey

OwenM wrote: »

Non paying tenant - then evict him.
The court case for non payment is coming up with (private residential tenancy board) - is this a case you are taking against him?
Tenant is on welfare and keeping rent allowance instead of paying rent (fraud?) - not fraud, but DSP should be taking an interest.
Tenant has a family member working in dept of social protection. This seems to be you implying that his relative is giving him favourable treatment, this (if true) might be fraud on the relatives part but is none of your business, be careful you don't end up being sued for slander here.
Social welfare man who deals with rents is unhelpful (I wonder why) - ask to speak to his supervisor, again be careful about slander here, have you any proof? If you talk to his supervisor stick to the facts, don't 'wonder' out loud

Ok thanks. The tenant told me it was "handy" having a relation in the "dole" but I have no proof of any wrong doing so I will have to leave it at that. I have a solicitor but he said he can do nothing till the PRTB make their judgement so that's that too. I will take on board your point about wondering and keep things tighter.

Big Davey

Ps: the contract has been terminated since December 2013 but it's not as easy to "evict" people as some think. They are now "overstaying" tenants another thing for the PRTB to make a call on. The system is very wrong.

OwenM wrote: »

Non paying tenant - then evict him.
The court case for non payment is coming up with (private residential tenancy board) - is this a case you are taking against him?
Tenant is on welfare and keeping rent allowance instead of paying rent (fraud?) - not fraud, but DSP should be taking an interest.
Tenant has a family member working in dept of social protection. This seems to be you implying that his relative is giving him favourable treatment, this (if true) might be fraud on the relatives part but is none of your business, be careful you don't end up being sued for slander here.
Social welfare man who deals with rents is unhelpful (I wonder why) - ask to speak to his supervisor, again be careful about slander here, have you any proof? If you talk to his supervisor stick to the facts, don't 'wonder' out loud

Pro Hoc Vice

OwenM wrote: »

Non paying tenant - then evict him.
The court case for non payment is coming up with (private residential tenancy board) - is this a case you are taking against him?
Tenant is on welfare and keeping rent allowance instead of paying rent (fraud?) - not fraud, but DSP should be taking an interest.
Tenant has a family member working in dept of social protection. This seems to be you implying that his relative is giving him favourable treatment, this (if true) might be fraud on the relatives part but is none of your business, be careful you don't end up being sued for slander here.
Social welfare man who deals with rents is unhelpful (I wonder why) - ask to speak to his supervisor, again be careful about slander here, have you any proof? If you talk to his supervisor stick to the facts, don't 'wonder' out loud

Slander and liable replaced by the tort of defamation in 2009, there is a defence of Quilifed privilege contained in the 2009 Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0018.html#sec18

Big Davey

infosys wrote: »

Slander and liable replaced by the tort of defamation in 2009, there is a defence of Quilifed privilege contained in the 2009 Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0018.html#sec18

To be honest it's a bit technical for me but I appreciate you sharing it. I will just keep my opinions or suspicions to myself.
Thanks

Pro Hoc Vice

Big Davey wrote: »

Ps: the contract has been terminated since December 2013 but it's not as easy to "evict" people as some think. They are now "overstaying" tenants another thing for the PRTB to make a call on. The system is very wrong.

Yet another attack on the greedy lawyers by the people in power to protect the ordinary citizen. Well as you are discovering the old system that used the courts was ok and worked a lot faster than the new system, expect a number of months for a decision if no appeal and the best part of a year if there is one. Only then with order in hand can the courts get involved. There has been a steady removal of the courts from litigation, the ordinary person won't have a clue untill it's too late.

Big Davey

infosys wrote: »

Yet another attack on the greedy lawyers by the people in power to protect the ordinary citizen. Well as you are discovering the old system that used the courts was ok and worked a lot faster than the new system, expect a number of months for a decision if no appeal and the best part of a year if there is one. Only then with order in hand can the courts get involved. There has been a steady removal of the courts from litigation, the ordinary person won't have a clue untill it's too late.

Yes you a right everybody is saying the old system was much better.