Prosecution

blingbling81

A family member had an overpayment 2 years ago to the tune of approx €9000 (roughly I think). They met with their local office and explained the situation and made a statement and agreed to a payment plan which has been in place for nearly 10 months now. Today however they received a summons to appear in court in a few weeks. This person is actually an extremely hard working individual that made a genuine mistake. They're, understandably, extremely distressed at this as they believed the issue had been dealt with and was compliant with the agreed resolution. How worried should they be or what can they expect from the court appearance? Thanks

splinter65

blingbling81 wrote: »

A family member had an overpayment 2 years ago to the tune of approx €9000 (roughly I think). They met with their local office and explained the situation and made a statement and agreed to a payment plan which has been in place for nearly 10 months now. Today however they received a summons to appear in court in a few weeks. This person is actually an extremely hard working individual that made a genuine mistake. They're, understandably, extremely distressed at this as they believed the issue had been dealt with and was compliant with the agreed resolution. How worried should they be or what can they expect from the court appearance? Thanks

If the summons is to do with the overpayment and she is up to date with her repayments then this is a serious mistake and should be easily resolvable with a visit to whoever set up the payment plan.

Gatling

It could be down to several factors including was the overpayment an over sight or actual fraud on behalf of the claimant and what the subsequent investigation from SW showed ,

blingbling81

Gatling wrote: »

It could be down to several factors including was the overpayment an over sight or actual fraud on behalf of the claimant and what the subsequent investigation from SW showed ,

It was an oversight and this was explained at the meeting. However having rang the solicitor that is prosecuting, they will not divulge exactly what they are charging them with? Said this person will need their own solicitor to order a 'discovery'? This all seems very exceasive I feel especially when a payment plan is in place?

blingbling81

splinter65 wrote: »

If the summons is to do with the overpayment and she is up to date with her repayments then this is a serious mistake and should be easily resolvable with a visit to whoever set up the payment plan.

The social welfare set up the payment plan. Should they approach them to see if this is a mistake?

Gatling

blingbling81 wrote: »

It was an oversight and this was explained at the meeting. However having rang the solicitor that is prosecuting, they will not divulge exactly what they are charging them with? Said this person will need their own solicitor to order a 'discovery'? This all seems very exceasive I feel especially when a payment plan is in place?

By the sounds of It they are seeking a fraud prosecution ,
A solicitor wouldn't be prosecuting it's the department of social welfare taking the case against the person in question ,
The person in question should follow what ever legal advice he's given by a professional

splinter65

blingbling81 wrote: »

It was an oversight and this was explained at the meeting. However having rang the solicitor that is prosecuting, they will not divulge exactly what they are charging them with? Said this person will need their own solicitor to order a 'discovery'? This all seems very exceasive I feel especially when a payment plan is in place?

Further evidence must have emerged and the case is now going in a different direction.
SW don’t go to court unless it’s serious and all other avenues have been exhausted.
The claimant needs a solicitor very quickly and needs to be totally honest and up front.

blingbling81

splinter65 wrote: »

Further evidence must have emerged and the case is now going in a different direction.
SW don’t go to court unless it’s serious and all other avenues have been exhausted.
The claimant needs a solicitor very quickly and needs to be totally honest and up front.

Hmm yes must be the case. I'll tell them to get in touch with a local solicitor or are there 'specialist' solicitors that deal with that type of thing?

ED E

I'd wager this issue has caused a full review by a DSW inspector and they now believe the overpayment is larger than your friend is claiming/thinks.

splinter65

ED E wrote: »

I'd wager this issue has caused a full review by a DSW inspector and they now believe the overpayment is larger than your friend is claiming/thinks.

Looks like it alright.

splinter65

blingbling81 wrote: »

Hmm yes must be the case. I'll tell them to get in touch with a local solicitor or are there 'specialist' solicitors that deal with that type of thing?

Full disclosure to the solicitor at this stage, not saying the person hasn’t been totally honest with you, just might need a bit of forensic questioning by a legal brief to discover the nitty gritty details.
SW don’t want anyone “punished” it’s just that it’s public money (taxpayers money) and if it’s been claimed by the wrong person, it simply has to be paid back if at all possible and they have to persue that to the bitter end.
Ring around a few local solicitors to find out if anyone has an expertise in this, also get quotes up front.
I don’t know if the legal aid board might be able to help either.
A quick call to your local legal aid center would soon find out.

Xterminator

Hi Op

scenario 1. family member ends up in court and can show they did give full disclosure to SW in the meeting , and agreed and stuck to repayment plan

scenario 2 family member ends up in court & it is shown they hid details they should have known from SW and or didn't stick to repayment plan.

huge difference in those 2 scenarios and the likely outcomes in court if it goes to court. Keeping all paperwork & communications, getting their facts straight is important. It does seem strange this has escalated like this, & family member will benefit from good early legal representation.

obviously they have been out of work, & legal aid can be swamped, can you and rest of family help out to get good advice sooner rather than later?

blingbling81

It is as far as I know scenario 1, no need to lie to me. They have contacted a solicitor and are hoping for some reassurance from them. Seems madness that when an agreement is already in place and the monies have started to be repaid that they would still go ahead and bring it to court... imo

Thank you for your reply

Gatling

blingbling81 wrote: »

I Seems madness that when an agreement is already in place and the monies have started to be repaid that they would still go ahead and bring it to court... imo

Thank you for your reply

But if the department have a genuine case of fraud they have every right to seek prosecution regardless of payment plans it's actually pretty common to have payment plan and still be charged and face prosecution

blingbling81

Gatling wrote: »

But if the department have a genuine case of fraud they have every right to seek prosecution regardless of payment plans it's actually pretty common to have payment plan and still be charged and face prosecution

Oh ok, yep fair enough, extremely daunting

NUTLEY BOY

The prosecution carries the burden of proof. The standard of proof is that of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

At some stage the defendant may expect to receive a book of evidence if the case is going to the Circuit Court. If the case is being dealt with summarily in the District Court the defendant's solicitor should ask for discovery of the relevant evidence.

Any further dealings with SW should be through a solicitor for protection.

Incidentally, it would need to be checked if the intended defendant was cautioned by SW before making any incriminating admissions at interview. That is a whole topic in itself.

Conceptually, there are two aspects to this. There is the recovery of the overpayment which could be regarded as a civil matter. There is the allegedly criminal dimension which is, properly speaking, a different matter.

IMHO it seems a little heavy to pursue this as a criminal matter where the defendant is already engaged with SW in a performing repayment plan. I say this against the perspective of some frauds where the defendant has proposed utterly ridiculous and hopeless plans for reimbursement. That said, if they consider it in the public interest to do so they are entitled to prosecute. Obviously we are not privy to the full detail of what actually happened.

Pronto63

SW don't prosecute lightly or by mistake. It must be quite serious for them to take it this far. The amount needs to be quite large and they will be fairly certain that fraud has taken place before they head to court.
This is regardless of any repayment plan in operation.

Joeseph Balls

I know you said it was a genuine mistake but how to jaysus did they not notice an over payment of 9k like.

splinter65

Joeseph Balls wrote: »

I know you said it was a genuine mistake but how to jaysus did they not notice an over payment of 9k like.

Over payment is just a one size fits all expression that SW use when someone gets a payment that they’re not entitled to.
I have personally seen over payments of €100000+.
Unfortunately it doesn’t matter if it is the claimants fault or the Dept fault, the money has to be paid back because it’s belonging to the tax payer .
It’s not always deliberately fraud.
The girl that owed the 100000 collected OPFP for years because she thought she was still entitled to it because the guy she was living with was not the father of her kids.
There’s all kinds of myths out there that people actually believe.
The Dept need to do more spot checks.