× Members

worried about huosing benefit please help

  • Sundries
  • Topic Author
13 years 7 months ago #26488 by Sundries
Have just read the members only article about bounty hunters.
It says it looks at bills and stuff to see if you are telling the truth about living at home.

Earlier this year I transferred my talk talk account to my sisters address. This was because i decided my mobile phone covered my needs well enough and I really didn't need the talk talk. Unfortunately i was still in contract (24 month contract i think) and would be charged for leaving my contract. I phoned talk talk and explained situation to them but said my sister was happy to take over the contract as she didn't have phone or broadband so we decided the best course of action was to transfer the account to her address, keep it in my name and I would pay the money from my account and she would pay me back.
So now i am worried they will assume I am living there! :( not sure what to do. Should i write to benefits office and explain this to them so thy don't get suspicious?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 7 months ago #26494 by Derek4
Hi Sundries

The newsletter is referring to ‘living together fraud’, where claimants fail to disclose a partner or lodger, and not fraud involving living at home.

I would also add, judging by the number of posts regarding bounty hunters, that if every claimant who was concerned about false suspicions wrote to the benefits office to explain, they would have a few million extra letters to read on top of the workload that they already have. In the unlikely event that they did contact you, you can easily explain the situation.

I have bought expensive items on my credit card for other people who later reimbursed me, and I do not feel the need to seek permission before purchase, or offer an explanation after, to the benefits office.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty should apply to benefit claimants as well as anybody else.

Best wishes

Derek

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • linsky
13 years 7 months ago #26573 by linsky
Hi Sundries,
I would totally agree with Derek, not that I'm an expert but I think you could 'give' them something to look at rather than waiting to see if they want to look at something. Eg. If we invited a Police officer to look over our car for any faults, he may think that we have something to hide and then search for something, when in effect, he was not interested in us until we invited him to become 'interested' if you see what I mean.
We can all worry about things that do not happen.
Wishing you a peaceful mind.

Kind Regards

Linsky

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.