AAF Defends Ex Soldier From Local Council Harrassment

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Sonic67, Dec 1, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Seen on Facebook:

    Shocking as it seems but Action for Armed forces have been called to the aid of a veteran, registered disabled and suffering from PTSD, Anxiety disorder and Depression.

    Veteran D as we will refer to him is as many are suffering from Post traumatic Stress Disorder, Clinical depression, Anxiety disorder and is also registered disabled, Veteran D unable to work and struggles to leave his home.

    During the start of 2011 veteran D received a letter from his local authority which went on to say that he MUST attend an interview with the local authority and that the interview would be "Under Caution", the letter did not at any point state that veteran D had NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to attend the interview but instead made clear that CRIMINAL PROSECUTION may be brought against him if he did not attend. Veteran D worried about the consequences of what lays ahead made contact with the local authority to explain that he was under the care of the mental health team in his area, Combat stress and the Royal British Legion, Veteran D then went on to explain in as much detail as he could that he was at the time struggling with his mental health and receiving treatment and even went so far as to have an advocate list all of his medication in order to make the local authority fully aware of his circumstances.

    To date there is no evidence to suggest that the local authority had acted on this information nor did they seek medical or legal advice.

    Veteran D was then snubbed by the local authority who continued to harass veteran D by form of email and letter outlining the possibility of CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. Veteran D worried and confused by the matter felt he had no option but to attend 2 interviews "under caution" . Local authority investigation officers are bound by P.A.C.E. {The Police and Criminal Evidence Act} this ACT states that a "vulnerable person" should not be interviewed unless they have an "Appropriate adult " present, any person with a mental disorder would there for be classed as vulnerable. The local authority officers in this case were FULLY aware of veteran D and his medical condition but decided that it would be acceptable to interview veteran D "under caution" and most probably knowing full well that he would incriminate himself in some way as veteran D was at the time under the influence of medication which affected his ability to communicate, understand and give reliable evidence.

    Veteran D to date is only actually able to recollect part of the first interview but non of the 2nd interview due to the fact he had taken his medication and also his mental state.


    When veteran D attended the interview he was ushered into a small interview room and was told that his interview would be recorded via audio equipment, The investigating officer then asked veteran D if he understood what "FRAUD" was or if he understood the meaning of "FRAUD". Veteran D explained he could not really explain fraud and that he did not know how to explain it, the investigation officer then went on to fully explain the definition of fraud and what it meant. Now this may seem harmless whilst you read this however for the investigator to prosecute veteran D for Fraud the investigator must show during the recorded interview that veteran D knew what fraud was. The investigator then started the interview and low and behold ask veteran D the very same question about his understanding of fraud..............the {{ innocent}} intention to educate veteran D was actually there to ensure veteran D incriminated himself during the interview.

    A number of weeks passed when veteran D received a letter telling him in this case they felt that the benefit overpayment he had received was NOT the fault of the local council and they also felt that because of information gained from the interview under caution veteran D had committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE ! THE LOCAL AUTHORITY advised veteran D that he was to accept a "ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY" which requires you to "ADMIT" an offense and forces you to repay all overpayment including a £500 fine!

    The Local states;

    Administrative penalty

    The council will consider an administrative penalty (adpen) having taken the following factors into account:
    ■the adpen will not increase the individual's debt;
    ■a prosecution or formal caution would not be in the public interest or cause unfair punishment to the individual, for example the loss of employment;
    ■the individual has the means to pay the adpen in one single payment at the time of the adpen interview: should the individual choose to withdraw from the agreement within 28 days, the money will be repaid but a prosecution must follow;
    ■the individual has repaid the overpayment in full (but individuals should not avoid prosecution solely by repayment).

    Veteran D who had not been in receipt of any personal benefit at the time would have had NO WAY of paying in this instance but more to the point Veteran D was being made to pay for something he had no idea about.

    Veteran D then contacted the local authority and told them he does not understand what is happening, he does not know why he is being made to pay money he does not have.

    During a continuous flow of emails between veteran D and the local council the investigator stated that veteran D had committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE and has been offered the chance to "make amends" by paying a fine!!

    Now im sure if you have committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE then that matter should be dealt with by the local police authority and the courts and NOT by a local council allowing a person to "make amends" by way of a fine.

    Veteran D went on to inquire as to what CRIMINAL OFFENSE had taken place only to be told in the following email by the senior investigator that "NO OFFENSE" HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED YET AND THE CASE WILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

    After a week of communication with the local authority and "claims" that veteran D had committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE" veteran D refused to pay any money because veteran D refused to acknowledge he had COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE and was not prepared to accept a caution for crime he had not committed. For those of you that are not aware, accepting a caution IS ADMITTING THE OFFENSE YOU ARE ACCUSED OF.

    After a further 3 week period veteran D received printed documents which contained the transcript of the interviews under caution and also a letter on headed paper of the local authority which claimed to be a court summons signed by an officer of the local authority, Still unsure of what veteran D was being accused of he made a telephone call to the court and informed the magistrates court that he had been summons to court but did not know why or understand what a summons really was. The court officer explained to veteran D that the document "COULD NOT BE A SUMMONS" Because the document veteran D had been sent did not appear on a magistrates type face document and also was not signed by the clerk to justice XXXXXX XXXXX . Even more confused veteran D was informed by the magistrates court that they did not know what the document is and to seek legal advice.

    Further more, during the period that the local authority claimed that Veteran D had been over payed, veteran D had not been in receipt of housing benefit nor council tax benefit. To make matters worse since Jan 2010 veteran D has been forced to repay money direct from his housing benefit and council tax benefit.

    Veteran D is now due in court in Dec 2011. We will update you all soon on the case.

    Apologies if already on the site. Couldn't see it.
  2. Who on earth are the AAF? From their facebook "Company Overview", they're not particularly great at spelling. And they support Norman Scarth, who is barking. And the English Democrats who are nearly barking.

    And they seem to have a weird thing about wearing miniatures on suits?
  3. I'm so angry, I could just shit.
  4. What would we do without Facebook ?
    Is this cut and paste suitable for current affairs?
    Is it all just made up?
  5. I think "Veteran D" would be well advised to take professional legal advice, based on this narrative, rather than relying on some additional GWS NGO (to NGVFA.)) I don't thin that it is "all" made up but I'm not convinced it is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
  6. I think the Veteran D needs to get on to RBL ASAP. It is also likely that the Veteran would meet the criteria for Legal assistance, albeit now heavily curtailed. A call to his Regtl Association could result in a quick and free consultation from theh Hon Solicitor, if nothing else.

    The court 'summons' sound more like the sort of thing generated by debt collecting companies - the documents look like the real thing - and are designed to scare the unitiated and the vulnerable. But I can't see how he will be in court if he has not been summonsed.
  7. Is veteran D Alec Webster?
  8. I'm not totally buying it. If he is that vulnerable then he will have a social worker who would nip it in the bud. As mentioned there is always assistance but the vetting in most cases weasels out the bullshitters.

    If he doesn't have assistance then he may have failed to convince the vetters. Smells like bullshit to me.
  9. Sadly common at the moment.
    local authorities are targetting anybody who they feel may be trying to screw the system.
    However if genuine, vet d should have a CPN, a psychiatrist and a social worker on his team.
    he clearly already has a advocate.
    Quite simple really. Psych, and or care-co-ordinator write to council tells them to wind neck in.
    end ex.
    I do see a lot of people in my old CPN role, that are sitting behind doors, cannot go out, suffering terribly etc, but bloody hell they have a Giganormous telly on the wall, More x box/Wi games than you can possibly want for, sky box, and leather sofas etc
    Cant possibly work, bloody hell no. But can i get them some fags next time i visit.
  10. So....He was rumbled then?
  11. only if he asked for, lets not forget that most are unwilling or unable to ask forhelp no matter what is wrong with them

    the cut and paste off face book seems a little far fetched, i dont doubt some of the sentiment is true but it defo seems like artistic licence was used to describe the entire thing

    also the council debt collecting branch will hound people to theends of the earth unless there given a reason to stop
  12. It's always difficult to comment on stuff where you are not in possession of factual information about the case. I pick up from what has been written that he was called in for a recorded interview under a caution. This typically happens where the Council suspect that housing benefit fraud has been committed.

    Council housing departments have a statutory duty to investigate any matters where they suspect housing benefit fraud might be happening. If you are receiving housing benefit and your circumstances change so that you no longer should be receiving it, it's like being on the dole and working at the same time. You are receiving public money which you are clearly not entitled to and you are committing fraud on public funds.

    Councils have to start somewhere when they think this might be happening and part of the process is to call the claiment in for an interview. If the Council have some evidence to support their suspicions, they may well conduct the interview with the claiment being cautioned. If benefit fraud is suspected, it's not an optional choice for the Council to take action or not take action. They are obliged to investigate and also to prosecute if there is a case to answer to.

    If any vulnerable person is asked to attend an interview and this should include veterans suffering from PTSD, the investigating officers should bear in mind any disabilities that person may be suffering from. Of course PTSD is pretty much an invisible illness and it might not have been picked up by the investigating officers that that is an issue or they might have felt that by attending, the claiment was ok to go through the process.

    It has now been picked up by these people and hopefully the person will get the support that he needs from whatever agencies to deal with this and sort out the problems with the Council. I hope so and good luck to him!
  13. And interestingly I read a couple of years ago that gardening, which is regarded as being very good therapy for people with mental problems, has been dropped as a therapy in many places. This is apparently for two reasons.

    1. The authorities could decide that people who do gardening therapy could do a job.

    2. Patients were declining gardening therapy on account of 1. Above.
  14. The country resembles the old East Germany more with every passing day no matter which joke party is in power.
  15. Really? I made a few tours round the good old DDR and I can't see any comparison.

    As for the OP, it's one of those screeds that makes my head hurt to read - well meant, no doubt, but self defeating in its verbosity.