Statute of limitations on housing benefit fraud
TrentSC
through. It appears that there might have been a degree of fraud, but this
was some time ago.
Quite separate from whether the council might pursue a case after a time,
what's the official line in terms of the statute of limitations on cases
such as this?
Cheers.
Peter Crosland
news:Je-dnQxoLYGePrXV...@posted.plusnet...
If there is fraud then there is no limitation at all.
Peter Crosland
Andrew McGee
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2YednazV-bO...@posted.plusnet...
In an action based on fraud, time does not run until the claimant discovers
or could with reasonable diligence discover the facts relevant to the cause
of action.
(Limitation Act 1980 s32(1)(a))
However, an action based on fraud is an action where fraud is an ESSENTIAL
element of the cause of action (Beaman v ARTS Ltd (1940), Regent Lesiuretime
Ltd v County Natwest (2003))
In claims for repayment of housing benefit wrongly paid fraud is not an
essential element, since the claim can succeed without a plea of fraud.
As far as I can see, this is simply a claim for a sum of money due under an
enactment. Section 9 of the 1980 Act applies, and the limitation period is
six years from the date of accrual, which will be when the payment is made.
Subject to extension if D has deliberately concealed a relevant fact from C,
and that will usually be the case because D will have made false statements
(even if innocently) as to his entitlement.
So in practice I suspect it's going to be six years from the date whent he
council discover or could with reasonable diligence discover the relevant
facts.
Andrew McGee
>
Peter Crosland
Very interesting argument with which I don't disagree. It therefore seems
that the time has only just started to run and the loophole the OP hoped for
does not exist anyway.
--
Peter Crosland
Fergus O'Rourke
On this subject, resistance to Andrew's arguments is pretty well futile.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
GB
>>
>> So in practice I suspect it's going to be six years from the date whent
>> he
>> council discover or could with reasonable diligence discover the relevant
>> facts.
>>
>> Andrew McGee
>
> Very interesting argument with which I don't disagree. It therefore seems
> that the time has only just started to run and the loophole the OP hoped
> for
> does not exist anyway.
>
This applies to the council bringing a civil action to recover the money.
Surely, though, there is no limitation period for a criminal prosectution?
Don Aitken
However, no limitation period applies to *criminal* proceedings, which
may well be what the Council have in mind.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
fredi...@googlemail.com
>
> However, no limitation period applies to *criminal* proceedings, which
> may well be what the Council have in mind.
I could be wrong but, I always thought summary offences expire after
12 months unless renewed and indictable offences never expired, of
course some acts also give limits when a person can no longer be
charged under that act, murder for instance never expires.....but can
you tell me which acts impose a deadline?
Don Aitken
Summary prosecutions must be brought within six months, but fraud is
always indictable. The general rule is that there is no time limit for
prosecution on indictment; there are a few exceptions, mostly created
by 18th or 19th century legislation, but fraud is not one of them.
Archbold has a list, which I posted here last time this came up.
fredi...@googlemail.com
> Summary prosecutions must be brought within six months, but fraud is
> always indictable. The general rule is that there is no time limit for
> prosecution on indictment; there are a few exceptions, mostly created
> by 18th or 19th century legislation, but fraud is not one of them.
> Archbold has a list, which I posted here last time this came up.
Thanks for that, but, I was wondering if renewal was still an option,
I vaguely remember, something about a summary offence lapsing because
the offender did a runner and a persistent plod kept renewing the
particulars within the 6/12 month period until he caught they guy some
3 years later and put him up on those same summary matters..is that
still possible, or is it now the case where it a summary matter is not
proceded within 6 months the matter drops?
Don Aitken
No, I think you're right. The rule simply requires that the summons or
warrant is taken out within six months; once that has been done, the
case is before the court, whether the defendant appears or not.
fredi...@googlemail.com
>
> No, I think you're right. The rule simply requires that the summons or
> warrant is taken out within six months; once that has been done, the
> case is before the court, whether the defendant appears or not.
>
So a persistant plod can in theory simply write a reminder in his
diary to renew a summary matter ad infinitum...in effect treating the
crime like an indictable offence manually as opposed to letting the
*system* do it for him. I could add a few choice words at this point,
but Ive wisely just let the info hang.