APPENDIX 1 Fraud Case Example 1: This case involves a person who has claimed Incapacity Benefit, Housing and Council Tax benefits, whilst working. Mr X was seen erecting scaffolding, when he was in receipt of Incapacity Benefit, for disabilities relating to his feet and back. An allegation was made, and an application for covert surveillance was made in compliance with the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. He was kept under surveillance for a period of time and was followed through the town from his home to his place of work.. He was seen erecting scaffolding, jumping with a degree of agility, from wooden boards to wooden boards, lifting sacks of potatoes, and riding a bicycle balancing sacks of potatoes across the handlebars. The person who employed Mr X was interviewed and although reluctant to make a statement, admitted that he did work for him, but did not get paid. Mr X was interviewed under caution and the video of him working shown to him. The video had a very clear picture of him and it was clearly the same man. Mr X denied that it was him, and when questioned further stated that it was a man who looked like him, dressing up in his clothes. It was put to him that the video could be shown in court and it would be up to the courts to make their decision. Mr X disputed the evidence, but withdrew his claim to benefits, and has not claimed since. APPENDIX 1 Fraud Case Example 2: This case involves a woman claiming to be a single parent of three children, in receipt of Income Support, Housing Benefits and Council Tax benefits. An allegation was received by the Fraud departments regarding a single parent Miss Y who had her partner Mr Z living with her who was in full time work as a lorry driver. A full description of the couple was given and it was disclosed that her partner worked for a local company. Following authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, a brief surveillance was carried out and his vehicles were seen at the claimant’s drive. The police confirmed that one vehicle was registered to Miss Y at her address and the other vehicle was registered to the alleged partner, Mr Z at the same address. The alleged employer was visited and a statement taken from the transport manager stating that Mr Z did work for the company, and confirmed his address as being the same as that of Miss Y. Both Miss Y and Mr Z were interviewed under caution and were shown the evidence that had been obtained. Miss Y initially denied that her alleged partner Mr Z was living with her, and said that he only came to stay at weekends to see the children. She did not have an alternative address for him. She subsequently changed her story to say that her previous version of events was untrue, but said she could not afford all the things she wanted for her children just from her partner’s income, and because he worked away all week, didn’t think she would be found out. The case was put before the magistrates court and Miss Y was sentenced to 60 hours community service and ordered to repay the overpayment.