Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

[sairlp]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Any Joy?

[ploddertom]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

I always find it easier to make them into PDF files.

[sairlp]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Will try PDF

[sairlp]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Did this work, should I do the other letter in same way now?
The technical advice on here is better than I get from my Internet provider!

[ploddertom]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Much better - for me anyway.

[Turboman]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Well done--thats the answer

[sairlp]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Heres the other one

[Eloise01]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

OK. Now this is not enough to save you in law. But the law does say that the disciplinary letter must contain certain information, and as I would expect of the NHS this contains everything. But it does not contain one thing. It does not contain a statement that says that the misconduct is sufficient that, if proven, the outcome may include dismissal. If an employer considers that dismissal is an option, the letter should state that, and the law requires it. It is such a small technical error (if it is one) that tribunals rarely give any weight to it, especially if the person is demonstrably guilty of the offence. But I would be surprised at any part of the NHS not dotting "i's" and crossing "t's" - this is a technical error they are big enough not to make. And may indicate that it isn't an error and it has already been decided that they won't apply the ultimate sanction. Again, I cannot promise these things, but sitting alongside the failure to suspend, I would suggest that cautious optimism may be in order. I'd say he has a chance.

[bluebottle]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Has the NHS Trust involved and NHS Counter Fraud Unit disclosed the alleged "evidence" to the OP yet? If not, said NHS Trust and NHS Counter Fraud Unit are playing hopscotch on a legal minefield.

[Eloise01]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

The OP's OH has admitted it - in employment law, since this is governed by employment law, they have all they need for a disciplinary hearing.

[bluebottle]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Employment Law is the problem. I have often heard it referred to as "The La-La World of Employment Law". The alleged "reforms" Cameron and Osborne are attempting to steamroller through are, I feel, not going to make it onto the statute book. Employment Law does need reforming so that it is fair to both sides. In its present form, unscrupulous employers are being allowed to get away with a lot of things, which reflects badly on those employers who treat their employees well and are fair. The NHS is the Number 2 employment sector for bullying and the sort of behaviour the OP's OH has come up against. It is a direct consequence of allowing those from outside the NHS to be managers inside the NHS. My local hospital trust sacked a load of them and saved around Ł7 million a year. However, they are now finding that these cretins have entered into dodgy deals and the word "corruption" stands out a mile.

[sairlp]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Any thoughts on DIY mention please?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Any thoughts on DIY mention please?

Ask for proof?

[Eloise01]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

I disagree. Deal with the "DIY incidents" seperately, rationally and calmly. Your OH cannot afford to get into a ****ing contest with the employer here because they are, without getting into the merits and demerits of employment law (or any other law), caught bang to rights on the working whilst off sick. It doesn't matter what the "alternative explanation" for this is - the employer has sufficient to form a reasonable belief that he worked whilst off sick, and that is all they need. And to be balanced in this, he may not have appreciated the fact that he was doing exactly that, but he did. He delivered Yellow Pages, which is a remunerated employment, and he received payment for that remunerated task.

Yes, he did some DIY while off sick (assuming he did) but he did not accept any payment for it (or didn't do any for the neighbours if he didn't) and wouldn't dream of asking for money for helping someone out. End of. Say nothing more on this. Stick to the simplest and shortest explanation - don't try to explain or go further. He didn't, end of story.

Demanding proof or getting into a bunfight over what is a relatively unimportant detail may simply wind things up a notch, and this is the time to wind them down, be reasonable and don't get confrontational. The aim here is to save his job, his pension and so on - not to score points. Point scoring is only a viable entertainment if you are in an unassailable position, and he isn't. There are vague indications here, albeit no guarantees, that the employer isn't looking for a dismissal in this - you do not want them to change their minds about that. I want to be very clear - based solely on the OP's version of events, because that is the only one that I have, and accepting it as a credible explanation for what happened, I am also absolutely and fully convinced that a dismissal here would be upheld by a tribunal. So the OP's husband has one shot at this, through the disciplinary process.

[sairlp]

Re: Been interviewed by fraud dept re allegations of working whilst off sick

Thanks again for sound advice Eloise....yes, they were our thoughts re DIY also, just keep that separate. Initially as we were so upset and angry, we felt like putting up a fight, but as you rightly point out, it's his job etc at stake. They have all the evidence they need that he did receive payment from another place whilst off sick, therefore his case is just a very, honest and humbling account of the true events. Hands up, yes I was stupid, wasn't thinking it through, nor thought of legal or disciplinary consequences etc etc. we just hope there's some humility in their decision, and fingers crossed