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

[Eloise01]

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

Gosh - spooky - I just this second PM'd you because I thought the hyearing was due about now to ask if there were any developments!

Well it wasn't the best outcome, but in the great scheme of things, it's far from the worst and since he has no intention of getting into troube again, it's a flash in the pan. He can now get on with things and stop worrying, and get everything back to normal. And if it serves as a lesson to someone else to be very careful on sick leave, and stops someone getting to where you were in the first place, then it's been useful all around!

You're welcome as far as the advice goes. And I know what you mean - employment law gets under your skin, doesn't it? Because it's not quite as simple as "the law says this" (assuming it does - it's amazing what people think it says!), but also about human relationships and how people get from A to B often via Z!

If you need more reading material to send you to sleep, you might find this site http://www.redundancyforum.co.uk/ interesting as it often has a wider range of issues, since its more specialised around employment.

Good luck to OH for the future. And you of course!

[Gurraaaagh!]

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

Eloise & everyone else who offered advice & support

I have received a written warning.

I would like to thank you all for taking the time to help my partner & myself

Eloise in particular, you helped us focus on the issue and drop a lot of the emotion, (even though we were still vexed, myself more than Sairlp) and all the other periphery issues, that I in particular was getting wound up about.
And concentrate on the issue.
Your advice was invaluable.
Thank you for telling us how it is.

Cheers

Keep up the good work.

[Eloise01]

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

You're welcome. Time to get on with the rest of your life now!

[Gurraaaagh!]

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

I thought it worthy of note that they accidentally let it slip that the 'Counter Fraud Service' had let them know there was no evidence that I had been dishonest. How ever the Trust in their wisdom based on this information did not agree. How odd!

[CleverClogs]

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

Well done!
By the way, did you choose your name on here because you suffer from chronic constipation?

[sairlp]

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

Hi again....after a few days since hearing, we should be delighting that job has been kept, but there are a few niggles (certainly on OH part) that finding difficult to "put to bed" and just wanted to sound these out!
Firstly should he appeal the sanction, a level 2 final written warning....I know it could have been a dismissal?! This seems to be quite harsh, as on reading the disciplinary report, they seem to believe the event as he said,
"cheque showed payee name as yours. I am surprised that your wife's name was not shown here instead, but understand that this was related to you as car driver
- certainly it was the case that the person who raised concerns stated that she saw you working. However from what you have stated it is easy to see how they came to that conclusion.

I think OH is worried that after 32 exemplary years, to get a sanction of this gravity( to stay on record for 2 yrs), only has 3.5 years until he can retire, that due to the increasing demands and pressure in an already demanding job, that if he makes another error then dismissal would be next step. Lol, that sounds like he's planning on being " naughty". , I just meant due to massive pressure what if an error in clinical judgement is made for example, this is highly unlikely as never occurred before, but sort of feels unjust.

The thing that is really bugging OH, is that the CFD and the employers appear to have come to different outcomes. He was told in management statement that the only reason the CFD didn't take it further was due to the amount of money involved. It transpires, and the union rep picked up on this at hearing that they said in their report there wasn't enough evidence to prove dishonesty. OH is very incensed that it seems that the one particular manager was a bit economical with truth. The hearing report states
"XX ( investigating manager) used the words "I believe there is enough evidence, to prove dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt" , and that is his prerogative to do so. However, I noted the words used in an email by CFD that they didn't believe there was enough evidence to prove dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. XX said that he had not come to the opinion that there was intent to defraud"

My feelings are that the employers are quite within their rights make a different outcome, despite what the CFD findings were, unfair and annoying but I believe it is just that "unfair and annoying"

There are so many issues surrounding this, that could be deemed as unprofessional eg XX speaking to OH on phone weeks before hearing, telling him not to worry, he wasn't going to loose job but would be asked to pay money back, he didn't and he wasn't! Obviously these things shouldn't have been said....but I personally don't think taking out grievances etc will achieve anything.
I just think that all the periphery stuff is semantics, and at the end of the day, he did what he did, stuff proceeding it all can't be evidenced etc etc.

Im just concerned that my OH is finding this very hard to put aside now, and as I've said however unfair it all seems, we should be lucky that he still has a job!

What a rambling post sorry....think I just want advice on appealing sanction
thought on employers and CFD having different outcome

Thanks in advance

[Eloise01]

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

I am also going to dump the peripheral stuff - raising grievances on what are weak arguments is simply painting a target on your back. After a warranted disciplinary warning, and it might not be "fair" from where he is sitting but we have already had the discussion about that so I am not going to revisit it except as it relates to the main two issues here. I would say however, that what people say and what people hear is not always the same thing - being asked to repay money in these circumstances is not at all unusual, so he could very well have been asked to!

Going backwards, because this informs the first issue, you are querying the fact that the fruad department said one thing and the employer (as represented by the disciplinary) said another. If you recall, we did discuss this at some length in your earlier posts, but it was some time ago. You are comparing rabbits and donkeys (or any two other things that cannot be compared!) The fraud department operate to the rules of criminal law, and any evidence they have must reach that standard. It was relatively clear from the outset that the incident as you decsribed it does not meet that standard. Employers, however, are not expected in law to reach the same standard. They must be able to evidence that they have reasonable belief that something has occurred. They are not therefore required to show intent on the part of the person.

Let's take a silly example to illustrate the difference: Bob borrows my pen from my desk without my permission (let's assume it's a very nice pen), fails to give it back, puts it in his bag and walks out of the office with it, whereupon he is stopped by security and searched for the missing pen, which is found in his possession. He says that he picked it up off my desk to make some notes and forgot to put it back - he didn't intend to steal it and it was just forgetfulness. The fact that I had asked everyone in the office if they had seen my pen and he said no was also forgetfulness - he hadn't ecven thought about the fact that he had picked it up when he made the notes. In criminal law the inetnt to steal the pen cannot easily be proven - his story is believeable and that means that there is a reasonable doubt (in the legal sense) as to whether he stole the pen. But as the employer, I am not required to operate to that level. My pen went missing, and I asked people whether they had seen it / had it. Bob had the chance to say that he had accidentally picked it up, and didn't, and was stopped when leaving the office with my pen. I have a reasonable belief that he was stealing my pen - "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a standard of evidence that I am held to.

This is the same difference that you are discussing - the employer has a reasonable belief that your husband did what he was accused of, and on technical grounds he did - albeit it through a series of errors of judgement that anyone could make. But that is the same as Bob - he made a series of errors of judgement such as forgetting he had picked up my pen, putting it in his bag and thinking it was his, not checking when I asked about it... We don't know for a fact he was going to steal it, and we don't know for a fact your OH was going working whilst off sick. But in both cases reasonable belief suggests that this is one of the available scenarios and that scenario is open to me to believe, as the employer.

The seconmd issue is then - do you appeal? Well this is a matter of judgement and one I would discuss with the union. Certainly, the penalty imposed cannot be increased - but it may not change either, and appealing could be that whole "sticking head above parapet" thing that I would certainly not advise he do! I am not sure that I am reading the quotes you use here in the same way that you are. "cheque showed payee name as yours. I am surprised that your wife's name was not shown here instead, but understand that this was related to you as car driver" doesn't scream at me that they believe what was said - it says that they are giving the benefit of the doubt. The same applies to "certainly it was the case that the person who raised concerns stated that she saw you working. However from what you have stated it is easy to see how they came to that conclusion" - there is nothing in that that says that they do not believe her, or that they believe him! The fact that there was a disciplinary sanction at all says to me that they do not believe he is innocent. They may believe his account of how he got into this situation, but that is not the same thing as believing he didn't do it! Because at some level, as we discussed previously, he did do it - maybe not with intent, but he did enough in error to land himself in a difficult position. If they believed that he did nothing at all, then there would have been no disciplnary outcome. So the chances of getting the disciplinary reversed are slim - at best he is looking at a lesser sanction. But that possibility has to be balanced against the risk of painting that target on his back. And the union is better placed than me to advise on that because they know the employer and the likelihood of what they might react to.

[sairlp]

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

Thanks so much Eloise....your Bob analogy is so much better than the one I was trying to give OH last night!
Your response was what I thought, and hoped it would be, once OH reads it I'm sure things will be clearer again for him.....I wonder why he takes heed of what you say and not his wife? Lol!!!
Thanks again for taking more time to help, really appreciated

Eloise you were quite right about how I initially read their comments, even while posting them on here I read them in a different light....amazing how we can read stuff into things that we want to read...you were spot on as usual !

[Gurraaaagh!]

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

Thank you, glad its over.

I chose my name from a fabulous friend I had who died years ago. Whenever he became excited he would let out a large "Gurraaaagh". Still makes me smile when I envisage him doing it.

[bluebottle]

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

A lot of problems in the NHS seem to be caused by managers who have no previous experience within the NHS. A friend of mine is Director of Operations with a major NHS Foundation Trust and started at the bottom and worked his way up from within the NHS. He found that a load of problems were down to these managers, many of whom have come from the commercial sector, and were let in by the last two governments on the grounds that they would help improve the NHS. The reality is that these managers have brought some bad habits with them from the commercial sector, bullying being one of them and not having a clue why the NHS operates in the way it does being another. Although a large number of these managers have been sacked by the Trust my friend works for, there are still others who need to be weeded out and removed as their actions and decisions have resulted in the Trust incurring huge budget deficits.

[Eloise01]

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

A lot of problems in the NHS seem to be caused by managers who have no previous experience within the NHS. A friend of mine is Director of Operations with a major NHS Foundation Trust and started at the bottom and worked his way up from within the NHS. He found that a load of problems were down to these managers, many of whom have come from the commercial sector, and were let in by the last two governments on the grounds that they would help improve the NHS. The reality is that these managers have brought some bad habits with them from the commercial sector, bullying being one of them and not having a clue why the NHS operates in the way it does being another. Although a large number of these managers have been sacked by the Trust my friend works for, there are still others who need to be weeded out and removed as their actions and decisions have resulted in the Trust incurring huge budget deficits.

Whilst I cannot disagree in principle, I still have to maintain that the OP was not bullied and got a pretty reasonable outcome, all things considered. It is perhaps not a palatable truth, but it is truth nonetheless - people do do this sort of thing. I have seen and know of plenty of occasions when public sector employees, often with very generous sick pay schemes (which I begrudge not a penny of if they are genuinely sick) take extended sick leave and then go out and work elsewhere. Since I know you have served in the police force, I would bet you have too, because more than a few of the instances I have seen are serving police officers. And I'd bet the OP has too. The reality is that when people abuse such things, the innocent and the misguided get caught in the net.

The OP here made a genuine mistake out of ignorance, I am sure. But the net he got caught in was cast for bigger fish, I am equally sure. The unfortunate fact is that there are many examples of this happening. The reason why there has been public support (and I hate to admit it, but it is generally supported by the public) for harsher disability payments tests, is because every single one of us knows of, or has heard of, someone cheating the system. The same is true of unemployment benefits. And housing benefits. And the reason why tribunal fees have been introduced is to discourage those claimants, who I know exist, who claim for no good reason other than to try to extort money from a former employer who quite reasonably and fairly sacked them. Yes, these are all minorities - but the fact is that all of these changes are driven by minorities who abuse and exploit the system meant to protect those who have no other choices. And the majority suffer for their exploitation.

But how does anyone draw the line and say this person is a cheat and this person isn't? I think the employer did not to poor a job of doing so. The OP has their job and I am sure that this will be an end to it. But the evidence was there - perhaps through being foolish or not thinking it through, but it was there. Perhaps we should live in a kinder society. But to do so, everyone has to be "kinder" and that means that the cheats and thieves have to stop too. Until we get that, there will be things that aren't "fair". The reality is that if you have a fair system - or even something better than nothing - there will be the people who abuse it. And it isn't fair that everyone gets tarred with that brush - but it is what happens. And until people believe that what happens is fair to everyone, that will continue to be the case.

I have several neighbours on various benefits - unemployment or disability, and I know they struggle. There are also the couple down the village who wouldn't work if a well paid job came up and slapped them in the face. They won't last long here - they aren't accepted and it's a very small place (and their drug dealer friends are even less accepted!). But they won't be moving on and moving up either. They'll never work a day in their lives, and they are in their 20's. Sad but true - systems devised to catch their ilk will catch people that aren't like them at all. That is what happened to the OP.

[bluebottle]

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

Whilst I cannot disagree in principle, I still have to maintain that the OP was not bullied and got a pretty reasonable outcome, all things considered. It is perhaps not a palatable truth, but it is truth nonetheless - people do do this sort of thing. I have seen and know of plenty of occasions when public sector employees, often with very generous sick pay schemes (which I begrudge not a penny of if they are genuinely sick) take extended sick leave and then go out and work elsewhere. Since I know you have served in the police force, I would bet you have too, because more than a few of the instances I have seen are serving police officers. And I'd bet the OP has too. The reality is that when people abuse such things, the innocent and the misguided get caught in the net. The extended sick leave mallarchy in the police service was knocked on the head a while ago. After a certain time off sick, you are sent to see OH.

The OP here made a genuine mistake out of ignorance, I am sure. But the net he got caught in was cast for bigger fish, I am equally sure. The unfortunate fact is that there are many examples of this happening. The reason why there has been public support (and I hate to admit it, but it is generally supported by the public) for harsher disability payments tests, is because every single one of us knows of, or has heard of, someone cheating the system. The same is true of unemployment benefits. And housing benefits. And the reason why tribunal fees have been introduced is to discourage those claimants, who I know exist, who claim for no good reason other than to try to extort money from a former employer who quite reasonably and fairly sacked them. Yes, these are all minorities - but the fact is that all of these changes are driven by minorities who abuse and exploit the system meant to protect those who have no other choices. And the majority suffer for their exploitation. True what you say. However, would it surprise you to learn that ones who defraud the DLA fund are comfortably well-off and do it to see if they can get away with it? The sheer arrogance of them when you have them in a tape-recorded interview is unbelievable.

But how does anyone draw the line and say this person is a cheat and this person isn't? I think the employer did not to poor a job of doing so. The OP has their job and I am sure that this will be an end to it. But the evidence was there - perhaps through being foolish or not thinking it through, but it was there. Perhaps we should live in a kinder society. But to do so, everyone has to be "kinder" and that means that the cheats and thieves have to stop too. Until we get that, there will be things that aren't "fair". The reality is that if you have a fair system - or even something better than nothing - there will be the people who abuse it. And it isn't fair that everyone gets tarred with that brush - but it is what happens. And until people believe that what happens is fair to everyone, that will continue to be the case.

I have several neighbours on various benefits - unemployment or disability, and I know they struggle. There are also the couple down the village who wouldn't work if a well paid job came up and slapped them in the face. They won't last long here - they aren't accepted and it's a very small place (and their drug dealer friends are even less accepted!). But they won't be moving on and moving up either. They'll never work a day in their lives, and they are in their 20's. Sad but true - systems devised to catch their ilk will catch people that aren't like them at all. That is what happened to the OP. Drug dealers are the scum of the earth, especially if they hang around school gates trying to peddle drugs to children or use children as couriers. One drug dealer in Plymouth, who was a cocky and nasty little sod, got stabbed straight through the heart by a rival drug dealer. Not a lot of people were bothered about his demise, but it lead to one almighty crackdown on drugs to stop a turf war developing between drug dealers. If you can, don't let this couple or their scummy "friends" make your life and that of your neighbours a misery.

@@@@