15. CLASSIFICATION OF CATEGORIES
Definitions of the 7 classifications used
15.1 The interview findings, together with the
results of any adjudication action taken by FAMC Unit, were returned
to the central helpdesk to be categorised for input to the database
and subsequent analysis. The categorisation function was centralised
to ensure consistency, both in interpretation of the interview
information and application of the categorisation criteria.
15.2 Each case was categorised in one of five
broad headings and any instance where this decision was difficult
or borderline were discussed and agreed by the helpdesk team,
sometimes after further discussion with the interviewer.
No Change
15.2.1 All cases where the information and circumstances
used as the basis for the latest award of FAMC were found to be
correct, there had been no relevant changes in circumstances and
no official error was found.
Departmental Error
15.2.2 Errors in adjudication. This included
errors in law, mistaken facts and clerical errors. In some cases
the error was too small to affect benefit.
Customer Error
15.2.3 Cases where the customer had provided
incorrect information at the start of the claim or failed to report
a reportable change, but where there was no suspicion of fraudulent
intent. This included a number of cases where employers had provided
inaccurate wages details. Benefit was either increased or reduced
or in some cases was unaffected; ie change was too small to affect
benefit or there was an unreported change of address (which is
a reportable change but does not affect benefit).
Suspicion of Fraud
15.2.4 Cases where fraud was suspected by the
interviewer but could not be proven. To refine this category further
the degree of suspicion held by the interviewer was broken down
into one of 2 levels by the central team:
The evidence gathered in this category would not
be sufficient to allow a prosecution should the Department decide
to pursue the case further.
Fraud
15.2.5 Through admission or third party evidence
such as employers'
records. All cases where fraud was confirmed to exist would be
included here irrespective of whether any subsequent action led
to prosecution. The evidence gathered in this category would be
sufficient to support a prosecution should the Department decide
to pursue the case further.
15.3 A further category "Correct"
was used during the analysis. This comprised cases where the current
rate of benefit was correct and included No Change cases, Customer
Error and Departmental Error cases where benefit was unaffected
and where there was no other outcome.
|