No punishment for £70k fraud

A benefit cheat who pocketed more than £70,000 has been given 100 years to pay back the cash. For more than five years jobless Caroline Wilton ripped off taxpayers by claiming money she wasn't entitled to. But despite being found guilty of fraud she's only been ordered to repay just £14 a week....

And the single mum-of-three is only repaying the cash through benefits she still receives.

She claimed income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit on the basis she was a single parent supporting her three children, but she was living with their father and was also in full-time employment.

She received a 12-month suspended prison sentence as well as a three-month curfew, which means she will have to remain at her home between 9pm and 6am every day. The Judge said

The authorities probably tell me you should go straight to prison.

I won't take that step, primarily because it would have a very significant impact on your three children and your 20-year-old son.

How nice.

The paper adds that she has split up with her partner, so she now gets benefit legitimately.

The authorities are restricted in what they can claw back from benefit fraudsters and there is no rule to prevent a person who has been convicted of benefit fraud from claiming again if it is a legitimate claim.

Tony Nicholas, Portsmouth City Council's head of revenue and benefits, said: 'We always assess a resident's ability to pay when recovering debt but we want to recover overpayments like this as quickly as possibly.

'But government regulations restrict the rate at which we can recover the overpayments and, even in the case of benefit fraud, the maximum we can claim back is £12 per week.'

At court, councils and the Department for Work and Pensions can begin confiscation proceedings against defendants if they have significant cash or assets that can be seized.

But this does not normally happen when a defendant is on benefits.

A spokesperson from the DWP added: 'We will make sure they pay back the money they have stolen and seek to ensure any proceeds from their crime are confiscated, too.

'Where confiscation does not happen the debt will remain as outstanding and we will seek to recover the debt as an individual's circumstances change.'

Back in the real world, no one will think this is appropriate. Commenters on the paper's website ask why taxpayers cannot put in bailiffs to recover at least some of the money. That could certainly happen for a private debt.

But she has effectively got away with it.