Two meaningless sentences for benefit fraud

Even of the benefit fraud cases detected, very few are prosecuted. What is the deterrent effect of sentences like these? They're more like an invitation to have a go.

A single mother with three children who fraudulently claimed more than £20,000 in benefits was spared jail.

Shahida Maqsood, 43, a freelance NHS employee from Bradford, pleaded guilty to 11 counts of benefit fraud dating back to 2002.

Bradford magistrates were told she had provided false information when applying for housing benefit for the Lonsdale Street house, which had been her father’s and had passed to her brother after his death.

She also failed to notify the authorities that her mother, for whom she is the main carer, also lived at the address for at least part of that time.

Magistrates gave Maqsood a community sentence of 160 hours’ unpaid work and ordered her to pay costs of £200. She agreed to pay back the money at a rate of £100 per month. That's more than 16 years.

In mitigation, the court was told Maqsood had arrived from Pakistan in 2001 having separated from her husband. It was claimed she was not aware of the laws in the UK and had been advised to claim benefits by family members. Better check their benefits too.

========

An investigation by East Riding of Yorkshire Council led to the prosecution of Sarana Guest from Goole, who claimed more than £7,500 in housing and council tax benefits. She declared that her only income was her income support, but fraud investigators discovered that her partner was working.

Goole Magistrates Court sentenced her to a two-year conditional discharge. She was also ordered to pay £315 towards ERYC's costs and will have to pay back the £7,550.87 she fraudulently received while claiming benefit between September 2007 and June 2008.

Effectively she got away with it. There is no deterrence in this sentence.

htp: Dave