This is today's shocker, though.
A mother who claimed to have just £2.49 to live on to secure state benefits had a secret bank balance of more than £84,000.
Isabella Tams from South Shields was paid almost £19,500 in jobseeker's allowance, income support and housing and council tax benefits by declaring that she had no money to support herself between 2003 and 2007.
But Newcastle Crown Court yesterday heard that when she made her benefits claims in 2003 she had a bank balance of almost £20,000, and that grew to more than £84,000 the following year.
She had made declarations to the DWP claiming to have savings of just £2.49, £8.79 and other meagre amounts up to £500. When she was interviewed in July 2007, she admitted she had been beneficiary in two wills, but claimed to have spent the majority of the money on her daughter.
At the time of the interview she had about £15,000 left in the bank but her barrister told the court: "It has all gone." She had spent what money she had left on a car for work, to support her sick father and to put her daughter through stage school. Some of the money was also spent on Christmas presents.
The court heard that Ms Tams, who is now working, is repaying the £20,000 to the DWP at a rate of £30 per week.
Her barrister added: "This is a lady who deeply regrets what she has done, she sits at the back of the court in exceptional distress, and disappointed in herself."
But we are not interested in that.
Judge Michael Cartlidge said:
I think it is extremely unfortunate the bank account was not frozen in July 2007, and the nation would have been readily repaid for this dishonesty.Then after those strong words she was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with 200 hours' unpaid work. She was ordered to pay £250 costs.
Paying it back at £30 per week means 12 or 13 years before the money is paid over.
Her applications were dishonest from the outset, she declared on various occasions throughout this period that she had no savings, and that was false."
She was interviewed in 2007 and the case has taken all this time to come to court. The DWP's negligence cost us £15,000.
She was a calculating criminal, she kept spending the money after she'd been discovered, and after all that the judge has let her off lightly.
1 comments:
Actually It wasn't calculating of her and as someone who knows her it was ignorance of and lack of education of the rules, she did not think she had to declare inheritance which is what the money was and she in fact saw very little of the money due to the fact that she spent a majority of it on others in her family who have not had much. She is from the traveling community and her mother died when she was young and as someone who knows her, she has had a horrible life, a hard life and if that money made her life a little bit better for the time it lasted, then good on her, if she had the education that most have had she would of known about the correct laws and also how to handle the amount of money she received. It is quick of people who don't know the full facts to throw stones, but let them without sin throw the first stone!
There are many people in government who steal money from the public purse and are not brought to justice!
Post a Comment