A bungling disability surveyor working for Harrow Council has been caught using a bogus disabled blue badge – whilst parking outside the borough's fraud department.
Michael Benjamin, was entrusted to make sure council homes were suitable for disabled tenants in his job as an aids and adaptation surveyor but was given the push after bosses found he was illegally using the pass to get free parking.
The 40-year-old, from Danemead Grove, Northolt, told police he bought the fake off a friend for £150 and had been using it to park for work and at home for 18 months.
He was finally caught, however, when he parked his grey Suzuki outside the Civic Centre in Station Road, Harrow, in January, where fraud officers based at the site spotted him.
His contract was terminated immediately and on Friday last week he was hauled in front of Magistrates.
In total he was forced to cough up £1,740 in fines and prosecution costs and Harrow Magistrate Beatrice Clarke said: "You were in a position of trust and this has been a sustained misuse of a European parking badge.
"This was intentional and has caused great harm to the blue badge system."
31 Mar 2009
Kebab restaurant owner guilty of fraud
An Ipswich kebab restaurant owner made fraudulent benefit claims for five years, a court heard.
Ali Celebi failed to tell Ipswich Borough Council that he owned Best Kebabs Limited in Falcon Street, while he claimed more than £2,000 in housing and council tax benefits.
The 51-year-old of Donegal Road, also failed to declare that his wife was working, the amount of money in their bank accounts, that he owned another property in London and that he received rent payments from that house.
South East Suffolk Magistrates heard that the claims had been fraudulent from the outset and resulted in Celebi receiving £1,305.24 in council tax benefit and £953.53 in housing benefit.
Celebi pleaded guilty through an interpreter to six charges of producing a false statement to obtain benefit between June 24, 2002 and June 25, 2007.
Neil Saunders, mitigating, said his client had paid back all the council tax overpayment and more than half of the housing benefit.
He said although the frauds were committed over a long period of time the amount in question was “not high”.
The court heard that if Celebi had have disclosed his income the amount of benefit he received would have been “significantly reduced if not eliminated”.
The probation service provided magistrates with a fast delivery report to aid sentencing.
Celebi told the probation officer he was willing to pay a fine but could not do unpaid work because of his age and varicose veins.
He also said he would loose his business if he did unpaid work as his restaurant opened on average 15 hours a day and he had no time to do extra work.
He said the kebab shop was not profitable and he had no savings in the bank.
Magistrates ordered Celebi to do 120 hours unpaid work within a year and warned him that any missed probation appointments could result in a breach of the order and further punishment.
He was told to pay £150 towards court costs.
An interesting argument - he is well enough to work in his loss making restaurant, but too ill to do unpaid work. Happily the magistrates saw through it.
Ali Celebi failed to tell Ipswich Borough Council that he owned Best Kebabs Limited in Falcon Street, while he claimed more than £2,000 in housing and council tax benefits.
The 51-year-old of Donegal Road, also failed to declare that his wife was working, the amount of money in their bank accounts, that he owned another property in London and that he received rent payments from that house.
South East Suffolk Magistrates heard that the claims had been fraudulent from the outset and resulted in Celebi receiving £1,305.24 in council tax benefit and £953.53 in housing benefit.
Celebi pleaded guilty through an interpreter to six charges of producing a false statement to obtain benefit between June 24, 2002 and June 25, 2007.
Neil Saunders, mitigating, said his client had paid back all the council tax overpayment and more than half of the housing benefit.
He said although the frauds were committed over a long period of time the amount in question was “not high”.
The court heard that if Celebi had have disclosed his income the amount of benefit he received would have been “significantly reduced if not eliminated”.
The probation service provided magistrates with a fast delivery report to aid sentencing.
Celebi told the probation officer he was willing to pay a fine but could not do unpaid work because of his age and varicose veins.
He also said he would loose his business if he did unpaid work as his restaurant opened on average 15 hours a day and he had no time to do extra work.
He said the kebab shop was not profitable and he had no savings in the bank.
Magistrates ordered Celebi to do 120 hours unpaid work within a year and warned him that any missed probation appointments could result in a breach of the order and further punishment.
He was told to pay £150 towards court costs.
An interesting argument - he is well enough to work in his loss making restaurant, but too ill to do unpaid work. Happily the magistrates saw through it.
£50k benefit fraud - an unsatisfactory case
There are several reasons why this case is unsatisfactory.
Sushilaben Patel, aged 60, of Beech Mount, Ashton-under-Lyne, dishonestly failed to promptly notify Tameside Council of a change in her circumstances, namely that she was living together with her husband Liaqat Ali, who was employed as a taxi driver.
As a result Patel received £23,359.60 in Income Support, £20,909.33 in Housing Benefit and £5,666.02 in Council Tax Benefit - a total of £49,934.95 - between 5 October 1999 and 30 August 2007.
At Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester, Patel admitted all charges and was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for two years, with a 12-month supervision order.
Tameside Council and the Department for Work and Pensions will take steps to recover all of the overpaid monies.
Tameside Council’s deputy leader, Cllr Joe Kitchen, said: "It is important that anyone receiving Housing or Council Tax benefit inform the council immediately if there is any change to their living circumstances, to prevent the risk of an overpayment.
"The council has a zero tolerance to benefit cheats and we will always take recovery action to get the money back. We will of course continue to work hard to ensure those who deserve benefits get them."
- The claim went on for almost eight years, allowing her to amass nearly £50,000
- The claims ceased in August 2007 but the case has just come to court
- The punishment is far too light. No immediate imprisonment for a fraud of this size - and not even community work. Rejoice, benefit cheats! Tameside is a good place to fiddle your benefits.
- The council and the DWP have still to take steps to recover any money.
Sushilaben Patel, aged 60, of Beech Mount, Ashton-under-Ly
As a result Patel received £23,359.60 in Income Support, £20,909.33 in Housing Benefit and £5,666.02 in Council Tax Benefit - a total of £49,934.95 - between 5 October 1999 and 30 August 2007.
At Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester, Patel admitted all charges and was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for two years, with a 12-month supervision order.
Tameside Council and the Department for Work and Pensions will take steps to recover all of the overpaid monies.
Tameside Council’s deputy leader, Cllr Joe Kitchen, said: "It is important that anyone receiving Housing or Council Tax benefit inform the council immediately if there is any change to their living circumstances, to prevent the risk of an overpayment.
"The council has a zero tolerance to benefit cheats and we will always take recovery action to get the money back. We will of course continue to work hard to ensure those who deserve benefits get them."
£13k benefit fraud
Paul Clansey, from York, had thousands of pounds of savings but didn’t declare them and was then overpaid £13,065 in income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Pretty thorough, our Mr Clansey.
He was given a 12-month community order, told to complete 240 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay costs of £75.
Magistrates heard he failed to declare six bank accounts that regularly contained more than £8,000 in savings, and sometimes as much as £15,000.
A council spokeswoman said: “Mr Clansey admitted having undeclared bank accounts, but said that he had been loaned the money by friends or parents and had made money from the sale of two motorbikes. However, he denied knowledge of some of the accounts, even though they were in his name.”
htp Dave
He was given a 12-month community order, told to complete 240 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay costs of £75.
Magistrates heard he failed to declare six bank accounts that regularly contained more than £8,000 in savings, and sometimes as much as £15,000.
A council spokeswoman said: “Mr Clansey admitted having undeclared bank accounts, but said that he had been loaned the money by friends or parents and had made money from the sale of two motorbikes. However, he denied knowledge of some of the accounts, even though they were in his name.”
- There is no word in the report of repayment.
People convicted of benefit fraud should have to repay twice the amount and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have.
htp Dave
Judge Mary Mowat fails in her duty
A benefit cheat escaped a jail sentence on Thursday after sponging nearly £22,700 of hand-outs from the Royal Borough of Windsor.
Childminder Carol Henwood, who shared her Woodlands Park home with her husband Graham, lied to council officers saying that she was a single parent living alone, meaning she was paid thousands in housing and council tax benefits.
But the mother, who the judge said was living a 'fraudulent way of life', was snared for the four year fraud after a benefits verification officer visited her home.
Judge Mary Mowat sentenced her at Oxford Crown Court to 51 weeks in jail, suspended for 12 months, and 200 hours of community service. She has already agreed to pay back the council in the region of £30 a week.
"I could send you to prison for something like nine or even 12 months but you are a lady of good character. You are now managing to pay back the money you obtained, albeit in small bits," she said.
Jacqueline McIntosh, defending, said that there was no indication Henwood was living a 'lavish lifestyle'.
The reasoning of Judge Mary Mowat is bizarre. Mrs Henwood is not "a lady of good character". She's a thief who stole money from taxpayers for four years.
She will effectively be paid over £100 an hour for her community service.
If we're lucky we'll see annual reductions of £1,500 on a debt of more than £22,000 - and that's without taking account of interest.
If this is how judges sentence, no wonder government wants more stringent guidelines. Judge Mary Mowat has failed in her duty.
Childminder Carol Henwood, who shared her Woodlands Park home with her husband Graham, lied to council officers saying that she was a single parent living alone, meaning she was paid thousands in housing and council tax benefits.
But the mother, who the judge said was living a 'fraudulent way of life', was snared for the four year fraud after a benefits verification officer visited her home.
Judge Mary Mowat sentenced her at Oxford Crown Court to 51 weeks in jail, suspended for 12 months, and 200 hours of community service. She has already agreed to pay back the council in the region of £30 a week.
"I could send you to prison for something like nine or even 12 months but you are a lady of good character. You are now managing to pay back the money you obtained, albeit in small bits," she said.
Jacqueline McIntosh, defending, said that there was no indication Henwood was living a 'lavish lifestyle'.
The reasoning of Judge Mary Mowat is bizarre. Mrs Henwood is not "a lady of good character". She's a thief who stole money from taxpayers for four years.
She will effectively be paid over £100 an hour for her community service.
If we're lucky we'll see annual reductions of £1,500 on a debt of more than £22,000 - and that's without taking account of interest.
If this is how judges sentence, no wonder government wants more stringent guidelines. Judge Mary Mowat has failed in her duty.
30 Mar 2009
£36k benefit cheat jailed
Gillian Peel claimed income support, housing benefit, job seekers allowance and council tax while she was working, Leeds Crown Court heard.
Peel, of Garden Terrace, Criggelstone, Wakefield, swindled Wakefield Council and the DWP.
The court heard Peel struggled financially and was left isolated and vulnerable during an on-off relationship with her husband.
Rob Casey for Peel said: "She has struggled with the remorse, regret, shame and fear of what might happen today."
He added: "It had been hard for her to face up to the wrong-doing and that is why she got deeper and deeper in the mire."
Judge Geoffrey Marson QC jailed Peel for 10 months.
Peel had admitted seven charges of benefit fraud totalling £36,432 between October 2000 and October 2006.
We are not told why it only came to court in 2009.
Peel, of Garden Terrace, Criggelstone, Wakefield, swindled Wakefield Council and the DWP.
The court heard Peel struggled financially and was left isolated and vulnerable during an on-off relationship with her husband.
Rob Casey for Peel said: "She has struggled with the remorse, regret, shame and fear of what might happen today."
He added: "It had been hard for her to face up to the wrong-doing and that is why she got deeper and deeper in the mire."
Judge Geoffrey Marson QC jailed Peel for 10 months.
Peel had admitted seven charges of benefit fraud totalling £36,432 between October 2000 and October 2006.
We are not told why it only came to court in 2009.
Forest Hill couple jailed for £100k benefit fraud
David Simpkiss, aged 56, and Xuan Bui, aged 53, both of Vestris Road, Forest Hill, illegally claimed benefits from Lewisham Council worth £99,314.
Woolwich Crown Court heard on March 27 how Simpkiss pretended to be the landlord of a property in Vestris Road so Bui could claim housing and council tax benefits as the tenant.
They submitted false documents when claiming council tax and housing benefit, saying a man called David Thompson was the landlord and Bui was the tenant.
But it emerged they were a couple at that time and Simpkiss used the name David Thompson to conceal his identity and his relationship to Bui and their two children.
Evidence unearthed by investigating officers indicated Bui had built up an investment portfolio worth around £89,000.
However, the court heard some of the money was removed from Bui’s account once they realised officials were on to them.
In mitigation, it was claimed the couple, who had now split up, were sorry for their actions.
But Judge Charles Byers told them: “Those who steal money from a local authority or a publicly funded body steals from every honest taxpayer in the country.
“The money you steal deprives people who really need it.
“This was quite plainly a sophisticated fraud committed with supporting documents by two intelligent people who sought to gain for themselves.”
Simpkiss and Bui will have to repay the money in full and Lewisham Council is seeking a confiscation order of their assets.
They had both pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining money by deception.
Simpkiss was given 21 months in jail on each count, while Bui was given 15 months on each offence.
Woolwich Crown Court heard on March 27 how Simpkiss pretended to be the landlord of a property in Vestris Road so Bui could claim housing and council tax benefits as the tenant.
They submitted false documents when claiming council tax and housing benefit, saying a man called David Thompson was the landlord and Bui was the tenant.
But it emerged they were a couple at that time and Simpkiss used the name David Thompson to conceal his identity and his relationship to Bui and their two children.
Evidence unearthed by investigating officers indicated Bui had built up an investment portfolio worth around £89,000.
However, the court heard some of the money was removed from Bui’s account once they realised officials were on to them.
In mitigation, it was claimed the couple, who had now split up, were sorry for their actions.
But Judge Charles Byers told them: “Those who steal money from a local authority or a publicly funded body steals from every honest taxpayer in the country.
“The money you steal deprives people who really need it.
“This was quite plainly a sophisticated fraud committed with supporting documents by two intelligent people who sought to gain for themselves.”
Simpkiss and Bui will have to repay the money in full and Lewisham Council is seeking a confiscation order of their assets.
They had both pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining money by deception.
Simpkiss was given 21 months in jail on each count, while Bui was given 15 months on each offence.
Light sentences in Lambeth
The court has bent over backwards not to send anyone to jail. A journalist who stole nearly £30,000 avoided prison "because she promised to pay back the money". And a woman who stole almost £16,000 just got 140 hours of community work and pay court costs of £150.
Four (? - I can only see three) fraudsters tracked down and taken to court by Lambeth Council have all been found guilty and sentenced.
Two - a freelance journalist who claimed £29,782, and a Southwark Council employee who wrongly claimed £8,458 - were handed suspended prison sentences.
Journalist Lynne Constable, who misled the council about her earnings for four-and-a-half years, only avoided directly being sent to jail because she promised to pay back the money.
Southwark employee Ben Sidibe, who failed to advise Lambeth of his wife’s earnings and also of the fact that he held a second job, was ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work.
Gwendolin Spencer, of Upper Tulse Hill, who pleaded guilty at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court on March 17 to housing and council tax benefit fraud totalling £15,775.88, was ordered to do 140 hours of community work and pay court costs of £150.
She failed to advise Lambeth that her husband, a company director, was living with her.
Four (? - I can only see three) fraudsters tracked down and taken to court by Lambeth Council have all been found guilty and sentenced.
Two - a freelance journalist who claimed £29,782, and a Southwark Council employee who wrongly claimed £8,458 - were handed suspended prison sentences.
Journalist Lynne Constable, who misled the council about her earnings for four-and-a-half years, only avoided directly being sent to jail because she promised to pay back the money.
Southwark employee Ben Sidibe, who failed to advise Lambeth of his wife’s earnings and also of the fact that he held a second job, was ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work.
Gwendolin Spencer, of Upper Tulse Hill, who pleaded guilty at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court on March 17 to housing and council tax benefit fraud totalling £15,775.88, was ordered to do 140 hours of community work and pay court costs of £150.
She failed to advise Lambeth that her husband, a company director, was living with her.
£28k benefits cheat rightly jailed
Some benefits cheats fail to declare substantial savings. When they're caught they repay the money, and this often brings them a trivial sentence. Not so here, and well done the Judge.
There remains the question of repayment. That should include any profits he made.
A benefits cheat who pocketed £27,990 he was not entitled to has been jailed for eight months.
At one stage, Riaz Ahmed had secret bank accounts holding more than £50,000.
He also failed to declare buying a £120,000 house, in Roseneath Avenue, Northfields, to rent out – bringing in up to £600 a month. He later sold the property for a £20,000 profit. Ahmed (64), of Ironworks Road, Belgrave, also kept quiet about taking on the lease of an industrial unit.
He pleaded guilty to three charges of making false representations and failing to notify the authorities of a change in his circumstances.
John Hallissey, prosecuting, told Leicester Crown Court that Ahmed dishonestly received £23,297 in housing benefit and £4,693 in council tax benefit between 2002 and 2007.
Ahmed originally filled in a claim form wrongly, stating he had one bank account with a balance of £129.
He failed to reveal other accounts he and his wife had, which contained several thousand pounds, or that he held the tenancy on a business unit in Spinney Hill, Leicester. Justine Robinson, defending, said Ahmed, who had no previous convictions, had repaid the council tax money and was in negotiations about refunding the housing benefit.
She said: "He would be at pains to say he has not lived the life of Riley on the taxpayer. He is a family man, married with two children."
There remains the question of repayment. That should include any profits he made.
A benefits cheat who pocketed £27,990 he was not entitled to has been jailed for eight months.
At one stage, Riaz Ahmed had secret bank accounts holding more than £50,000.
He also failed to declare buying a £120,000 house, in Roseneath Avenue, Northfields, to rent out – bringing in up to £600 a month. He later sold the property for a £20,000 profit. Ahmed (64), of Ironworks Road, Belgrave, also kept quiet about taking on the lease of an industrial unit.
He pleaded guilty to three charges of making false representations and failing to notify the authorities of a change in his circumstances.
John Hallissey, prosecuting, told Leicester Crown Court that Ahmed dishonestly received £23,297 in housing benefit and £4,693 in council tax benefit between 2002 and 2007.
Ahmed originally filled in a claim form wrongly, stating he had one bank account with a balance of £129.
He failed to reveal other accounts he and his wife had, which contained several thousand pounds, or that he held the tenancy on a business unit in Spinney Hill, Leicester. Justine Robinson, defending, said Ahmed, who had no previous convictions, had repaid the council tax money and was in negotiations about refunding the housing benefit.
She said: "He would be at pains to say he has not lived the life of Riley on the taxpayer. He is a family man, married with two children."
DWP dawdling?
This woman was first interviewed under caution back in 2007, but her case has only come to court in March 2009.
The order to repay is just a joke - £15 a week is merely a gesture.
A MUM-OF-SIX was yesterday ordered to carry out 200 hours community service after dishonestly claiming £16,000 in benefits.
Rachel Thompson pleaded guilty to two counts of benefit fraud at Wrexham magistrates’ court.
She will now have to pay the money back at £15 a week – and this could take her take 20 years.
Thompson of Maes Pengwern, Llangollen, should have told the authorities she was living with her partner Gareth Lewis between October 2005 to October 2006, which would have altered what she was entitled to.
Instead the 39-year-old continued to claim income support, housing benefit and council tax rebate as if she was a single parent.
She was caught after a joint investigation by the Department for Work and Pensions and Denbighshire County Council.
At Wrexham magistrates’ court yesterday DWP prosecutor Henry Hills said Thompson should have been aware how much she could claim.
“Miss Thompson would have received leaflets which would have told her that she had to report any change of circumstances,” he said.
“Officers at the department and Denbighshire County Council interviewed her under caution in 2007. At the time she denied that he was living with her.”
Defending, Stephen Edwards said: “There was an issue on whether he was living with her on a full-time basis.
“We have now accepted that he was more with her than away from her.
“She did not get a lot of maintenance from him and the only thing he really paid for was the Sky subscription.
“She has six dependants and the level of benefits she receives is quite high.
“She has since regulated her benefits and the amount she is entitled to.”
Yesterday district Judge Andrew Shaw said it was a large sum of cash that had to be paid back.
“You have pleaded guilty to this at a pre-trial review.
“But it is a large amount of money,” he said.
He ordered her to carry out 200 hours unpaid work over the next 18 months.
Judge Shaw warned her she had to complete the unpaid work or find herself in further trouble.
“If you do not you then you will be brought back to court,” he said.
Prosecution costs of £150 were also awarded against her.
The order to repay is just a joke - £15 a week is merely a gesture.
A MUM-OF-SIX was yesterday ordered to carry out 200 hours community service after dishonestly claiming £16,000 in benefits.
Rachel Thompson pleaded guilty to two counts of benefit fraud at Wrexham magistrates’ court.
She will now have to pay the money back at £15 a week – and this could take her take 20 years.
Thompson of Maes Pengwern, Llangollen, should have told the authorities she was living with her partner Gareth Lewis between October 2005 to October 2006, which would have altered what she was entitled to.
Instead the 39-year-old continued to claim income support, housing benefit and council tax rebate as if she was a single parent.
She was caught after a joint investigation by the Department for Work and Pensions and Denbighshire County Council.
At Wrexham magistrates’ court yesterday DWP prosecutor Henry Hills said Thompson should have been aware how much she could claim.
“Miss Thompson would have received leaflets which would have told her that she had to report any change of circumstances,” he said.
“Officers at the department and Denbighshire County Council interviewed her under caution in 2007. At the time she denied that he was living with her.”
Defending, Stephen Edwards said: “There was an issue on whether he was living with her on a full-time basis.
“We have now accepted that he was more with her than away from her.
“She did not get a lot of maintenance from him and the only thing he really paid for was the Sky subscription.
“She has six dependants and the level of benefits she receives is quite high.
“She has since regulated her benefits and the amount she is entitled to.”
Yesterday district Judge Andrew Shaw said it was a large sum of cash that had to be paid back.
“You have pleaded guilty to this at a pre-trial review.
“But it is a large amount of money,” he said.
He ordered her to carry out 200 hours unpaid work over the next 18 months.
Judge Shaw warned her she had to complete the unpaid work or find herself in further trouble.
“If you do not you then you will be brought back to court,” he said.
Prosecution costs of £150 were also awarded against her.
28 Mar 2009
£29k benefits cheat jailed
David Bracewell from Brierfield, who lied his way to £28,837 of taxpayers' cash, has been jailed for nine months.
He did not tell the DWP his wife was working in Asda. The defendant, said to have intellectual limitations, later claimed he forgot.
Mr Bracewell, whose wife Victoria has since set up home with his brother, had admitted allegations of failing to notify a change in circumstances, between 2003 and 2007.
Sentencing, Recorder Suzanne Goddard QC told Bracewell: "You knew you should have been declaring it. You clearly knew what you were doing. There must be an immediate custodial sentence."
He did not tell the DWP his wife was working in Asda. The defendant, said to have intellectual limitations, later claimed he forgot.
Mr Bracewell, whose wife Victoria has since set up home with his brother, had admitted allegations of failing to notify a change in circumstances, between 2003 and 2007.
Sentencing, Recorder Suzanne Goddard QC told Bracewell: "You knew you should have been declaring it. You clearly knew what you were doing. There must be an immediate custodial sentence."
Jail for £23k benefit fraud
Fiona Douglas, from Fartown, fraudulently claimed more than £23,000 in benefits which she was not entitled to.
She was sentenced to six months imprisonment.
Ms Douglas admitted she had been working at John Cottons’ mill in Huddersfield Road for more than 16 hours per week. Yet she continued claiming Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit between 2004 and 2006.
She was sentenced to six months imprisonment.
Ms Douglas admitted she had been working at John Cottons’ mill in Huddersfield Road for more than 16 hours per week. Yet she continued claiming Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit between 2004 and 2006.
27 Mar 2009
Nurse escapes jail for £8k benefit fraud
Ismail Salih claimed housing benefits of £8,203 between January 2006 and August 2007, yet in reality he was working as a nurse and also received a student income.
The case came to light via the National Fraud Initiative, an Audit Commission data match exercise, which tallied Mr Salih’s details on a benefit claim and as a senior staff nurse working for Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust.
The basis of his benefit claim was that he was a single parent of one child and was working part time. But an investigation by the council’s corporate anti-fraud team revealed that the married father-of-two had always worked full time as a senior staff nurse for the NHS.
He also failed to declare a property he owned in Plumstead, where it was established his wife and second child lived. And he failed to declare that he was financially supported as a student by Croydon Council and the student loan company between January 2002 and October 2007 to the value of £38,000.
Hang on - was he not claiming the housing benefit from Croydon Council?
Mr Salih was given a three-month suspended sentence and 160 hours unpaid community work. He was told to pay £3,000 towards legal costs. He must also pay back the housing benefit he received to which he was not entitled.
The case came to light via the National Fraud Initiative, an Audit Commission data match exercise, which tallied Mr Salih’s details on a benefit claim and as a senior staff nurse working for Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust.
The basis of his benefit claim was that he was a single parent of one child and was working part time. But an investigation by the council’s corporate anti-fraud team revealed that the married father-of-two had always worked full time as a senior staff nurse for the NHS.
He also failed to declare a property he owned in Plumstead, where it was established his wife and second child lived. And he failed to declare that he was financially supported as a student by Croydon Council and the student loan company between January 2002 and October 2007 to the value of £38,000.
Hang on - was he not claiming the housing benefit from Croydon Council?
Mr Salih was given a three-month suspended sentence and 160 hours unpaid community work. He was told to pay £3,000 towards legal costs. He must also pay back the housing benefit he received to which he was not entitled.
Jail for £60k benefit fraud
A benefit cheat who fiddled £60,818 in payouts has been jailed for 18 months after being branded an unscrupulous sponger.
Julie Button appeared at Ipswich Crown Court after previously being convicted of charges of deception and making false declarations to obtain benefit.
Sentencing Button, Judge Peter Thompson said that over a period of five years and three months she had been “totally dishonest”.
He added that the 18-month sentence was the most lenient he could give as a deterrent, so future offenders did not think they could cheat those who pay their taxes.
Button had made claims to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit as a lone parent, but in fact she was living with her partner who was in full-time work as a lorry driver.
The period of the fraud was extensive as it started in October 2001 and involved fraudulent claims made when Button lived in the Stowmarket, Colchester and Basildon areas.
Court records now list the 43-year-old, a mother to children aged four and ten, as living in Dagenham.
Julie Button appeared at Ipswich Crown Court after previously being convicted of charges of deception and making false declarations to obtain benefit.
Sentencing Button, Judge Peter Thompson said that over a period of five years and three months she had been “totally dishonest”.
He added that the 18-month sentence was the most lenient he could give as a deterrent, so future offenders did not think they could cheat those who pay their taxes.
Button had made claims to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit as a lone parent, but in fact she was living with her partner who was in full-time work as a lorry driver.
The period of the fraud was extensive as it started in October 2001 and involved fraudulent claims made when Button lived in the Stowmarket, Colchester and Basildon areas.
Court records now list the 43-year-old, a mother to children aged four and ten, as living in Dagenham.
- What about paying us back?
People convicted of benefit fraud should have to repay twice the amount and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have.
Benefit cheat to pay back all £24k
This headline is way too optimistic. William Sykes fraudulently claimed £10,900 income support, £3,350 housing benefit, £1,445 council tax benefit and £8,950 disability living allowance while working in his wife's café. He has been jailed for nine months.
Evidently the couple have no assets. They have lived in the same council house for 24 years. So repayment will come from any future benefits! As the report says, this "could mean Sykes will be repaying the money for the rest of his days".
Evidently the couple have no assets. They have lived in the same council house for 24 years. So repayment will come from any future benefits! As the report says, this "could mean Sykes will be repaying the money for the rest of his days".
- People convicted of benefit fraud should have to repay twice the amount and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have.
£32k benefit cheat escapes jail
A benefits cheat who fiddled more than £30,000 from the state and Tamworth Borough Council has escaped a jail sentence.
David Clark claimed a whole range of hand-outs, including severe disability living allowance whilst working as a loader for a logistics firm, Stafford Crown Court heard.
Mr Neil Chawla, prosecuting, said Clark was also paid income support, Council Tax and Housing Benefit on the basis he was unable to work due to his health.
"His duties required a physical and mental condition very far different from that he declared," said Mr Chawla.
The total amount of money he received that he was not entitled to was £32,102.
Clark, aged 54, formerly of Quince, Tamworth, admitted four charges of benefit fraud committed between July 2004 and October 2007.
Now living in Skegness, Lincolnshire, he was given a nine-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months.
Mr Chawla said Clark began claiming income support in 1998 and then severe disability allowance in 1999.
The claims were originally genuine but he failed to notify the Department of Works and Pensions of his change of circumstances.
Mr Desmond Rosario, defending, said Clark had been left immobilised as a result of a stroke and other conditions.
His wife then became very ill and they claimed jointly.
Clark had a share in an £80,000 bungalow in Skegness and had a desire and an ability to repay the money.
"One of the reasons he went back to work was that he wanted the company," Mr Rosario added.
David Clark claimed a whole range of hand-outs, including severe disability living allowance whilst working as a loader for a logistics firm, Stafford Crown Court heard.
Mr Neil Chawla, prosecuting, said Clark was also paid income support, Council Tax and Housing Benefit on the basis he was unable to work due to his health.
"His duties required a physical and mental condition very far different from that he declared," said Mr Chawla.
The total amount of money he received that he was not entitled to was £32,102.
Clark, aged 54, formerly of Quince, Tamworth, admitted four charges of benefit fraud committed between July 2004 and October 2007.
Now living in Skegness, Lincolnshire, he was given a nine-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months.
Mr Chawla said Clark began claiming income support in 1998 and then severe disability allowance in 1999.
The claims were originally genuine but he failed to notify the Department of Works and Pensions of his change of circumstances.
Mr Desmond Rosario, defending, said Clark had been left immobilised as a result of a stroke and other conditions.
His wife then became very ill and they claimed jointly.
Clark had a share in an £80,000 bungalow in Skegness and had a desire and an ability to repay the money.
"One of the reasons he went back to work was that he wanted the company," Mr Rosario added.
26 Mar 2009
DWP incompetence
There are some interesting cases today, illustrating various shortcomings in the benefits system that hands out our money with minimal checks.
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:
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.
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.
Reigate man prosecuted for £652 benefit fraud
Thomas Kelly claimed £652 in housing benefit to which he was not entitled after he failed to declare his Incapacity Benefit had ceased, and that he had started work. He was given a £250 fine and ordered to pay £200 costs to Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.
The council was first alerted to Mr Kelly’s change in circumstances by his landlord, who was in receipt of the benefit.
Note that it was left to Mr Kelly to declare his incapacity benefit had ceased. In this age of computers, why?
The council say it's their policy to take legal action against people who fail to notify a change of circumstances that they know would affect their claim to benefit - as it is at nearby Tandridge.
The punishment is also notable. For this small offence the fine and costs alone amount to 69% of the amount stolen.
Larger thefts aren't punished proportionately.
The council was first alerted to Mr Kelly’s change in circumstances by his landlord, who was in receipt of the benefit.
Note that it was left to Mr Kelly to declare his incapacity benefit had ceased. In this age of computers, why?
The council say it's their policy to take legal action against people who fail to notify a change of circumstances that they know would affect their claim to benefit - as it is at nearby Tandridge.
The punishment is also notable. For this small offence the fine and costs alone amount to 69% of the amount stolen.
Larger thefts aren't punished proportionately
Jail for £40k benefit fraud
Sarah Martin from Sprowston, who falsely claimed £39,637 of benefits over a four year period, has been jailed - just for four months.
She told the authorities she was a single mother living without support when she was living with her partner.
Her first false claim was in March 2003, and she continued claiming until April 2007 when the dishonesty was uncovered after neighbours told the authorities her partner had been living there all along.
Over the four year period Martin falsely claimed £24,870 in income support, £11,759 in housing benefit and £2,908 in council tax benefit.
After originally denying all 10 charges Ms Martin faced a joint trial with her partner Carl Sutton, but after she pleaded guilty the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) dropped its case against Mr Sutton.
Her lawyer said she had spent the money on her three young children, a daughter aged seven and two sons aged four and one. This is supposedly mitigation. Why? Most mothers would like more money to spend on their children.
The Judge said he had reduced the sentence from six months to four. What message does this send?
£10k a month.
Worth a punt??
She told the authorities she was a single mother living without support when she was living with her partner.
Her first false claim was in March 2003, and she continued claiming until April 2007 when the dishonesty was uncovered after neighbours told the authorities her partner had been living there all along.
Over the four year period Martin falsely claimed £24,870 in income support, £11,759 in housing benefit and £2,908 in council tax benefit.
After originally denying all 10 charges Ms Martin faced a joint trial with her partner Carl Sutton, but after she pleaded guilty the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) dropped its case against Mr Sutton.
Her lawyer said she had spent the money on her three young children, a daughter aged seven and two sons aged four and one. This is supposedly mitigation. Why? Most mothers would like more money to spend on their children.
“The main point in mitigation is the welfare of her three children. They are very young and really very reliant on her. It can be rightfully argued that she should have thought of that before her offences - but these children haven't asked to be deprived of their mother at such a critical time in their lives. They are going to grow up with their mother in prison for social security fraud.”So mothers should be let off?
The Judge said he had reduced the sentence from six months to four. What message does this send?
£10k a month.
Worth a punt??
Warrant issued for alleged £43k benefits cheat
AN arrest warrant has been issued for a Newbury woman accused of fraudulently claiming £43,654 in benefits after she failed to appear in court.
The DWP alleges that between 2004 and 2007 Diane Dore failed to inform the authorities that she was married and living with her husband.
The DWP alleges that between 2004 and 2007 Diane Dore failed to inform the authorities that she was married and living with her husband.
Jailed for £35k benefit fraud
James Smith, 48, illegally claimed almost £35,000 in benefits before an anonymous tip-off led investigators to discover his claims that he struggled to walk 65ft were false.
They filmed him pushing a wrecked Mini Metro around his father's yard in Chorley, Lancs., as well as operating heavy machinery.
He was jailed for 10 months.
In May 1999 he legitimately started claiming income support for medical reasons. In 2005, he filled in a form saying he was breathless even sitting down, struggled to get out of a chair, could not walk more than 65ft and used a walking stick. He also claimed he needed help getting in and out of bed, using the lavatory and getting dressed.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that in 2006 Mr Smith took over the running of his father's scrapyard. He did not inform the authorities.
After receiving a tip-off benefits officials staged the investigation.
They found he had wrongly accepted just over £6,000 in disability living allowance between November 2006 and January 2008 and £12,610 in income support between April 2006 and December 2007.
According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Smith had received the highest rate of disability living allowance because he had claimed he was incapable of caring for himself due to a disabled leg and an enlarged heart.
The investigation also found he had illegally claimed just over £16,000 in housing benefit from August 2004 to January 2008 for a property in Birkdale, Southport, that was owned by his parents, for which he actually paid no rent.
Jailing him for 10 months, Judge Nigel Gilmour said: "You pulled the wool over your doctor's eyes when describing your condition. You need punishment to deter you and to deter others who abuse the benefits system."
Did the business file no accounts? Pay no tax? If it did, data matching should have picked him up. If it didn't, HMRC should be calling.
And did no one trouble themselves to check the ownership of that house?
And who did he say was helping him to get in and out of bed?
There's more to this.
They filmed him pushing a wrecked Mini Metro around his father's yard in Chorley, Lancs., as well as operating heavy machinery.
He was jailed for 10 months.
In May 1999 he legitimately started claiming income support for medical reasons. In 2005, he filled in a form saying he was breathless even sitting down, struggled to get out of a chair, could not walk more than 65ft and used a walking stick. He also claimed he needed help getting in and out of bed, using the lavatory and getting dressed.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that in 2006 Mr Smith took over the running of his father's scrapyard. He did not inform the authorities.
After receiving a tip-off benefits officials staged the investigation.
They found he had wrongly accepted just over £6,000 in disability living allowance between November 2006 and January 2008 and £12,610 in income support between April 2006 and December 2007.
According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Smith had received the highest rate of disability living allowance because he had claimed he was incapable of caring for himself due to a disabled leg and an enlarged heart.
The investigation also found he had illegally claimed just over £16,000 in housing benefit from August 2004 to January 2008 for a property in Birkdale, Southport, that was owned by his parents, for which he actually paid no rent.
Jailing him for 10 months, Judge Nigel Gilmour said: "You pulled the wool over your doctor's eyes when describing your condition. You need punishment to deter you and to deter others who abuse the benefits system."
Did the business file no accounts? Pay no tax? If it did, data matching should have picked him up. If it didn't, HMRC should be calling.
And did no one trouble themselves to check the ownership of that house?
And who did he say was helping him to get in and out of bed?
There's more to this.
25 Mar 2009
Light sentences for £45k benefit fraud
A police civilian worker from Northamptonshire has been sacked after he and his wife repeatedly lied to fraudulently claim £45,419 in benefits.
Nigel Hargrave and his wife Diane separated in 1992, later reconciled, but then pretended to be living apart in order to be able to claim a number of benefits. They lived apart to appear separated but went on to have their second and third children together in 1999 and 2001.
Mrs Hargrave was given a single person discount on council tax by Daventry District Council as it was thought she was living alone, despite being supported by her husband, and received severe disability living allowance, which she would not be entitled to with a partner.
Diane Hargrave pleaded guilty to evading liability to pay council tax by deception and cheating the public purse. She was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 12 months supervision and six months of evening house arrest with a 7pm to 7am curfew from Monday to Friday.
Mr Hargrave, who admitted cheating the public purse and aiding and abetting his wife's deception, was also given 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 12 months' supervision and must do 300 hours community service.
They now face selling his home to pay a potential £45,000 confiscation order and £3,000 costs.
Nigel Hargrave and his wife Diane separated in 1992, later reconciled, but then pretended to be living apart in order to be able to claim a number of benefits. They lived apart to appear separated but went on to have their second and third children together in 1999 and 2001.
Mrs Hargrave was given a single person discount on council tax by Daventry District Council as it was thought she was living alone, despite being supported by her husband, and received severe disability living allowance, which she would not be entitled to with a partner.
Diane Hargrave pleaded guilty to evading liability to pay council tax by deception and cheating the public purse. She was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 12 months supervision and six months of evening house arrest with a 7pm to 7am curfew from Monday to Friday.
Mr Hargrave, who admitted cheating the public purse and aiding and abetting his wife's deception, was also given 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 12 months' supervision and must do 300 hours community service.
They now face selling his home to pay a potential £45,000 confiscation order and £3,000 costs.
- The paper reports that "Anti Fraud Minister" Tony McNulty said: "Benefit thieves have to understand that they will not get away with it.
"Working together with local authorities and the police we have a strong range of powers to investigate and with the support of the public we bring benefit thieves to justice.
"When people commit benefit theft, they face imprisonment, fines and other penalties. We will also make sure they pay back the money they have stolen from the taxpayer and seek to ensure any proceeds from their crime are confiscated too."
Mr McNulty, of course, fraudulently claimed expenses for the house where his parents live.
Benefit cheat gets nine months for £40k fraud
Peter Collier, who claimed more than £40,000 in overpayments, has been jailed for nine months.
Mr Collier had been claiming he lived alone when in fact he had been living with his partner. But the pair had joint finances, and had been on holiday together.
Mr Collier had been claiming he lived alone when in fact he had been living with his partner. But the pair had joint finances, and had been on holiday together.
24 Mar 2009
Benefit fraud in Norwich
Norwich Evening News has run an article about detection of benefit fraud in Norwich.
Nothing new, just a puff piece.
Nothing new, just a puff piece.
Drawn out legal process to recover benefit fraud
Timothy Phillips has been convicted of falsely claiming £4,365 in benefits. He was given a 12-week suspended jail term, 158 hours' unpaid work and ordered to repay £100 in costs by Redhill magistrates.
He had received housing and council tax benefit from September 2006, based on his claim he was unemployed, but in January 2008 Tandridge Council's benefits team got a tip-off that he had a full time job.
Tandridge Council claim to take an unusually hard line: "Benefit fraud is theft of public money and we will always prosecute".
The court was told that the council and the DWP will be seeking to recover the overpayment from Mr Phillips.
But the legal system should allow an order to be made at the same hearing.
htp Dave
He had received housing and council tax benefit from September 2006, based on his claim he was unemployed, but in January 2008 Tandridge Council's benefits team got a tip-off that he had a full time job.
Tandridge Council claim to take an unusually hard line: "Benefit fraud is theft of public money and we will always prosecute".
The court was told that the council and the DWP will be seeking to recover the overpayment from Mr Phillips.
But the legal system should allow an order to be made at the same hearing.
htp Dave
Fraudulent sick pay claims
Johanna McLean, who went off work with back pain, continued to go to her second job — raking in £14,000 in sick pay. The fiscal depute told the court:
htp Dave
The accused was employed by West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) as a day care assistant in Old Kilpatrick.Her lawyer said that the council is now going to recoup the money in full by claiming it back through Ms McLean’s pension fund. But the Sheriff deferred sentence to clarify if WDC will definitely be reimbursed with all its money.
WDC is part of the National Fraud Initiative which is used to try to detect fraud cases.
As a result of this initiative the accused was noted to also be employed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, working thirty-three-hours per week with them.
Enquiries were carried out and it was found that this lady held two jobs but her level of sickness absence [with WDC] was high because she could not be in two places at one time.
When the matter came to light she was spoken to by police and she made full and frank admissions about what she had been doing.”
htp Dave
Tax credit fraud
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reports that tax credits continue to suffer from high rates of error and fraud.
HMRC estimate that in 2006–07 claimant error and fraud led to incorrect payments of between £1.31 billion and £1.54 billion (7.2% to 8.4% of the final value of awards). 1.3 million families were overpaid in 2006-7 ... that HMRC know of.
They plan to reduce claimant error and fraud to not more than 5% of the value of finalised awards by 2011. They say they are strengthening their measures for deterrence and prevention through better risk profiling, improving the deployment of compliance resources, and making better use of other data to allow them to corroborate information from claimants.
In 2007–08, the Department’s compliance teams identified or prevented £337 million of incorrect payments from their checks on 157,000 of the highest risk claims, less than 3% of the claimant population. The yield in these cases averaged some £235,000 for each member of the compliance team and over £2,000 for each case investigated.
In the light of the levels of error and fraud currently being detected by its compliance teams, the PCC say that HMRC should reassess the number of checks performed on high risk claims and consider whether they should be increased.
So how much of these huge figures is error, and how much is fraud?
The PAC say HMRC's current definition of fraud risks overstating the level of genuine error and understating those cases where claimants are setting out to exploit the scheme. The Department classifies cases as fraud only where it has evidence that the claimant deliberately set out to misrepresent their circumstances, and estimates that these amount to 10% of the losses due to error and fraud.
Even that would be £154m.
The PAC say the Department‘s response to fraud should take full account of those groups who set out to exploit the scheme even though it may not have clear evidence of an intention to defraud.
Of course it suits the government to keep the figures for fraud as low as possible. Surely HMRC has internal statistical estimates of the likely extent of undetected fraud. But it is politically convenient if HMRC does not make them public.
HMRC estimate that in 2006–07 claimant error and fraud led to incorrect payments of between £1.31 billion and £1.54 billion (7.2% to 8.4% of the final value of awards). 1.3 million families were overpaid in 2006-7 ... that HMRC know of.
They plan to reduce claimant error and fraud to not more than 5% of the value of finalised awards by 2011. They say they are strengthening their measures for deterrence and prevention through better risk profiling, improving the deployment of compliance resources, and making better use of other data to allow them to corroborate information from claimants.
In 2007–08, the Department’s compliance teams identified or prevented £337 million of incorrect payments from their checks on 157,000 of the highest risk claims, less than 3% of the claimant population. The yield in these cases averaged some £235,000 for each member of the compliance team and over £2,000 for each case investigated.
In the light of the levels of error and fraud currently being detected by its compliance teams, the PCC say that HMRC should reassess the number of checks performed on high risk claims and consider whether they should be increased.
So how much of these huge figures is error, and how much is fraud?
The PAC say HMRC's current definition of fraud risks overstating the level of genuine error and understating those cases where claimants are setting out to exploit the scheme. The Department classifies cases as fraud only where it has evidence that the claimant deliberately set out to misrepresent their circumstances, and estimates that these amount to 10% of the losses due to error and fraud.
Even that would be £154m.
The PAC say the Department‘s response to fraud should take full account of those groups who set out to exploit the scheme even though it may not have clear evidence of an intention to defraud.
Of course it suits the government to keep the figures for fraud as low as possible. Surely HMRC has internal statistical estimates of the likely extent of undetected fraud. But it is politically convenient if HMRC does not make them public.
Jailed for single person discounts fraud
Teresa Richardson, from Farnham Common, illegally claimed housing and council tax benefits of nearly £23,000 as a single person, despite living with a partner. She also failed to inform the council about various periods of employment.
She has been jailed for 20 weeks.
She has been jailed for 20 weeks.
23 Mar 2009
Social housing fraud revisited
Housing is in the news this week. Tony McNulty has been revealed claiming second home allowance for a house where his parents live. Yes, he is the minister who presides over benefit fraud of £2bn a year.A BBC report shows how his government's control of social housing is in disarray. They whack out taxpayers' money without knowing how much of it is leaking away. Just as with blue badges, fraud is almost unchecked.
Jonathan Maitland on Sunday concentrated on social housing fraud, where cheap social housing is fraudulently sub-let, usually at a profit. In some inner city areas people can make more than £12,000 a year from subletting, he says - money rarely declared to the Inland Revenue.
He picks up the role of the National Fraud Initiative, which in 2006 and 2007 only led to 75 properties being recovered, all of them in England.
A Freedom Of Information request to London councils alone showed they had recovered more than 560 properties from illegal tenants in the last year.He points out there are more than 70,000 people currently in desperate need of housing, more than two thirds of them in London. It is thought two million people could be on English housing waiting lists by 2011. The Audit Commission argues that every property recovered from unlawful occupancy saves a local authority or housing association £75,000.
The NFI - carried out by the Audit Commission and which also covers Wales and Scotland - cannot highlight cases where someone might be registered to only one council house but is actually living with a friend or relative while renting out the property to make a profit.
And only 49 of the several thousand housing associations in the UK took part in the exercise.
Experts say illegal subletting doesn't seem to be a problem in Wales or Scotland - but say there is evidence of this fraud, albeit it on a smaller scale, going on in south-west England, the Midlands and Northern Ireland.
Experts estimate that 5% of social housing properties in inner city areas could be being unlawfully sublet.Southwark, he reports, has a dedicated team of housing investigators specially trained to interview suspected tenancy fraudsters and find evidence using various data. Between them they recover more than 100 properties per year, saving hundreds of thousands of pounds.
With a stock of more than 750,000 in the capital alone, a huge amount of money is at stake.
If London authorities can recover more than 560 homes each year, how much is social housing fraud in total?
And where are the prosecutions?
21 Mar 2009
Incapacity benefit fraud understated
Alice Thomson contrasts those who want to work with those who want to do anything but.
David Freud has estimated that over a third of incapacity benefit claimants could work. So a total incapacity benefit fraud figure of £10m is fiction.
Mr and Mrs Chawner and their two daughters insist that they are “too fat to work” because they have a combined weight of 83 stone - so they watch television all day living off their £22,000 benefits. In the past 11 years, only the youngest daughter, Emma, has attended a job interview and that was on The X Factor, where she was kicked out in the first round. Mr Chawner explains: “Often I'm so tired from watching TV I have to have a nap. I certainly couldn't work. I deserve more.”Nearly eight million people of working age in Britain have been “economically inactive” for the past few years, she says - through the boom years.
More than 2.5 million of them are on incapacity benefit - of these 2,130 people are too “fat” to work; 1,100 can't work because they have trouble getting to sleep; 4,000 get headaches; 380 are confined to the sofa by haemorrhoids; 3,000 are kept at home by gout; and half a million are too depressed to get a job. According to Dame Carol Black, the National Director of Health and Work, one child in five now comes from a family where neither parent works, yet at the end of last year there were half a million job vacancies.Consider this alongside the government's numbers for benefit fraud. Their fictitious £800m total includes a mere £10m for incapacity benefit - 0.1% of the total.
David Freud has estimated that over a third of incapacity benefit claimants could work. So a total incapacity benefit fraud figure of £10m is fiction.
Yachting benefit fraudsters get jail
The yachting fraudsters have been jailed.
Shashi Bacheta was sentenced to 21 months, while Jeffrey Cole received nine months.
Shashi Bacheta was sentenced to 21 months, while Jeffrey Cole received nine months.
Should alcoholics get benefits?
The Manchester Evening News reports that over 4,000 alcoholics are claiming full-time disability benefits in Greater Manchester alone - landing taxpayers with a £10m annual bill.
The government says, "It is not the case that someone automatically gets Incapacity Benefit just because they are an alcoholic".
But the numbers tell us that something is badly wrong.
The government says, "It is not the case that someone automatically gets Incapacity Benefit just because they are an alcoholic".
But the numbers tell us that something is badly wrong.
20 Mar 2009
Single person discount frauds rolled back
After the last national fraud initiative, the National Audit Office said that
By way of background, we are told that over seven million householders are currently claiming single person discounts (SPDs) for council tax, and councils pay out over £2 billion every year. The full council tax bill assumes two adults living in a property; where only there is only one adult living in a property they can claim a council tax single person’s discount of 25 per cent.
Cautious estimates for the full exercise, based on work carried out so far at pilot sites, suggest that the impact could exceed £200 million nationally.What follows reads as a publicity puff, but the numbers are persuasive.
By way of background, we are told that over seven million householders are currently claiming single person discounts (SPDs) for council tax, and councils pay out over £2 billion every year. The full council tax bill assumes two adults living in a property; where only there is only one adult living in a property they can claim a council tax single person’s discount of 25 per cent.
Five million pounds has been saved in 2008 by local authorities working in unique rewards-based partnerships with Northgate Public Services to promote quality and assurance in Council Tax services through targeting ineligible discounts for single people.
According to the Audit Commission, up to £200 million of single person discounts (SPD) may be being claimed ineligibly every year, increasing the pressures on hard pressed local authorities to meet the diverse needs of vulnerable communities.
Figures released by Northgate today indicate that the median average of ineligible discounts for local authorities for whom they have provided their unique review services in England in 2008 was six percent, resulting in a millions of pounds increase in the tax base for a growing number of local authorities who are participating in the scheme.
In unique public private partnerships that link fees to performance, offering councils a self-financing approach to sharing risk with the private sector, Northgate provides local authorities with a fully managed SPD review service. This helps to promote revenue assurance as an integral part of transforming revenue and benefits services based upon citizen need. Local authorities who sign up only pay up when cancellations have generated a direct cashable saving. Councils who have benefited from the service include Kirklees and Walsall.
Graham Beckett, Divisional Manager, Revenues, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, said today: “With the help of Northgate we ensured that people were paying the right amount of council tax and generated nearly £1 million in additional council tax.
“Effective data matching narrowed down the number of customers needing to be contacted directly, then a fully-managed service from Northgate, including dealing with all customer contact, ensured those discounts no longer applicable were removed and customers advised accordingly.”
Sharon Tait, Head of Revenues, Walsall Council said: “Following vigorous validation checks, 7.5% of our Single Person Discount claims were cancelled as a direct result of this exercise, combating fraud, reducing errors and saving valuable time".
19 Mar 2009
Organised crime targets benefit fraud
More detail has been released about mortgage frauds which were uncovered following an investigation into benefit frauds in Ipswich. We looked at this in June last year.
Nine people are on bail after being quizzed by police following raids on their homes, reports Ipswich's Evening Star.
What we get now is names around the alleged mortgage frauds, which it turns out have hit the national press.
The two central issues remain unresolved. The first is that the investigations are taking a long time and one wonders when anything will come to trial.
The second is the scale of benefit fraud. The perpetrators here made a slip. But how much is organised crime quietly extracting from the benefits system every week?
Even amateurs do pretty well out of benefit fraud. £2bn a year is a lot of rich pickings.
Nine people are on bail after being quizzed by police following raids on their homes, reports Ipswich's Evening Star.
The current investigation involves an alleged scam worth at least £6m by people who are said to have taken out inflated mortgages on properties at the Persimmon Homes' Orwell Quay development at Ipswich waterfront, before pocketing the difference.There follows a review of how the investigation started, which rehashes what we knew before.
The suspected fraud uncovered by the Ipswich Borough Council investigators led to the discovery of similar alleged swindles around the country in Manchester, Nottingham, Stoke, Leeds and Thamesmead near Dartford.
A series of inquiries headed up by City of London police are now under way. They are said to involve 10,000 victims with potential losses running into hundreds of millions of pounds.
What we get now is names around the alleged mortgage frauds, which it turns out have hit the national press.
This week's arrests centre around Eastbourne Financial Services Limited (EFS), a mortgage brokers based in East Sussex, which is currently in liquidation. The investigation involves mortgages taken out with Bradford and Bingley.We are told this is part of an ongoing investigation into a mortgage fraud affecting mortgages taken out on more than 500 properties in the South of England between 2005-2007.
The two central issues remain unresolved. The first is that the investigations are taking a long time and one wonders when anything will come to trial.
The second is the scale of benefit fraud. The perpetrators here made a slip. But how much is organised crime quietly extracting from the benefits system every week?
Even amateurs do pretty well out of benefit fraud. £2bn a year is a lot of rich pickings.
18 Mar 2009
Mother & son benefit cheats get off lightly
A Swansea man who claimed £11,268 in benefits while living in Thailand for 18 months was helped by his teacher mother, a court has heard.
Thomas Clancey even got married while overseas and Sybil Lloyd, from Llanelli, would fill in his forms and send them to him to sign.
Mr Clancey got away with a 12-month community order, while his mother was merely fined £750. Both have to pay £75 costs, and Ms Lloyd must also pay a £15 victims' surcharge!
Mr Clancey moved to Thailand in August 2005 and did not return until February 2007.
Whilst overseas he received severe disability allowance, housing benefit, council tax and income support. The money was paid to his mother, who would then transfer sums to his bank account in Thailand.
Mr Clancey initially denied doing anything wrong and said that "many people from the UK living in Thailand were also claiming benefits". During interview his mother answered "no comment" to all allegations put to her.
Yet in mitigation Simon Howell said both had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He said all the money had been paid back "at a very early stage in the investigation".
He said that when Clancey initially started claiming benefits they were genuine. He had suffered mental health and drug problems following the death of his brother which meant he could not work, said Mr Howells.
He didn't suffer drug problems, he took drugs. And the sentences are ridiculously light.
Thomas Clancey even got married while overseas and Sybil Lloyd, from Llanelli, would fill in his forms and send them to him to sign.
Mr Clancey got away with a 12-month community order, while his mother was merely fined £750. Both have to pay £75 costs, and Ms Lloyd must also pay a £15 victims' surcharge!
Mr Clancey moved to Thailand in August 2005 and did not return until February 2007.
Whilst overseas he received severe disability allowance, housing benefit, council tax and income support. The money was paid to his mother, who would then transfer sums to his bank account in Thailand.
Mr Clancey initially denied doing anything wrong and said that "many people from the UK living in Thailand were also claiming benefits". During interview his mother answered "no comment" to all allegations put to her.
Yet in mitigation Simon Howell said both had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He said all the money had been paid back "at a very early stage in the investigation".
He said that when Clancey initially started claiming benefits they were genuine. He had suffered mental health and drug problems following the death of his brother which meant he could not work, said Mr Howells.
He didn't suffer drug problems, he took drugs. And the sentences are ridiculously light.
17 Mar 2009
Lottery winner scores with benefit fraud
A lottery winner has been prosecuted after falsely claiming more than £18,000 in benefits.
Ian Baker, from Stapleford, did not tell Broxtowe Borough Council about a £135,000 lottery win in April 2004.
He also failed to tell the council about three bank accounts in his wife's name.
Mr Baker must pay back the money he claimed in housing and council tax benefit between October 2002 and August 2008 - at a rate of £15 per week. It will take him more than 23 years to pay back the amount he claimed.
On his original claim form in 2002 he had made false statements about the amount of income he had.
Magistrates ordered him to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work in the next 12 months after he pleaded guilty to two offences, and sentenced him to 180 days in prison suspended for a year.
That's effectively £120 an hour as this benefit cheat will never pay us back. Ridiculous.
Ian Baker, from Stapleford, did not tell Broxtowe Borough Council about a £135,000 lottery win in April 2004.
He also failed to tell the council about three bank accounts in his wife's name.
Mr Baker must pay back the money he claimed in housing and council tax benefit between October 2002 and August 2008 - at a rate of £15 per week. It will take him more than 23 years to pay back the amount he claimed.
On his original claim form in 2002 he had made false statements about the amount of income he had.
Magistrates ordered him to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work in the next 12 months after he pleaded guilty to two offences, and sentenced him to 180 days in prison suspended for a year.
That's effectively £120 an hour as this benefit cheat will never pay us back. Ridiculous.
Benefits were paid without checks
Seven people from Renfrewshire who took part in a massive child care benefit fraud have been jailed for a total of 14 years.
The four men and three women admitted making more than £300,000 in false claims while acting alone.
Paisley Sheriff Court heard how benefit staff cleared the claims without formal checks and only noticed the scam once it had been going for several years.
The total value of the fraudulent claims ranged from £27,500 to £55,000.
Eight people appeared in court charged with benefit fraud offences.
The court heard how all of the accused were either related or knew each other socially.
One of the accused, Gail Johnstone, 30, from Johnstone, admitted obtaining more than £12,000 to which she was not entitled. Sheriff Ruth Anderson ordered her to carry out 300 hours of community service as she had admitted her guilt from the start and was the only one who had made an effort to repay some of the money obtained.
Stephen Cameron, 26, David Meechan, 41, and Michael Meechan, 40, all from Johnstone, admitted obtaining more than £130,000 between them in separate frauds. They were jailed for 24 months, 27 months and 24 months respectively.
Eileen Meechan, 44, from Paisley and Lisa Cameron, 26, Theresa Cameron, 45, and Thomas Smart, 46, all from Johnstone, admitted obtaining more than £157,000 in separate frauds. They were jailed for 21 months, 24 months, 27 months and 21 months respectively.
Passing sentence, Sheriff Anderson said: "There is no doubt that the system was one in which there were no obvious checks in place to protect taxpayers money.
"The expression 'pay now, check later' has been used to describe what went on but I heard of no checks being carried out over a three-year period."
The four men and three women admitted making more than £300,000 in false claims while acting alone.
Paisley Sheriff Court heard how benefit staff cleared the claims without formal checks and only noticed the scam once it had been going for several years.
The total value of the fraudulent claims ranged from £27,500 to £55,000.
Eight people appeared in court charged with benefit fraud offences.
The court heard how all of the accused were either related or knew each other socially.
One of the accused, Gail Johnstone, 30, from Johnstone, admitted obtaining more than £12,000 to which she was not entitled. Sheriff Ruth Anderson ordered her to carry out 300 hours of community service as she had admitted her guilt from the start and was the only one who had made an effort to repay some of the money obtained.
Stephen Cameron, 26, David Meechan, 41, and Michael Meechan, 40, all from Johnstone, admitted obtaining more than £130,000 between them in separate frauds. They were jailed for 24 months, 27 months and 24 months respectively.
Eileen Meechan, 44, from Paisley and Lisa Cameron, 26, Theresa Cameron, 45, and Thomas Smart, 46, all from Johnstone, admitted obtaining more than £157,000 in separate frauds. They were jailed for 21 months, 24 months, 27 months and 21 months respectively.
Passing sentence, Sheriff Anderson said: "There is no doubt that the system was one in which there were no obvious checks in place to protect taxpayers money.
"The expression 'pay now, check later' has been used to describe what went on but I heard of no checks being carried out over a three-year period."
13 Mar 2009
Suspended sentence for £24k fraud
Claire Francis, from Stockton, started claiming income support in May 1997 and housing benefit and council tax benefit in April 2002, all legitimately. But the claims became dishonest as she did not tell the authorities that her working partner was living with her. She was overpaid £24,057 between September 2005 and October 2007.
Ms Francis and her partner, the children’s father, had a long-term but on-and-off relationship before they lived together and became a “nuclear family”, which still stands. Her lawyer said, “They work together to deal with their financial difficulties and to provide for their children, the eldest of whom has special needs".
Judge George Moorhouse told her they were offences over a relatively long period of time which were so serious as to justify a prison sentence. Neither her children nor financial problems justified the crimes, but bearing in mind her circumstances he suspended the nine-month sentence for two years with 18 months’ supervision.
The effect is that she's suffered no real punishment at all.
Ms Francis and her partner, the children’s father, had a long-term but on-and-off relationship before they lived together and became a “nuclear family”, which still stands. Her lawyer said, “They work together to deal with their financial difficulties and to provide for their children, the eldest of whom has special needs".
Judge George Moorhouse told her they were offences over a relatively long period of time which were so serious as to justify a prison sentence. Neither her children nor financial problems justified the crimes, but bearing in mind her circumstances he suspended the nine-month sentence for two years with 18 months’ supervision.
The effect is that she's suffered no real punishment at all.
10 Mar 2009
Prison for £38k benefit fraud
Andrew Clarke from Worcester failed to declare his employment for nearly five years while he fraudulently claimed benefits totalling more than £38,000. He has been sentenced to eight months in prison.
Biker couple toured Britain while claiming £50k disability benefit
Kevin Crawford from Liverpool motorbiked thousands of miles despite claiming that a damaged kneecap left him incapable of anything more than a gentle stroll. His wife was his pillion passenger even though she was supposedly so restricted by rheumatoid arthritis that she could not dress or go to the lavatory unaided.
But after photographs of them appeared on their biking club's website, benefit fraud investigators "tailed them as they went from festival to festival". Did the investigators really need to go to such lengths?
Mr Crawford was also filmed climbing up and down ladders and dragging cement mixers while running a double glazing business.
He has been jailed for 18 months for falsely claiming £36,000 in benefits. His wife, who falsely claimed £11,500, just got a six-month sentence suspended for two years.
The couple are due to be brought back to court for a proceeds of crime hearing - it has to be a separate hearing and it is not due until July. More delay, more lawyers' fees.
And who signed off these medical conditions? Did his business pay taxes? Somehow one suspects not. If it did, why did it take so long to stop the fraud?
But after photographs of them appeared on their biking club's website, benefit fraud investigators "tailed them as they went from festival to festival". Did the investigators really need to go to such lengths?
Mr Crawford was also filmed climbing up and down ladders and dragging cement mixers while running a double glazing business.
He has been jailed for 18 months for falsely claiming £36,000 in benefits. His wife, who falsely claimed £11,500, just got a six-month sentence suspended for two years.
The couple are due to be brought back to court for a proceeds of crime hearing - it has to be a separate hearing and it is not due until July. More delay, more lawyers' fees.
And who signed off these medical conditions? Did his business pay taxes? Somehow one suspects not. If it did, why did it take so long to stop the fraud?
9 Mar 2009
Breaking welfare dependency
There was a cracking set of pieces this weekend about welfare dependency, the reasons for it, and how to crack the cycle.
Glasgow Labour MP Tom Harris led off with an article in the Mail with the long title Why is it 'Left wing' to allow millions to live on benefits and let children get each other pregnant, asks the ex-minister who broke Labour's last taboo. From a Labour politician it's a ground breaking piece, concentrating on the social and moral breakdown that the structure if welfare benefits has caused - read it in full.
Fraser Nelson followed it up in the News of the World and a Spectator blog. He points out that a girl leaving school without qualifications can get far more money through being a single parent than she will from the sort of jobs that will be open to her. The disparity is huge.
Hence also (though he does not make this point) the huge temptation of benefit fraud, the subject of this blog. It's remunerative, you're not likely to get caught, and if you're unlucky the punishments are often minimal. Benefit fraud costs us at least £2bn every year.
More about this wider analysis of welfare dependency here. On this blog we continue to drill down into benefit fraud.
Glasgow Labour MP Tom Harris led off with an article in the Mail with the long title Why is it 'Left wing' to allow millions to live on benefits and let children get each other pregnant, asks the ex-minister who broke Labour's last taboo. From a Labour politician it's a ground breaking piece, concentrating on the social and moral breakdown that the structure if welfare benefits has caused - read it in full.
Fraser Nelson followed it up in the News of the World and a Spectator blog. He points out that a girl leaving school without qualifications can get far more money through being a single parent than she will from the sort of jobs that will be open to her. The disparity is huge.
Hence also (though he does not make this point) the huge temptation of benefit fraud, the subject of this blog. It's remunerative, you're not likely to get caught, and if you're unlucky the punishments are often minimal. Benefit fraud costs us at least £2bn every year.
More about this wider analysis of welfare dependency here. On this blog we continue to drill down into benefit fraud.
False claim for child care costs
A woman has been sentenced to three months imprisonment, suspended for twelve months, with an order to carry out 200 hours unpaid community work, for making false housing benefit claims on a property in Castle Vale totalling £5,947.
She told the Council she was paying child care costs to a registered child minder and these payments were then ignored for benefit purposes. However, investigators revealed that these child minder costs had stopped in 2003.
How many people are the Council making similar allowances to? How many can they possibly check?
She told the Council she was paying child care costs to a registered child minder and these payments were then ignored for benefit purposes. However, investigators revealed that these child minder costs had stopped in 2003.
How many people are the Council making similar allowances to? How many can they possibly check?
8 Mar 2009
Ex-social worker barred from practice
The South Wales Argus carries this report, which is strange in several ways.
A former Blaenau Gwent council social worker has been banned banned from working as a social worker in the UK, we are told, after dishonestly failing to notify her employers she had been convicted of benefit fraud.
That's right, they relied on someone convicted for dishonesty to own up honestly to her conviction.
She also failed to notify Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council of a change in circumstances which would have affected her entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit between June 2004, and May 2005.
All this - the offending and the hearing - took place while she was employed by Blaenau Gwent council.
She was convicted of fraudulently claiming almost £6,000 and sentenced to a 200-hour community punishment order. This was later revoked and in February 2007 she was sentenced to a four-month curfew order when she had completed 27 and a half hours of her community punishment order.
Yet Ms Proud falsely declared on a Criminal Records Bureau Disclosure Application Form in July 2007 that she did not have any unspent criminal convictions. She was also found guilty of failing to inform her employers and the Care Council for Wales she had been convicted of benefit fraud.
On September 24, 2007 Ms Proud falsely stated in a letter to Blaenau Gwent council that she had completed the 200-hour community punishment order earlier that year when she had only undertaken 27 and a half hours. She also said she had undertaken the work on Saturdays when in fact the work had been completed on weekdays.
The committee was also told Ms Proud was on sick leave from working at Blaenau Gwent council between May 26, 2006 and September 3, 2006, and failed to notify her employers she was attending sessions of her community punishment order during that period!
All in all a sorry tale. It's utterly bizarre that the system relies on a criminal to confess her conviction to her employer, especially when she's in a role which requires trust and integrity. Presumably Blaenau Gwent council were satisfied with her performance in this position of trust all that time.
One wonders why.
A former Blaenau Gwent council social worker has been banned banned from working as a social worker in the UK, we are told, after dishonestly failing to notify her employers she had been convicted of benefit fraud.
That's right, they relied on someone convicted for dishonesty to own up honestly to her conviction.
At a Care Council for Wales Conduct Committee hearing in Cardiff, Claire Louise Proud was found guilty of misconduct for falsely declaring to her employees she had no unspent convictions, failing to inform the relevant bodies when she was convicted of benefit fraud, falsely informing the council she had completed her 200 hour community punishment order and for attending sessions of her community punishment order while she was claiming sickness absence from work without informing her employers.She was employed by the council as a social worker between May 2004 and March 2008. In July 2006, she pleaded guilty to dishonestly failing to notify the DWP of a change of circumstances, which would have affected her entitlement to income support between June 2004, and February 2005.
She also failed to notify Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council of a change in circumstances which would have affected her entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit between June 2004, and May 2005.
All this - the offending and the hearing - took place while she was employed by Blaenau Gwent council.
She was convicted of fraudulently claiming almost £6,000 and sentenced to a 200-hour community punishment order. This was later revoked and in February 2007 she was sentenced to a four-month curfew order when she had completed 27 and a half hours of her community punishment order.
Yet Ms Proud falsely declared on a Criminal Records Bureau Disclosure Application Form in July 2007 that she did not have any unspent criminal convictions. She was also found guilty of failing to inform her employers and the Care Council for Wales she had been convicted of benefit fraud.
On September 24, 2007 Ms Proud falsely stated in a letter to Blaenau Gwent council that she had completed the 200-hour community punishment order earlier that year when she had only undertaken 27 and a half hours. She also said she had undertaken the work on Saturdays when in fact the work had been completed on weekdays.
The committee was also told Ms Proud was on sick leave from working at Blaenau Gwent council between May 26, 2006 and September 3, 2006, and failed to notify her employers she was attending sessions of her community punishment order during that period!
All in all a sorry tale. It's utterly bizarre that the system relies on a criminal to confess her conviction to her employer, especially when she's in a role which requires trust and integrity. Presumably Blaenau Gwent council were satisfied with her performance in this position of trust all that time.
One wonders why.
6 Mar 2009
Help for £16k benefit cheat
Gemma Louise Stewart from Billingham was overpaid £16,230 by the state after she claimed benefits wrongly stating she was living alone.
She said the couple’s debts were so great she could not afford to declare her partner was living with her and “the only way they could afford to live was by having these benefits”.
Her partner paid about £15,000 of his £41,000 debts until October last year when he had a disastrous work accident, leaving him unable to work with a seriously burned hand.
Her lawyer said she recently suffered fits, was prescribed medication and needed help. Her “catastrophic” situation arose from her having to live independently from the age of just 16.
Judge Peter Bowers said:
As the Judge says, this fraud is very easy to commit. Come on in, the money's great.
She said the couple’s debts were so great she could not afford to declare her partner was living with her and “the only way they could afford to live was by having these benefits”.
Her partner paid about £15,000 of his £41,000 debts until October last year when he had a disastrous work accident, leaving him unable to work with a seriously burned hand.
Her lawyer said she recently suffered fits, was prescribed medication and needed help. Her “catastrophic” situation arose from her having to live independently from the age of just 16.
Judge Peter Bowers said:
I’ve got to do what is right by you but I’ve equally got to send a message out to others who are tempted to carry out this kind of fraud. It’s very easy to commit, as you found out. I can’t overlook this.He gave her a six-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months with supervision and 10 education, employment and training sessions.
I just hope you can get yourself some work and put this behind you.
As the Judge says, this fraud is very easy to commit. Come on in, the money's great.
Who signed off the arthritic potholer?
Edward Moss from Ormskirk claimed to suffer from rheumatoid arthritis and received £18,738 in disability living allowance.
But he was able to study for a physical geography and geology degree at Edge Hill university and work as a haulage driver and warehouseman. His course required him to go on field trips where he managed to climb over challenging terrain and descend into caves.
He has been jailed for 13 weeks. The DWP say
Not good enough.
But he was able to study for a physical geography and geology degree at Edge Hill university and work as a haulage driver and warehouseman. His course required him to go on field trips where he managed to climb over challenging terrain and descend into caves.
He has been jailed for 13 weeks. The DWP say
In addition to the sentence passed by the court, we will now seek full reimbursement of all money fraudulently obtained to ensure fraudsters do not benefit financially from their criminal activities.As we see in the next post, it can take nine months to obtain a confiscation order.
Not good enough.
Benefit cheats' assets to be confiscated - belatedly
We blogged last year the case of Enid Bell, who was convicted for a second time of benefit fraud, this time to the tune of £600,000 overall. That was last June. Only now is there an order for their assets to be confiscated.
Complacent clunkiness in the legal process. When someone is guilty of benefit fraud, a confiscation order should be part of those proceedings. The presumption should be that confiscation will take place.
Complacent clunkiness in the legal process. When someone is guilty of benefit fraud, a confiscation order should be part of those proceedings. The presumption should be that confiscation will take place.
5 Mar 2009
£42,000 benefit fraudster walks free - because savings 'were for daughter's dowry'
A benefit fraudster who claimed £42,000 by concealing his savings has walked free from court after saying the nest-egg was for his daughter's dowry.
More
More
Benefit fraud - a family business
The Peters family from Manchester held down jobs while stealing more than £130,000 in welfare payments by claiming they were too ill to work.
Allan and Lorraine Peters claimed to be housebound and unable to walk, but when investigators went to their house they seized wage slips - in false names - and a snap of the couple, smiling and seemingly pain-free as they boarded a gangplank for a boat trip on a Spanish holiday.
Mr Peters and his son Garry were each jailed for nine months for benefit fraud. Lorraine Peters, her brother and another son all got away with non-custodial sentences - even though she claimed £37,500 in benefits compared to his £32,000.
The question also arises - how did they all get these allegedly severe medical conditions signed off?
Allan and Lorraine Peters claimed to be housebound and unable to walk, but when investigators went to their house they seized wage slips - in false names - and a snap of the couple, smiling and seemingly pain-free as they boarded a gangplank for a boat trip on a Spanish holiday.
Mr Peters and his son Garry were each jailed for nine months for benefit fraud. Lorraine Peters, her brother and another son all got away with non-custodial sentences - even though she claimed £37,500 in benefits compared to his £32,000.
The question also arises - how did they all get these allegedly severe medical conditions signed off?
4 Mar 2009
Cage fighter spared jail over fraud
A top cage fighter who claimed to have no earnings while making thousands of pounds from the sport has been spared jail.
Ian Freeman, dubbed 'The Machine', travelled the world to take part in the Ultimate Fighting Championship, but hid his earnings from the taxman.
The 41-year-old cheated the authorities out of more than £30,000 over a three-year period, Newcastle Crown Court was told.
Freeman and his wife Angela, 34, admitted three fraud charges dating back to January 2003, June 2004 and July 2006, relating to tax credits they received by failing to declare his earnings.
Angela Wrottesley, prosecuting, told the court: "Investigations conducted revealed he was in employment, involved in a wide variety of ventures which led to renumeration.
"He is a mixed martial arts specialist who received paid contracts to demonstrate his skills and fights across the world and within the UK.
"Furthermore, the defendant makes regular appearances on television, and had secured contracts to involve himself in TV productions.
"In addition, he has written a book, and operates a business called Pride and Glory.
"He was acting as a promoter, putting on fight nights, using his name as the attraction."
The charges related to £12,352 Freeman and his wife, of Badger's Wood, Stanley, County Durham, were overpaid in tax credits by failing to declare his earnings.
Freeman also failed to declare his earnings to the taxman, evading income tax of £21,128 he would have been liable to.
He also admitted giving false salary details to obtain a £250,000 mortgage.
At a sentencing hearing yesterday, Judge Brian Forster heard evidence of Freeman's community and charity work for terminally ill and underprivileged children.
Freeman also presented a bundle of 90 written references to the court.
Judge Forster sentenced Freeman to nine months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with a curfew between 8.30pm and 5am for six weeks, as well as 120 hours' unpaid work.
The judge told him: "Many people do not like paying tax, but everyone accepts that the burden should be shared among members of the community."
He said it was only because of Freeman's charitable and community work that the sentence was suspended.
Freeman's wife was given a community order with a curfew, also for six weeks.
Light benefit fraud sentences in Redditch
Saima Zaffar dishonestly claimed housing benefit of £9,062 and council tax benefit of £1,193 by failing to notify Redditch Council that she was working as a trainee solicitor. She also pleaded guilty to dishonestly allowing her partner, Naeem Naz, to claim income support of £3444.77 by not reporting her work to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
She just received a 12-month community order with a supervision requirement. She was also ordered to pay £6,430 compensation.
Her chosen career is ruined, of course, but what punishment is she getting from Redditch magistrates?
Stuart Harris dishonestly claimed jobseeker's allowance of £1,776, housing benefit of £484 and council tax benefit of £123 between July 2006 and March 2007 by failing to declare to the council and the DWP that he was working as a door supervisor. He was sentenced to a 150-hour community punishment order and ordered to pay compensation of £1,250.
Henrietha Hanuliakova dishonestly claimed housing benefit of £2532 between April 2006 and January 2008 by failing to notify the council that she was living with a partner. She received a 12-month community order with a supervision requirement and a compensation order of £1,200.
Another gentle slap on the wrist. Deliberate criminality must be punished!
She just received a 12-month community order with a supervision requirement. She was also ordered to pay £6,430 compensation.
Her chosen career is ruined, of course, but what punishment is she getting from Redditch magistrates?
Stuart Harris dishonestly claimed jobseeker's allowance of £1,776, housing benefit of £484 and council tax benefit of £123 between July 2006 and March 2007 by failing to declare to the council and the DWP that he was working as a door supervisor. He was sentenced to a 150-hour community punishment order and ordered to pay compensation of £1,250.
Henrietha Hanuliakova dishonestly claimed housing benefit of £2532 between April 2006 and January 2008 by failing to notify the council that she was living with a partner. She received a 12-month community order with a supervision requirement and a compensation order of £1,200.
Another gentle slap on the wrist. Deliberate criminality must be punished!
3 Mar 2009
Light sentence for deliberate benefit fraud
Jonathan Herron, moved out of his home in Cambridge, between March and June last year, but continued to claim housing benefit from the city council as if he was still resident. He sub-let the property and received a rent from the new tenants in addition to his housing benefits payments.
Mr Herron was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay the council £200 in costs. He must also pay back more than £1,300 of housing benefit he falsely claimed.
And that's it for a deliberate benefit fraud - a slap on the wrists and don't do it again. Not enough.
Mr Herron was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay the council £200 in costs. He must also pay back more than £1,300 of housing benefit he falsely claimed.
And that's it for a deliberate benefit fraud - a slap on the wrists and don't do it again. Not enough.
How the system encourages benefit fraud
Two angles on the benefits system today - both of them showing how the bad design encourages fraud.
The first illustrates how the benefit system favours households with single parents.
You can see why the philosopher kings who designed the welfare system in their ivory towers wanted to help disadvantaged single parent households. But on the receiving end we have not inert chess pieces which the philosopher kings can move at will, but human beings who see where their advantage lies. These arrangements encourage family break-up, and they encourage parents to pretend they are single when they are not. Which is fraud.
The few cases of benefit fraud which are prosecuted often result in community penalties. This report explains why they are a soft option.
Suspended sentence orders rose more than twenty-fold from the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2008 - up from 484 to almost 11,842. The use of community orders rose more than threefold from 9,547 to 33,672. But there was little evidence that they had any success in curbing the rising prison population, the report said.
Almost half of all orders are breached. And the courts frequently fail to punish those who breach their community orders or suspended sentence orders by locking them up.
Effectively the state condones benefit fraud on a massive scale.
The first illustrates how the benefit system favours households with single parents.
You can see why the philosopher kings who designed the welfare system in their ivory towers wanted to help disadvantaged single parent households. But on the receiving end we have not inert chess pieces which the philosopher kings can move at will, but human beings who see where their advantage lies. These arrangements encourage family break-up, and they encourage parents to pretend they are single when they are not. Which is fraud.
The few cases of benefit fraud which are prosecuted often result in community penalties. This report explains why they are a soft option.
Suspended sentence orders rose more than twenty-fold from the second quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2008 - up from 484 to almost 11,842. The use of community orders rose more than threefold from 9,547 to 33,672. But there was little evidence that they had any success in curbing the rising prison population, the report said.
Almost half of all orders are breached. And the courts frequently fail to punish those who breach their community orders or suspended sentence orders by locking them up.
But one probation officer said those breaching the orders rarely got a tough punishment and 'that gives completely the wrong message'.Benefit fraud probably costs £2bn a year. That's huge. Even among the cases detected, prosecution is rare, and punishment is often meaningless.
He added: 'You go to court for a breach and you don't get sent to prison [...] and all your mates tell everybody else about it. It doesn't have the deterrent effect that it's meant to have.'
Another officer complained that offenders were 'coming out of magistrates court and they're laughing their heads off and giving like two fingers to the Probation Service. What does that do for us as a service?'
A third officer said: 'In terms of enforcement, people can go back to court three, four times now and the courts are still not taking on board that this person will not comply, and they just keep asking for more reports.'
The officer said it was ridiculous 'to call something a suspended sentence order when actually it isn't suspended - because you can have two or three chances'.
Effectively the state condones benefit fraud on a massive scale.
2 Mar 2009
Blue badge fraud detection slowly cranks up
A crackdown on the fraudulent use of the Blue Badge parking scheme for disabled people is set to be extended to Newham and other London boroughs following a successful pilot scheme which saw more than 90 fake or stolen badges seized in four neighbourhoods.
The pilot scheme involved five boroughs pooling information about 12,000 Blue Badges which had been reported lost or stolen in one database. Council parking attendants from the boroughs, Transport for London and the police could easily check whether Blue Badges they saw displayed on vehicles had been stolen or were fakes.
Currently, each local authority keeps its own records but is unable to check details on Blue Badges displayed by offenders which had been issued in other boroughs.
That's ridiculous. There should be a nationwide database, funded by selling offenders' vehicles.
The pilot scheme involved five boroughs pooling information about 12,000 Blue Badges which had been reported lost or stolen in one database. Council parking attendants from the boroughs, Transport for London and the police could easily check whether Blue Badges they saw displayed on vehicles had been stolen or were fakes.
Currently, each local authority keeps its own records but is unable to check details on Blue Badges displayed by offenders which had been issued in other boroughs.
That's ridiculous. There should be a nationwide database, funded by selling offenders' vehicles.
£2bn benefit fraud nationally, says Oswestry
Ahead of being folded into the new Shropshire Council on 1 April, Oswestry Borough Council has released numbers for local benefit fraud, though without putting them in the context of total amounts paid out.
More interesting is the council's view of overall benefit fraud levels, which is in line with Swansea's - click on the label at the foot of this post for more discussion.
The amount of overpaid benefits detected by the council, has risen from around £22,000 in 2004/5 and nearer £23,000 in 2005/6, to more than £46,000 in 2006/7, and over £65,000 last year, while at the same time the overall number of prosecutions, cautions and administrative penalties has also risen steadily.Out of context that doesn't tell us much.
More interesting is the council's view of overall benefit fraud levels, which is in line with Swansea's - click on the label at the foot of this post for more discussion.
It has been shown from research that most people do not realise the level of benefit fraud that is committed nationally and many people see it as a victimless crime. However, it is estimated that £2 billion a year is lost through people claiming money they are not entitled to. That is the equivalent of £80.00 for every household in Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)