A 61-year-old benefit crook wailed as she was jailed for eight months for a £51,000 fraud.
Well, good.
Amtul Bibi gave a fake tenancy agreement to claim up to £180-a-week for five years, while living with her two sons in a £260,000 house owned by her husband.
The couple were estranged but Bibi’s ex-partner let her move in to the property within weeks of him buying it in April 2002, while he lived elsewhere.
Bibi, of Kensington Avenue, Manor Park, admitted nine counts of making a false representation.
Sentencing at Inner London Crown Court, Judge Usha Karu told Bibi: “There can be no doubt that from the beginning, you knew it was your husband who owned the property, and therefore you were not entitled to claim that benefit.
“So this was a fraudulent claim from the outset and lasted something like five years.
“The total amount, a substantial amount, was £51,353.”
Ben Rogers, prosecuting, said Bibi’s late husband Mohammed Latif Bhatti registered the property with Londinium Estate Agents in Romford Road, Manor Park.
He told them he had a tenant at the house, in Kensington Avenue and the handouts were paid to the agent by Newham Council.
Later he started using lettings firm Faith International and from then the cheques went to Bibi, who was legitimately claiming income support.
The bogus claims were exposed in 2007 when Mr Bhatti noted his ownership of the property on an official document.
She was quizzed by investigators in November that year but denied he was her landlord.
Despite pleas by defence counsel for a suspended sentence, Judge Karu told Bibi: “I take the view that this was deliberate and conscious offending by you.
“The only sentence it seems to me, bearing in mind all the factors, is one of custody.’
2 comments:
In this particular case, based on the information that has been reproduced, it appears that the conviction was correct. Notwithstanding that, some more info about the law relating to Housing Benefit may be of interest.
Firstly, it's worth noting that if the claimant's husband was not actually living in the claimant's "household", he is not counted as her partner for social security purposes (barring a couple of exceptions that don't appear to apply in this case). It doesn't matter whether they are married; what counts is whether they are members of the same household - there is a substantial body of case law on the meaning of "household" in this context.
Within HB legislation, there are some bars to entitlement where partners and former partners are the landlord. The main provisions are set out below:
1) former partner: HB is not payable where the claimant is liable to make payments to a former partner AND they have previously lived in the dwelling before they ceased to be partners - this also extends to partners of former partners.
2) landlord is responsible for a child of the claimant or claimant's partner: no HB is payable in these circumstances. "Child" means aged UNDER 16, so this bar doesn't apply where all dependents are aged 16 or over.
3) payments made by a claimant to a partner who is an owner of the dwelling: such payments are ineligible for HB.
The third "bar" notably does not extend to payments between partners who do NOT own the dwelling ("own" for HB purposes normally means the freeholder, so doesn't apply to leaseholders). In the latter circumstances, LAs will be required to consider other factors, including (but not limited to):
i) is the arrangement on a commercial basis?
ii) has the liability been created to take advantage of the HB scheme?
If "no" for "i" or "yes" for "ii", HB is not payable. Where the LA relies on the above exclusions, the onus is on the LA to show, on the balance of probability, that an exclusion applies.
There is old case law that suggests the nature of a relationship between partners means it will be very rare for financial arrangements between them to be on a commercial basis in this context. But, there is no direct, express, bar to HB between partners who do not own the dwelling.
In the case blogged, it isn't clear whether the claimant and her husband ever lived in the dwelling as a couple, nor is it clear whether the husband was responsible for the two sons (and, if so, whether either of the two sons were aged under 16).
However, the ownership of the property by the husband does not, in itself, exclude entitlement to HB.
Relevant legislation: regulations 9 and 12 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (and, possibly, the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006).
"Benefits Bod"
Thanks and I will do the same again. (Your comment was late in appearing because oddly blogger put it in the spam tray!)
If you'd like posting rights, let me know.
Post a Comment