Benefit fraudster Karen Squires walked free from court after wrongly taking almost £40,000 from the state.
She was instead handed a suspended jail term after a court heard how she cared for family members.
A judge said prison would deal a “catastrophic blow” to the 44-year-old’s son, who has Asperger syndrome.
Recorder Michael Slater said Squires also looked after her seriously disabled mother, who needed 24-hour care.
So he took an “exceptional view” of Squires’ extensive benefit fraud, which saw her overpaid £39,886 in income support over a five-and-a- half-year period.
The defendant, who had no previous convictions, did not declare that she was receiving regular income from her husband Mark.
She started claiming the benefits as a single parent in 2001 and made false declarations that she had no other income from September 2003 to April 2009.
The pair were not living together but he was paying most of her household bills, Teesside Crown Court heard.
Squires, from Thornaby, admitted making a false statement and retaining a wrongful credit.
Catherine Fagan, defending, said Squires was hopeless with finances, her husband offered to help and she put her head in the sand at a time of hardship.
The situation snowballed as she used the money not for luxuries but for the upkeep of her home.
Now Squires was said to be extremely sorry, ashamed and embarrassed about her actions.
She had endured “an awful lot of bad luck” including distressing family bereavements, depression and a marriage breakdown, the court heard.
Her life was in a mess and she was under immense pressure.
The Recorder gave her a one-year prison, sentence suspended for two years, with a year’s supervision.
2 comments:
Another huge post....(part 1 of 2 - size exceeds)
This kind of case perfectly demonstrates the contradictory and, arguably, arbitrary nature of benefits legislation and how thin the margins can be between a perfectly legitimate claim and one resulting in a conviction for a benefit fraud related offence.
From the facts posted, it's unclear whether or not the claimant's husband was living with her. If both were members of the same "household" (there is a substantial body of legal authority on the meaning of "household"), then they would be legally counted as a couple for benefit purposes. However, the info posted *seems* to suggest the husband was living elsewhere and, if that is correct, he would not count as the claimant's partner for benefit purposes. As a non-partner, he would, by definition, be a FORMER partner (the ongoing marital status would be irrelevant).
Why does this matter? Well, if a couple, their combined circumstances would be aggregated. However, if not a couple, the income given to the claimant by the "former partner" would count as maintenance (i.e. her income). This is where is gets even more complicated.
It's worth noting at this point that "voluntary payments" and "payment in kind" are currently fully disregarded as income for the purposes of Income Support ("IS"), Housing Benefit ("HB") and Council Tax Benefit ("CTB") ("voluntary payments" used to be partially disregarded and the law was changed to fully disregard them - I can't recall the effective date of this change).
There are, in basic terms, three conceivable ways in which a contribution from a 3rd party to the claimant could be construed: 1) "maintenance", 2) "voluntary payment", 3) "payment in kind". There are other possiblities but none that appear directly relevant to this case. At this point, it is partially simplified because where money is being paid to a claimant by, specifically, a "former partner", legislation excludes the money from being disregarded under the "voluntary payment" label. If it's cash, it's difficult to see how it is "payment in kind" and that leaves "maintenance".
In addition, there have been changes to the way in which "maintenance" is treated. For the majority of the period at issue in the article, the "old" rules applied and this meant limited amounts could (and should) be disregarded from payments made by a former partner. For HB/CTB, this was £15 per week but only if the claimant was responsible for a child or young person (both terms are defined). Otherwise, no disregard.
However, from 27 Oct 2008 (for HB/CTB) and from April 2010 (for IS), the maintenance rules changed. In some circumstances, ALL payments made from a former partner could be disregarded. I'll stick with HB/CTB because this doesn't require guesswork on my part. In short, the maintenance disregards work like this (for HB/CTB):
.../cont'd in "part 2"
"Benefits Bod"
Part 2 of 2
cont'd from "part 1"
1) 100% for any maintenance in respect of a child or young person who is a member of the claimant’s family (excluding payments made by the claimant or by the claimant’s (current) partner). The term "member of the claimant's family" means the claimant has responsibility for that child or young person.
2) £15 per week maximum in respect of maintenance that ISN’T for a child or young person but where the claimant has responsibility for any child or young person.
3) All other circumstances, no disregard.
It's worth noting that if the payments being made by the husband were in respect of the claimant's children and the same situation came to light NOW and had only existed after the change in legislation, the payments would be disregarded in full and it is likely that no criminal offence would have been committed or, even if there was, it's unlikely that prosecution would have taken place (not in the public interest / no loss to public funds etc).
Further, what if payments of the same value, or even higher, had been made by someone other than the former partner? If the monies were gifts without strings, they would have been "voluntary payments" and entirely disregarded (at least from the date of the legislation change). If the contribution to the claimant had been by way of food hampers, holidays, household goods, jewellery etc, those would all have been "payment in kind" and fully disregarded - even if given by the "former partner".
In short, the claimant may well have been guilty of a serious offence but, under the current legislation, it cannot be assumed that receipt of payments from a former partner (including CSA payments) will necessarily affect entitlement to benefit and had other arrangements been in place for goods or payments of the same value, there may well have been no overpayment of benefit.
How thin the margins....
"Benefits Bod"....
Post a Comment