The flat upstairs has been bought by a couple who sublet. I am absolutely sure the tenants they have now and their past ones are guilty of housing benefit fraud. Too lengthy to detail. But I have reported both cases and nothing seems to happen. I can't tell you how angry I feel. In my limited experience then 100% of housing benefit claims are bogus. Obviously this is nonsense, there are clearly many genuine claims. But it makes me feel like an idiot for working so hard and paying taxes.
28 Feb 2011
An indignant reader writes ...
25 Feb 2011
Nigerian tax credit fraud
A Nigerian immigrant stole the identities of 350 people to claim £1.3million in bogus tax credits in the largest benefit scam of its kind.
Olaide Taiwo, 35, hijacked the identities while working as a security guard for a number of large national companies.
He then used the names to claim tens of thousands in working tax credits.
This week he was jailed for eight and a half years – the highest ever sentence for tax credit fraud.
Taiwo is understood to have arrived illegally in Britain in 2003 with his wife. Although three applications to stay in the UK failed, in 2005 he was granted discretionary leave to remain.
It was during this period that his scam began. The father-of-two submitted more than 300 fraudulent tax credit claims between June 2004 and July 2008 worth over £1million.
When he was arrested, investigators found an ‘identity thieves’ paradise’, with stacks of fake passports and driving licences and £70,000 in cash lying around his council flat in Camberwell, South-East London.
The property was littered with paperwork detailing the names, addresses and national insurance numbers of hundreds of people which he had taken from employee payroll records at dozens of companies around London where he had worked as a security guard.
They also found templates for making false passports, birth certificates, NHS cards and driving licences.
Taiwo used the identities to open hundreds of bank accounts for the benefits to be paid into, but HM Revenue & Customs became suspicious about the multiple tax credit applications and arrested him in July 2008.
They believe he was the ringleader of an organised criminal network which included his sister-in-law who worked for a job centre.
But the rest of the gang are thought to have fled to Nigeria. Taiwo also tried to leave the country but he was arrested again on August 6 last year.
He was found guilty at Inner London Crown Court of fraudulently obtaining payments of tax credits, by using the names and addresses of individuals without their consent and acquiring criminal property.
Sentencing him, Judge Simon Davis ordered that he be deported at the end of his eight and a half year sentence.
He said: ‘This is a fraud on a substantial scale.
‘You lied and sought to manipulate with ease and confidence and with an arrogance that was astonishing.
‘You were intimately connected with every aspect of the fraud, stealing real details of real people to commit identity fraud on the large scale.’
Another member of the gang, Taiwo’s sister-in-law Olajumoke Ademuyiwa, 42, a Jobcentre Plus employee, was also found guilty of fraudulently obtaining tax credit payments in an earlier hearing.
Ademuyiwa opened the bank accounts into which the benefits were paid, but she is not thought to have used her role as a job centre worker to make false claims. Her husband, Oluyemi Amidu Taiwo – Taiwo’s brother – is thought to have fled the country. She is due to be sentenced in April.
Richard Young, senior investigating officer for HMRC said: ‘This pair blatantly hijacked the identities of over 350 innocent people and stole from British taxpayers by submitting over 300 fraudulent tax credit claims between June 2004 and July 2008.
‘They deliberately attacked and abused a system designed to provide financial help to the most vulnerable people in our society.’
Olaide Taiwo, 35, hijacked the identities while working as a security guard for a number of large national companies.
He then used the names to claim tens of thousands in working tax credits.
This week he was jailed for eight and a half years – the highest ever sentence for tax credit fraud.
Taiwo is understood to have arrived illegally in Britain in 2003 with his wife. Although three applications to stay in the UK failed, in 2005 he was granted discretionary leave to remain.
It was during this period that his scam began. The father-of-two submitted more than 300 fraudulent tax credit claims between June 2004 and July 2008 worth over £1million.
When he was arrested, investigators found an ‘identity thieves’ paradise’, with stacks of fake passports and driving licences and £70,000 in cash lying around his council flat in Camberwell, South-East London.
The property was littered with paperwork detailing the names, addresses and national insurance numbers of hundreds of people which he had taken from employee payroll records at dozens of companies around London where he had worked as a security guard.
They also found templates for making false passports, birth certificates, NHS cards and driving licences.
Taiwo used the identities to open hundreds of bank accounts for the benefits to be paid into, but HM Revenue & Customs became suspicious about the multiple tax credit applications and arrested him in July 2008.
They believe he was the ringleader of an organised criminal network which included his sister-in-law who worked for a job centre.
But the rest of the gang are thought to have fled to Nigeria. Taiwo also tried to leave the country but he was arrested again on August 6 last year.
He was found guilty at Inner London Crown Court of fraudulently obtaining payments of tax credits, by using the names and addresses of individuals without their consent and acquiring criminal property.
Sentencing him, Judge Simon Davis ordered that he be deported at the end of his eight and a half year sentence.
He said: ‘This is a fraud on a substantial scale.
‘You lied and sought to manipulate with ease and confidence and with an arrogance that was astonishing.
‘You were intimately connected with every aspect of the fraud, stealing real details of real people to commit identity fraud on the large scale.’
Another member of the gang, Taiwo’s sister-in-law Olajumoke Ademuyiwa, 42, a Jobcentre Plus employee, was also found guilty of fraudulently obtaining tax credit payments in an earlier hearing.
Ademuyiwa opened the bank accounts into which the benefits were paid, but she is not thought to have used her role as a job centre worker to make false claims. Her husband, Oluyemi Amidu Taiwo – Taiwo’s brother – is thought to have fled the country. She is due to be sentenced in April.
Richard Young, senior investigating officer for HMRC said: ‘This pair blatantly hijacked the identities of over 350 innocent people and stole from British taxpayers by submitting over 300 fraudulent tax credit claims between June 2004 and July 2008.
‘They deliberately attacked and abused a system designed to provide financial help to the most vulnerable people in our society.’
24 Feb 2011
Stud farmers were benefit thieves
A cheating couple fiddled thousands of pounds in benefits for being unfit to walk - while running a stud farm with nine horses.
Horse-loving Nicolas Arnold, 57, and wife Mair, 56, wrongly claimed state benefits for a host of health problems leaving them housebound.
But a court heard the couple were caught on camera busy at their country stables - mucking out, carrying food buckets and tending their nine Arabian horses.
Fraud investigator Garth Jones said the pair told benefits staff they were 'virtually unable to walk' but were running their Blackbridge Arabians stud farm.
He played an 18-minute DVD of surveillance showing the couple carrying hay and food buckets and mucking out the animals.
Mr Jones said: 'As you can see, neither of them are displaying any difficulty with their mobility.
'In fact, they were running an operation called Blackbridge Arabians, specialising in Arabian horses.'
The couple have bred champion Arabian horses after entering competitions around Britain - and the animals are sold for thousands of pounds.
The Arnolds were paid more than £6,000 in disability benefits after saying they suffered from conditions including diabetes and heart problems.
Husband Nicolas wrote on claim forms that 'words could not describe' how tough his life was.
He claimed he 'could barely walk' as he battled diabetes, hypertension, heart arrhythmia, sleep apnea, depression, severe back problems and impotence.
And wife Mair said 'chronic fatigue and depression' meant she slept up to 20 hours a day.
Prosecutor Jonathan Holmes said the couple had both been receiving benefits payments for their care and mobility allowance for nearly 15 years.
He said: 'Nicolas also received the highest rate of allowance related to care, claiming he needed round-the-clock attention, including help using the toilet.'
But their fraud was uncovered in an undercover surveillance at their stables hidden away in the countryside in the Garw Valley, near Bridgend, South Wales.
The court was shown the DVD of nine months of surveillance showing the pair working hard in their stableyard.
The couple failed to appear in Bridgend magistrates' court but were found guilty in their absence of fraudulently claiming more than £6,000 in allowance payments over nine months - after they'd been claiming for nearly 15 years.
JP John Hughes said the evidence was 'overwhelming' and adjourned sentencing for the couple to attend in a hearing next month - but warned they could be jailed.
The couple, of Pontyrhyl, Bridgend, were yesterday still advertising online for Blackbridge Arabians.
One horse lover said online: 'I just want to say a huge thank you to Nick and Mair for such an enjoyable day yesterday at Blackbridge Arabians.
'I have never visited before and I can honestly say the quality of all their horses is amazing. I would highly recommend anyone to visit.'
Horse-loving Nicolas Arnold, 57, and wife Mair, 56, wrongly claimed state benefits for a host of health problems leaving them housebound.
But a court heard the couple were caught on camera busy at their country stables - mucking out, carrying food buckets and tending their nine Arabian horses.
Fraud investigator Garth Jones said the pair told benefits staff they were 'virtually unable to walk' but were running their Blackbridge Arabians stud farm.
He played an 18-minute DVD of surveillance showing the couple carrying hay and food buckets and mucking out the animals.
Mr Jones said: 'As you can see, neither of them are displaying any difficulty with their mobility.
'In fact, they were running an operation called Blackbridge Arabians, specialising in Arabian horses.'
The couple have bred champion Arabian horses after entering competitions around Britain - and the animals are sold for thousands of pounds.
The Arnolds were paid more than £6,000 in disability benefits after saying they suffered from conditions including diabetes and heart problems.
Husband Nicolas wrote on claim forms that 'words could not describe' how tough his life was.
He claimed he 'could barely walk' as he battled diabetes, hypertension, heart arrhythmia, sleep apnea, depression, severe back problems and impotence.
And wife Mair said 'chronic fatigue and depression' meant she slept up to 20 hours a day.
Prosecutor Jonathan Holmes said the couple had both been receiving benefits payments for their care and mobility allowance for nearly 15 years.
He said: 'Nicolas also received the highest rate of allowance related to care, claiming he needed round-the-clock attention, including help using the toilet.'
But their fraud was uncovered in an undercover surveillance at their stables hidden away in the countryside in the Garw Valley, near Bridgend, South Wales.
The court was shown the DVD of nine months of surveillance showing the pair working hard in their stableyard.
The couple failed to appear in Bridgend magistrates' court but were found guilty in their absence of fraudulently claiming more than £6,000 in allowance payments over nine months - after they'd been claiming for nearly 15 years.
JP John Hughes said the evidence was 'overwhelming' and adjourned sentencing for the couple to attend in a hearing next month - but warned they could be jailed.
The couple, of Pontyrhyl, Bridgend, were yesterday still advertising online for Blackbridge Arabians.
One horse lover said online: 'I just want to say a huge thank you to Nick and Mair for such an enjoyable day yesterday at Blackbridge Arabians.
'I have never visited before and I can honestly say the quality of all their horses is amazing. I would highly recommend anyone to visit.'
23 Feb 2011
Data matching spots 13 year benefit fraud
A grandmother who claimed she so was so 'ill' she couldn't sit down for more than 10 minutes claimed £66,000 in welfare handouts while working her way through six jobs.
Susan Skinner, 60, was jailed for eight months after lying about the state of her health and telling benefits workers it had got worse to keep the handouts coming in.
She was given incapacity benefits after claiming she could not sit for any period of time and could not walk further than 200 metres without stopping or feeling severe discomfort.
In reality, she was mostly working throughout the 13-year scam, earning up to £1,400 a month, Burnley Crown Court heard.
But she told the court that she had been struggling with her finances as she suffered health problems and tried to look after the children of her drug-addicted daughter.
Skinner was working as an administrative assistant for the Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust when she stepped into the dock, but had not told her bosses about the fraud or her court appearance. She had started repaying the money at £50 a month.
The defendant, of, Shawforth, Lancashire, admitted three counts of obtaining property by deception and four of failing to promptly notify a change in circumstances.
Sentencing her, Judge Beverley Lunt told her her actions were a deliberate and sustained course of dishonesty.
The judge said:
Jonathan Rogers, prosecuting told the court Skinner made a legitimate claim for incapacity benefit in August 1993. The claim continued until November 2009 and was based on her assertion she couldn't work.
In 2005/2006 she completed a form saying she could sit for no more than 30 minutes and walk no further than 400 metres without stopping or feeling severe discomfort.
In 2006 she then claimed she could not sit for any longer than 10 minutes and could not walk further than 200 metres without stopping or feeling severe discomfort.
Mr Rogers said during the claim, between 1996 and November 2009, the defendant had no fewer than six jobs, with short gaps in between, and had been receiving up to £1,400 a month.
She was interviewed in November 2009 and made full and frank admissions. Skinner, who had been caught out because of a data checking exercise with her employers, obtained £66,449 she was not entitled to over the 13 years.
The prosecutor said Skinner had been repaying the DWP £50 a month, but the full amount would not be payable in her lifetime.
Geoff Whelan, for Skinner, said she suffered from osteoporosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypertension, but was still working. Her medical conditions could get worse over time.
The defendant's daughter, who had three children, had drug and gambling problems and had neglected her children.
Skinner had used her own money to look after daughter, to bail her out where required and to look after the children.
Mr Whelan said the defendant had not lived an extravagant lifestyle.
She had been in relatively low paid employment, sometimes was not in work and had struggled to make ends meet. Her home had been repossessed and she was now living in rented accommodation.
The defendant had debts and had more going out than was coming in.
Skinner had been repaying the DWP for nine months.
She had no assets and had no money coming in other than her wage. The barrister said : 'There is simply no prospect of her being able to pay back the £66,000, but she is making a contribution towards that as best she can.'
Skinner had not told her employers about her dishonesty. If she was sent to custody, she would not be able to pay anything further, she would be rendered unemployable in future and would be a further drain on the state.
Mr Whelan continued : 'This is not a defendant who should be burdening the prison system in this country. This is a defendant who has been punished through shame so far and could be punished in the community with the threat of imprisonment hanging over her head.'
Susan Skinner, 60, was jailed for eight months after lying about the state of her health and telling benefits workers it had got worse to keep the handouts coming in.
She was given incapacity benefits after claiming she could not sit for any period of time and could not walk further than 200 metres without stopping or feeling severe discomfort.
In reality, she was mostly working throughout the 13-year scam, earning up to £1,400 a month, Burnley Crown Court heard.
But she told the court that she had been struggling with her finances as she suffered health problems and tried to look after the children of her drug-addicted daughter.
Skinner was working as an administrative assistant for the Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust when she stepped into the dock, but had not told her bosses about the fraud or her court appearance. She had started repaying the money at £50 a month.
The defendant, of, Shawforth, Lancashire, admitted three counts of obtaining property by deception and four of failing to promptly notify a change in circumstances.
Sentencing her, Judge Beverley Lunt told her her actions were a deliberate and sustained course of dishonesty.
The judge said:
You say, in your letter to me, you feel guilt and ashamed, but that's because you have been found out.
I accept funds were tight for you, as they are for many, many people in this country, who do not resort to stealing from the taxpayer to supplement their income.
There must be an immediate custodial sentence. It must punish you and it must deter others.'
Jonathan Rogers, prosecuting told the court Skinner made a legitimate claim for incapacity benefit in August 1993. The claim continued until November 2009 and was based on her assertion she couldn't work.
In 2005/2006 she completed a form saying she could sit for no more than 30 minutes and walk no further than 400 metres without stopping or feeling severe discomfort.
In 2006 she then claimed she could not sit for any longer than 10 minutes and could not walk further than 200 metres without stopping or feeling severe discomfort.
Mr Rogers said during the claim, between 1996 and November 2009, the defendant had no fewer than six jobs, with short gaps in between, and had been receiving up to £1,400 a month.
She was interviewed in November 2009 and made full and frank admissions. Skinner, who had been caught out because of a data checking exercise with her employers, obtained £66,449 she was not entitled to over the 13 years.
The prosecutor said Skinner had been repaying the DWP £50 a month, but the full amount would not be payable in her lifetime.
Geoff Whelan, for Skinner, said she suffered from osteoporosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypertension, but was still working. Her medical conditions could get worse over time.
The defendant's daughter, who had three children, had drug and gambling problems and had neglected her children.
Skinner had used her own money to look after daughter, to bail her out where required and to look after the children.
Mr Whelan said the defendant had not lived an extravagant lifestyle.
She had been in relatively low paid employment, sometimes was not in work and had struggled to make ends meet. Her home had been repossessed and she was now living in rented accommodation.
The defendant had debts and had more going out than was coming in.
Skinner had been repaying the DWP for nine months.
She had no assets and had no money coming in other than her wage. The barrister said : 'There is simply no prospect of her being able to pay back the £66,000, but she is making a contribution towards that as best she can.'
Skinner had not told her employers about her dishonesty. If she was sent to custody, she would not be able to pay anything further, she would be rendered unemployable in future and would be a further drain on the state.
Mr Whelan continued : 'This is not a defendant who should be burdening the prison system in this country. This is a defendant who has been punished through shame so far and could be punished in the community with the threat of imprisonment hanging over her head.'
22 Feb 2011
Repeat benefit thief caught on facebook
Or "unveiled", as the Daily Mail puts it.
Posing in an elegant white gown and smiling for the camera, she looks every inch the perfect bride. Hazel Cunningham then posted the pictures of her Barbados wedding on her Facebook page so her friends could see her on the happiest day of her life.
But, unfortunately for her, investigators from the local council were also looking at her photos.
And they discovered that Cunningham, 47 – who said she was a single mother when she was in fact living with her husband – was fleecing the taxpayer of thousands of pounds in false benefits claims.
She wrongly claimed income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit at the same time as enjoying holidays in Turkey up to three times a year and a luxury Caribbean wedding.
Folkestone Magistrates’ Court in Kent heard she falsely claimed benefits amounting to an average of £170 a week.
Cunningham, of Ashford, Kent, also failed to notify the authorities of her maternity pay from her employer.
She was sentenced to 120 days in prison after pleading guilty to four charges of making false statements and one of failing to notify a change in circumstance.
And she was ordered to repay the money, a total of just under £15,000.
Sentencing Cunningham, magistrates said: ‘You have had previous convictions, you have lied to the probation officer, you have denied your guilt until the last minute, and you have also lied in court.’
Posing in an elegant white gown and smiling for the camera, she looks every inch the perfect bride. Hazel Cunningham then posted the pictures of her Barbados wedding on her Facebook page so her friends could see her on the happiest day of her life.
But, unfortunately for her, investigators from the local council were also looking at her photos.
And they discovered that Cunningham, 47 – who said she was a single mother when she was in fact living with her husband – was fleecing the taxpayer of thousands of pounds in false benefits claims.
She wrongly claimed income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit at the same time as enjoying holidays in Turkey up to three times a year and a luxury Caribbean wedding.
Folkestone Magistrates’ Court in Kent heard she falsely claimed benefits amounting to an average of £170 a week.
Cunningham, of Ashford, Kent, also failed to notify the authorities of her maternity pay from her employer.
She was sentenced to 120 days in prison after pleading guilty to four charges of making false statements and one of failing to notify a change in circumstance.
And she was ordered to repay the money, a total of just under £15,000.
She was also prosecuted in 2009 for failing to declare that she was working while claiming a total of £21,000 in incapacity benefit, housing and council tax benefits.
Sentencing Cunningham, magistrates said: ‘You have had previous convictions, you have lied to the probation officer, you have denied your guilt until the last minute, and you have also lied in court.’
Beshenivsky friend claimed benefits while working as an escort
An escort girl who advertises her services under the alias ‘Lady Carla’ on a website full of topless pictures showing off her 36GG assets claimed over £10,000 pounds worth of benefits while offering her saucy services.
Ex-landlady Sally Barandiaran, 43, the best friend of murdered PC Sharon Beshenivsky, offered herself online promising a “very special experience” - complete with salacious snaps of herself clad in a variety of lacy lingerie.
She charged punters £50 for a 15-minute ‘quickie’, £130 for an hour of her time or £450 for over four hours, and describes herself as ‘bisexual’.
But Barandiaran, of Scarborough, has now narrowly avoided jail after claiming thousands of pounds of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Housing Benefit while working as an escort.
Prosecuting at Scarborough Magistrates Court on Monday, David Kitson said she had failed to declare her income as a self-employed person three times between July 2008 and August 2009, and also did not tell the council about three personal bank accounts.
She wrongfully £6,150 in Jobseeker’s Allowance, £3,500 in Housing Benefit and £720 in council tax benefit between January 2008 and June last year.
He told the court: “An allegation was received that the defendant was receiving income as a self-employed person and evidence pointed towards that allegation being true".
She was interviewed on June 1 last year and admitted she was receiving an income and had received benefits to which she was not entitled. It was found that she had been overpaid by £10,343.
Defending, Nick Tubbs said she was remorseful and had started repaying the council at the rate of £100 per month.
He said: “She is very sorry. She was in receipt of an income which should have been disclosed, is in court for dishonesty and will now have convictions against her name.”
Phillip Catterall, the chairman of the bench, said magistrates only decided against jailing her because of her previous good character. Right.
He told her: “This was multiple benefit fraud over a long period of time. There was a degree of planning on your part.”
She was handed a 12-month community order, with the requirement that she completes 250 hours of unpaid work. She will also be under the supervision of the probation service for the period.
She was told to repay £3,743 to the council in compensation, and The Department for Work and Pensions are also likely to pursue the overpaid Jobseekers' Allowance.
htp Dave
Ex-landlady Sally Barandiaran, 43, the best friend of murdered PC Sharon Beshenivsky, offered herself online promising a “very special experience” - complete with salacious snaps of herself clad in a variety of lacy lingerie.
She charged punters £50 for a 15-minute ‘quickie’, £130 for an hour of her time or £450 for over four hours, and describes herself as ‘bisexual’.
But Barandiaran, of Scarborough, has now narrowly avoided jail after claiming thousands of pounds of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Housing Benefit while working as an escort.
Prosecuting at Scarborough Magistrates Court on Monday, David Kitson said she had failed to declare her income as a self-employed person three times between July 2008 and August 2009, and also did not tell the council about three personal bank accounts.
She wrongfully £6,150 in Jobseeker’s Allowance, £3,500 in Housing Benefit and £720 in council tax benefit between January 2008 and June last year.
He told the court: “An allegation was received that the defendant was receiving income as a self-employed person and evidence pointed towards that allegation being true".
She was interviewed on June 1 last year and admitted she was receiving an income and had received benefits to which she was not entitled. It was found that she had been overpaid by £10,343.
Defending, Nick Tubbs said she was remorseful and had started repaying the council at the rate of £100 per month.
He said: “She is very sorry. She was in receipt of an income which should have been disclosed, is in court for dishonesty and will now have convictions against her name.”
Phillip Catterall, the chairman of the bench, said magistrates only decided against jailing her because of her previous good character. Right.
He told her: “This was multiple benefit fraud over a long period of time. There was a degree of planning on your part.”
She was handed a 12-month community order, with the requirement that she completes 250 hours of unpaid work. She will also be under the supervision of the probation service for the period.
She was told to repay £3,743 to the council in compensation, and The Department for Work and Pensions are also likely to pursue the overpaid Jobseekers' Allowance.
htp Dave
Cleaner practised deliberate benefit frauds
A mother of three from Carlisle illegally accepted more than £12,000 in benefits while she was working as a cleaner – at the office which was processing her claim.
Leanne Gwatkin, 33, failed to tell officials at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that she had a wage earning partner living with her.
Nor did she declare that she was working as a cleaner for a company which sent her to work at the DWP’s main office in Carlisle city centre.
All claimants have a legal duty to declare any change in their circumstances which might affect their claim.
Kim Whittlestone, prosecuting for the DWP, said Gwatkin, who admitted benefit fraud at an earlier hearing, was cleaning at the benefits office for seven or eight months, from April to December last year.
At the time, she was claiming Income Support, Housing Tax Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, but she denied her partner was living with her at the relevant time.
Miss Whittlestone said that DWP investigators carried out observations of her home for two months, proving her partner was regularly living there and they were maintaining a common household.
The total amount of benefits overpaid was £12,635.
Farrhat Arshad, for Gwatkin, said her client was a woman of previous good character who had taken the view that she could not rely on her partner to bring in a regular wage to the house.
She continued to be in financial difficulty, but was now so terrified of committing further offences without meaning to that she often did not claim all the money to which she was entitled, said the barrister.
She said Gwatkin, who suffered from depression, felt remorse, and added: “She doesn’t want to rely on the benefits system any more.”
Judge Paul Batty QC imposed a nine month jail term but suspended it for two years and ordered that Gwatkin should do 120 hours of unpaid work.
htp Dave
Leanne Gwatkin, 33, failed to tell officials at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that she had a wage earning partner living with her.
Nor did she declare that she was working as a cleaner for a company which sent her to work at the DWP’s main office in Carlisle city centre.
All claimants have a legal duty to declare any change in their circumstances which might affect their claim.
Kim Whittlestone, prosecuting for the DWP, said Gwatkin, who admitted benefit fraud at an earlier hearing, was cleaning at the benefits office for seven or eight months, from April to December last year.
At the time, she was claiming Income Support, Housing Tax Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, but she denied her partner was living with her at the relevant time.
Miss Whittlestone said that DWP investigators carried out observations of her home for two months, proving her partner was regularly living there and they were maintaining a common household.
The total amount of benefits overpaid was £12,635.
Farrhat Arshad, for Gwatkin, said her client was a woman of previous good character who had taken the view that she could not rely on her partner to bring in a regular wage to the house.
She continued to be in financial difficulty, but was now so terrified of committing further offences without meaning to that she often did not claim all the money to which she was entitled, said the barrister.
She said Gwatkin, who suffered from depression, felt remorse, and added: “She doesn’t want to rely on the benefits system any more.”
Judge Paul Batty QC imposed a nine month jail term but suspended it for two years and ordered that Gwatkin should do 120 hours of unpaid work.
htp Dave
21 Feb 2011
Double identity immigrant benefit thief jailed
FRAUD investigators followed a trail through social networking sites and immigration records to unmask the double life of a benefits cheat.
But justice caught up with Shingirai Zvokunzwa when a judge jailed him for 10 months for fiddling £28,000 from Reading Borough Council.
A court was told Zvokunzwa, from Wroxeter Court, Newstead Rise, Whitley, started claiming housing and council tax benefit in August 2006 when he told the council he was living alone and getting Job Seekers' Allowance.
But three years later council investigators following up a tip-off discovered the house where he was living in east Reading was empty and neighbours said the occupant had moved to Canada. But a full identity fraud investigation was launched jointly by the council and the Department of Work and Pensions after it was discovered Zvokunzwa had told his landlord his name was Tevin Mukonda.
The court heard it was then established that Zvokunzwa changed his name to Mukonda after arriving in Britain from his native Zimbabwe.
In the name of Mukonda he had pocketed three years of Government education grant on top of the state and housing benefits he had been claiming.
He also got a student loan after enrolling at Reading University. But single students with no disabilities receiving full-time education are not eligible, in the majority of cases, for housing benefit.
Further information about Zvokunzwa was gathered from social networking sites, including Facebook, and it transpired that far from moving to Canada, he was living in Milton Keynes - where as Mukonda he had made another benefit claim.
Zvokunzwa admitted six offences of fraud when he appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court on February 2 and, on top of the jail sentence, he was ordered to repay the money he fiddled from Reading Borough Council.
After the case, borough council leader Cllr Andrew Cumpsty said: "It is the hard-working silent majority who have to pay for this selfish and greedy behaviour, so it is entirely right these criminals get the full punishment they deserve."
htp Dave
But justice caught up with Shingirai Zvokunzwa when a judge jailed him for 10 months for fiddling £28,000 from Reading Borough Council.
A court was told Zvokunzwa, from Wroxeter Court, Newstead Rise, Whitley, started claiming housing and council tax benefit in August 2006 when he told the council he was living alone and getting Job Seekers' Allowance.
But three years later council investigators following up a tip-off discovered the house where he was living in east Reading was empty and neighbours said the occupant had moved to Canada. But a full identity fraud investigation was launched jointly by the council and the Department of Work and Pensions after it was discovered Zvokunzwa had told his landlord his name was Tevin Mukonda.
The court heard it was then established that Zvokunzwa changed his name to Mukonda after arriving in Britain from his native Zimbabwe.
In the name of Mukonda he had pocketed three years of Government education grant on top of the state and housing benefits he had been claiming.
He also got a student loan after enrolling at Reading University. But single students with no disabilities receiving full-time education are not eligible, in the majority of cases, for housing benefit.
Further information about Zvokunzwa was gathered from social networking sites, including Facebook, and it transpired that far from moving to Canada, he was living in Milton Keynes - where as Mukonda he had made another benefit claim.
Zvokunzwa admitted six offences of fraud when he appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court on February 2 and, on top of the jail sentence, he was ordered to repay the money he fiddled from Reading Borough Council.
After the case, borough council leader Cllr Andrew Cumpsty said: "It is the hard-working silent majority who have to pay for this selfish and greedy behaviour, so it is entirely right these criminals get the full punishment they deserve."
htp Dave
18 Feb 2011
Ex-councillor gets off lightly
A former councillor said he had no regrets about cheating council tax payers out of tens of thousands of pounds.
Peter Paffett brazenly told fraud investigators he would not have been able to give his daughter an education without it.
He dishonestly claimed up to £53,000 in council tax and housing benefit after he and his wife suffered a series of financial disasters.
They lost their home after a £20,000 overdraft “went sour” and his wife Florence's freight business got into difficulty.
Paffett, 76, a former Horsham parish councillor, and his wife were forced to move into social housing.
He legitimately claimed benefits he was entitled to from 1994, but later failed to declare a civil service pension from when he worked for Customs and Excise.
Paffett, who suffered a series of strokes in 2006, also failed to disclose the couple had a joint savings account with £7,000 in it.
If he had revealed the information he would not have been entitled to receive as much as he did in benefits from Horsham District Council between 1994 and 2009.
Paffett admitted 13 charges of benefit fraud and appeared at Hove Crown Court for sentence yesterday. Paffett, who has a number of serious health problems, was given a one year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £500 towards prosecution costs.
Peter Paffett brazenly told fraud investigators he would not have been able to give his daughter an education without it.
He dishonestly claimed up to £53,000 in council tax and housing benefit after he and his wife suffered a series of financial disasters.
They lost their home after a £20,000 overdraft “went sour” and his wife Florence's freight business got into difficulty.
Paffett, 76, a former Horsham parish councillor, and his wife were forced to move into social housing.
He legitimately claimed benefits he was entitled to from 1994, but later failed to declare a civil service pension from when he worked for Customs and Excise.
Paffett, who suffered a series of strokes in 2006, also failed to disclose the couple had a joint savings account with £7,000 in it.
If he had revealed the information he would not have been entitled to receive as much as he did in benefits from Horsham District Council between 1994 and 2009.
Paffett admitted 13 charges of benefit fraud and appeared at Hove Crown Court for sentence yesterday. Paffett, who has a number of serious health problems, was given a one year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £500 towards prosecution costs.
17 Feb 2011
A newspaper reader writes
B J Connell writes to The Herald in Plymouth:
In January 2010 Mr Benson approached a local newspaper with the story that his business had been ruined following the theft of a crane he owned.
An investigation then revealed that not only did Mr Benson and his son run a vehicle recovery operation, but that the family also held a licence to run a stall at Hertford Market, where they had sold eggs for at least six years.
Help yourself, why don't you. Just a caution for all that theft? Notice he had been running this other fraud for five years by the time he received this caution, and it passed unnoticed. Indeed, he would probably still be stealing from us undetected today if he hadn't gone to the paper. Even then it took eight months to stop his benefit.
Mr Benson pleaded guilty to two charges. The judge awarded a community order for 12 months, on the condition that if he wants to leave the country or move home he must apply to the court for permission. As well as being ordered to pay back all the money fraudulently claimed, Mr Benson was also ordered to pay court costs of £350.
In past months we have seen a number of benefit fraud cases reported, some involving figures of well over £15,000.Meanwhile, in Hoddesdon, Norman Benson, 78, received housing and council tax benefit of £30,038 between March 2003 and September 2010 on the basis that his only income was from a pension and pension credits.
What has been the result of these crimes, which I regard as theft? Nothing – no jail time, but it seems to be OK to "pay it back" if you can manage.
Recently, I read of a man who stole two gold bracelets, the total value being £1,000. As a result, he was sentenced to six months in prison. How does it work when benefit fraud can run into thousands of pounds and those who commit it walk free? Yet when a man steals two items to the value of £1,000, he is sent down? How can this be justice?
I don't see the logic behind these sentences. In my view, benefit fraud is not a victimless crime. Those who obtain benefit fraudulently are stealing from the city and the people of Plymouth. In another case, a man falsely claimed £29,000. Yet because it was paid back, he got 12 weeks in jail. Regardless of the refund, to my mind this was still stealing. When one contemplates £29,000 against £1,000, one must ask who got the worst deal?
In January 2010 Mr Benson approached a local newspaper with the story that his business had been ruined following the theft of a crane he owned.
An investigation then revealed that not only did Mr Benson and his son run a vehicle recovery operation, but that the family also held a licence to run a stall at Hertford Market, where they had sold eggs for at least six years.
This is the second time the council has investigated Mr Benson’s benefit claims. In 2008, he was cautioned for failing to declare that his adult son was living with him, resulting in overpaid benefit amounting to £27,897.
Help yourself, why don't you. Just a caution for all that theft? Notice he had been running this other fraud for five years by the time he received this caution, and it passed unnoticed. Indeed, he would probably still be stealing from us undetected today if he hadn't gone to the paper. Even then it took eight months to stop his benefit.
Mr Benson pleaded guilty to two charges. The judge awarded a community order for 12 months, on the condition that if he wants to leave the country or move home he must apply to the court for permission. As well as being ordered to pay back all the money fraudulently claimed, Mr Benson was also ordered to pay court costs of £350.
- These people do it for the money. So hit them in the pocket. It was money that motivated them, and a financial penalty will help to deter them.
Everyone convicted of benefit fraud who doesn't go to prison should have to do unpaid work.
Benefit thieves should also have to repay twice what they've stolen, and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have. A confiscation order should be automatic and immediate.
If you don't punish people who are convicted of an easy crime, the offence will continue to look attractive.
16 Feb 2011
Slowly does it
A £38,000 benefits cheat was spared jail because it took the Department of Work and Pensions more than 18 months to prosecute her.
Ann Townsend, 54, from Chaucer Road, Parson Cross, dishonestly claimed income support, housing and council tax benefits over a four-year period while she was working as a hospital cleaner.
But Recorder David Hatton QC, sitting at Sheffield Crown Court, decided not to jail her because of the length of time the case had been hanging over her.
Angela Wrottesley, prosecuting for the DWP, apologised to the court for the delay.
The judge told Townsend: “Your record suggests quite clearly that you have become or are capable of becoming a thoroughly dishonest woman.
“The offences are so serious that only a prison sentence is appropriate.
“I would undoubtedly have ordered that but for the fact that I’m conscious that you committed these offences a long time ago.
“You have had this and the threat of prison hanging over you since that time. That causes me to come to the conclusion that I can properly suspend the inevitable sentence of imprisonment.”
Townsend admitted failing to notify a change in circumstances and supplying false information.
She claimed income support in February 2006 claiming she was too ill to work - while working as a cleaner at the Northern General Hospital.
She was overpaid £26,109.60 up to July, 2009.
Her partner also claimed housing and council tax benefits saying she was not working. Townsend lied on forms she submitted to the DWP in January, 2006.
She took her partner’s surname to work at the hospital - as Ann Spiers.
Miss Wrottesley said: “She admitted it was an attempt to lay a false trail and she would not have been identified by the usual checks.”
She immediately admitted to investigators that she had been working and not declaring her income and said she was trying to relieve her debts of £10,000.
James Gould, defending, said she had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and the DWP had taken a long time to bring proceedings.
Both she and her mother had health problems.
He said: “She has made a grave mistake. The money she wrongly received was used to pay off spiralling debts with ever increasing interest rates.”
Townsend was given a nine-month prison term suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 80 hours of unpaid community work and a 12-month specified activity at a women’s project.
Ann Townsend, 54, from Chaucer Road, Parson Cross, dishonestly claimed income support, housing and council tax benefits over a four-year period while she was working as a hospital cleaner.
She has several previous convictions for fiddling benefits and theft and was arrested in August, 2009.
But Recorder David Hatton QC, sitting at Sheffield Crown Court, decided not to jail her because of the length of time the case had been hanging over her.
Angela Wrottesley, prosecuting for the DWP, apologised to the court for the delay.
The judge told Townsend: “Your record suggests quite clearly that you have become or are capable of becoming a thoroughly dishonest woman.
“The offences are so serious that only a prison sentence is appropriate.
“I would undoubtedly have ordered that but for the fact that I’m conscious that you committed these offences a long time ago.
“You have had this and the threat of prison hanging over you since that time. That causes me to come to the conclusion that I can properly suspend the inevitable sentence of imprisonment.”
Townsend admitted failing to notify a change in circumstances and supplying false information.
She claimed income support in February 2006 claiming she was too ill to work - while working as a cleaner at the Northern General Hospital.
She was overpaid £26,109.60 up to July, 2009.
Her partner also claimed housing and council tax benefits saying she was not working. Townsend lied on forms she submitted to the DWP in January, 2006.
She took her partner’s surname to work at the hospital - as Ann Spiers.
Miss Wrottesley said: “She admitted it was an attempt to lay a false trail and she would not have been identified by the usual checks.”
She immediately admitted to investigators that she had been working and not declaring her income and said she was trying to relieve her debts of £10,000.
In January 2003 she was given a six-month rehabilitation order by Sheffield magistrates for falsely claiming benefits and asked for 65 offences to be taken into consideration.
Townsend was given a two-year suspended jail term in 2005 at Sheffield Crown Court for ten offences of theft.
James Gould, defending, said she had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and the DWP had taken a long time to bring proceedings.
Both she and her mother had health problems.
He said: “She has made a grave mistake. The money she wrongly received was used to pay off spiralling debts with ever increasing interest rates.”
Townsend was given a nine-month prison term suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 80 hours of unpaid community work and a 12-month specified activity at a women’s project.
15 Feb 2011
£10k benefit thief unpunished
Deborah Thomson, from Epsom, failed to tell the council about some part time work she had undertaken. She pleaded guilty to three counts of benefit fraud totalling more than £10,000.
She was sentenced to six weeks in prison suspended for 12 months and a supervision order. She was told to pay £100 costs and also pay back the fraudulently obtained benefits.
In other words, take this slap on the wrist and don't do it again.
We won't see any serious money back any time soon.
She was sentenced to six weeks in prison suspended for 12 months and a supervision order. She was told to pay £100 costs and also pay back the fraudulently obtained benefits.
In other words, take this slap on the wrist and don't do it again.
We won't see any serious money back any time soon.
14 Feb 2011
Illegal immigrants on benefits
Tens of thousands of workers with no right to be in Britain have been claiming benefits thanks to an extraordinary loophole in the law.
Ministers have discovered that Labour allowed 155,000 illegal immigrants to qualify for sickness benefits and maternity pay. Government sources put the cost to the public purse at ‘tens of millions of pounds’.
They say the shambles is a damning indictment of how Labour lost control of both the benefits and immigration systems with taxpayers left to foot the bill. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith will outlaw the practice in welfare reform legislation expected to be unveiled this week.
Ministers believe most of those abusing the system came to work in Britain for a limited period and overstayed their visa. Others managed to get a job without a work permit.
At present, someone could be illegally in the UK and able to claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), paid to those too sick to work, as well as statutory payments such as maternity or paternity pay and sick pay.
Astonishingly, the Work and Pensions Department has not in the past asked to see work permits when assessing claims for ESA.
Employers, meanwhile, have not been asked to show proof that workers are in Britain legally when processing claims for maternity or paternity pay or sick pay.
A Whitehall source said:
Many employers wrongly believed that having an NI number meant foreign staff were allowed to work in the UK.
Illegal workers should not be eligible for any state-funded benefit, housing, or anything other than emergency NHS treatment. At the moment, a ‘habitual residency test’ is used to establish whether migrants are eligible for other types of benefit.
To qualify for jobseeker’s allowance, employment support allowance, pension credit and income support, they must demonstrate that they have either worked or have a good opportunity to get a job.
However, the European Commission has warned ministers that the rules may infringe the human rights of EU citizens and are ‘not compatible’ with EU law. It has started legal proceedings against Britain to have restrictions on welfare claims by incomers scrapped.
The Welfare Reform Bill, ministers say, will bring an end to the complex, costly and inefficient series of benefits and tax credits, replacing them with a single universal credit. Cuts to housing and disability benefits will also be confirmed.
The scale of the welfare challenge facing Britain is laid bare today in figures which show at least 330,000 children – around one in 30 – are growing up with a parent claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Mr Duncan Smith said:
Ministers have discovered that Labour allowed 155,000 illegal immigrants to qualify for sickness benefits and maternity pay. Government sources put the cost to the public purse at ‘tens of millions of pounds’.
They say the shambles is a damning indictment of how Labour lost control of both the benefits and immigration systems with taxpayers left to foot the bill. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith will outlaw the practice in welfare reform legislation expected to be unveiled this week.
Ministers believe most of those abusing the system came to work in Britain for a limited period and overstayed their visa. Others managed to get a job without a work permit.
At present, someone could be illegally in the UK and able to claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), paid to those too sick to work, as well as statutory payments such as maternity or paternity pay and sick pay.
Astonishingly, the Work and Pensions Department has not in the past asked to see work permits when assessing claims for ESA.
Employers, meanwhile, have not been asked to show proof that workers are in Britain legally when processing claims for maternity or paternity pay or sick pay.
A Whitehall source said:
It cannot be right that people who aren’t eligible to work here can get benefits that are a substitute for earnings.Hundreds of thousands of National Insurance numbers were handed out under Labour to illegal workers as, alarmingly, there was no requirement on JobCentre staff to check whether a person was in the country legally.
This is a classic example of where the welfare system has been allowed to get completely out of control. It is difficult to track because these are illegal workers, but the cost is likely to be in the tens of millions.
Clearly it’s incredibly unfair and ministers are acting to legislate to close the loophole as quickly as possible.
Work permits showing people are here legally will be needed for ESA claims or an employer will have to show one when they are putting claims through.
The Bill we are bringing forward will start the root-and-branch overhaul needed to put fairness back at the heart of the system.
Many employers wrongly believed that having an NI number meant foreign staff were allowed to work in the UK.
Illegal workers should not be eligible for any state-funded benefit, housing, or anything other than emergency NHS treatment. At the moment, a ‘habitual residency test’ is used to establish whether migrants are eligible for other types of benefit.
To qualify for jobseeker’s allowance, employment support allowance, pension credit and income support, they must demonstrate that they have either worked or have a good opportunity to get a job.
However, the European Commission has warned ministers that the rules may infringe the human rights of EU citizens and are ‘not compatible’ with EU law. It has started legal proceedings against Britain to have restrictions on welfare claims by incomers scrapped.
The Welfare Reform Bill, ministers say, will bring an end to the complex, costly and inefficient series of benefits and tax credits, replacing them with a single universal credit. Cuts to housing and disability benefits will also be confirmed.
The scale of the welfare challenge facing Britain is laid bare today in figures which show at least 330,000 children – around one in 30 – are growing up with a parent claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Mr Duncan Smith said:
We know that family is the most important influence on a child’s life, so it is no surprise that with this many children growing up with parents on unemployment benefits we are facing intergenerational worklessness and benefit dependency on such a massive scale.
Our broken welfare system has reinforced this destructive cycle for generations.
New blue badge parking crackdown
Disabled drivers will face tough medical tests before they get blue badge parking permits after evidence emerged of widespread fraud and abuse.
Some 2.5 million currently qualify for the badges, which allow free parking in pay-and-display bays, at meters and on single- and double-yellow lines.
But research suggests around half of users are not entitled to the badges and as a result the taxpayer is being cheated out of up to £46million a year. Now the Government is planning measures to tackle the problem.
Many councils have been issuing permits without any medical checks and solely on the basis of an application letter. Incredibly, 16,535 badges have been identified as still being used despite the fact that their registered holders have died.
Other forms of abuse include genuinely disabled people allowing carers to use a badge, and drivers fraudulently applying to more than one council.
Badges are also often tampered with to alter the expiry date. Abuse has become so widespread that blue badges obtained fraudulently are circulating on the black market for up to £1,500.
The number of badges in use has soared in recent years. In England, 48 badges are issued per 1,000 people, compared with 37 per 1,000 people ten years ago.
The annual value of benefits to holders is estimated to be more than £100 per badge.
Under Government plans due to be announced this week, councils will be given new powers to impose checks on applicants similar to those undergone by those claiming disability benefits.
Ministers are expected to announce a new design that will make the badges more difficult to forge.
They will also say that the price of a badge will increase from £2 to £10. They last for up to three years and this is the first price rise since 1983.
A Government source said: ‘This change will be caricatured as government cuts taken to new heights – but we really need to clamp down on those who abuse the regime.’
Transport Minister Norman Baker said the genuinely needy were being hit by the abuse of the system.
‘Such are the high levels of fraud in the current system that 50 per cent of blue badge holders now find it difficult to get a parking space,’ he said.
Those who use badges fraudulently can face a fine of up to £1,000, but few offenders are caught.
Paul Slowey of Blue Badge Fraud Investigation Ltd, which investigates blue badge abuse on behalf of councils, says that in some city areas up to 50% of badges are being wrongly used.
He says the powers are there for local authorities to mount prosecutions for fraud when they detect misuse, but "historically enforcement has been dreadful".
Mr Slowey points to the rail network where ticket fraud fell after companies introduced strict measures aimed at fare dodgers.
"If the use of blue badges is enforced properly then the scheme will function as it should," he said.
Some 2.5 million currently qualify for the badges, which allow free parking in pay-and-display bays, at meters and on single- and double-yellow lines.
But research suggests around half of users are not entitled to the badges and as a result the taxpayer is being cheated out of up to £46million a year. Now the Government is planning measures to tackle the problem.
Many councils have been issuing permits without any medical checks and solely on the basis of an application letter. Incredibly, 16,535 badges have been identified as still being used despite the fact that their registered holders have died.
Other forms of abuse include genuinely disabled people allowing carers to use a badge, and drivers fraudulently applying to more than one council.
Badges are also often tampered with to alter the expiry date. Abuse has become so widespread that blue badges obtained fraudulently are circulating on the black market for up to £1,500.
The number of badges in use has soared in recent years. In England, 48 badges are issued per 1,000 people, compared with 37 per 1,000 people ten years ago.
The annual value of benefits to holders is estimated to be more than £100 per badge.
Under Government plans due to be announced this week, councils will be given new powers to impose checks on applicants similar to those undergone by those claiming disability benefits.
Ministers are expected to announce a new design that will make the badges more difficult to forge.
They will also say that the price of a badge will increase from £2 to £10. They last for up to three years and this is the first price rise since 1983.
A Government source said: ‘This change will be caricatured as government cuts taken to new heights – but we really need to clamp down on those who abuse the regime.’
Transport Minister Norman Baker said the genuinely needy were being hit by the abuse of the system.
‘Such are the high levels of fraud in the current system that 50 per cent of blue badge holders now find it difficult to get a parking space,’ he said.
Those who use badges fraudulently can face a fine of up to £1,000, but few offenders are caught.
Paul Slowey of Blue Badge Fraud Investigation Ltd, which investigates blue badge abuse on behalf of councils, says that in some city areas up to 50% of badges are being wrongly used.
He says the powers are there for local authorities to mount prosecutions for fraud when they detect misuse, but "historically enforcement has been dreadful".
Mr Slowey points to the rail network where ticket fraud fell after companies introduced strict measures aimed at fare dodgers.
"If the use of blue badges is enforced properly then the scheme will function as it should," he said.
No jail for £22k benefit fraud
A mother who claimed thousands of pounds in benefits despite her husband earning £130,000-a-year has walked free from court.
Lisa Spindler, 40, raked in £22,500 in benefits as she claimed to be a single mother struggling to make ends meet.
But she was in fact living with her high earning husband who made £130,000 a year.
Spindler admitted fraudulently claiming benefits for three years between 2006 and 2009 and was handed a suspended prison sentence at Basildon Crown Court in Essex.
The court heard Spindler from Benfleet in Essex started claiming income support when her husband was jailed for 12 months for assault .
Caroline Moonan, defending said Spindler had been left to look after their daughter and her step-daughter who was a 'troubled teen' while he was in prison. She said when the stepdaughter fell pregnant Spindler had become the full time carer for the baby.
She added that Spindler had not got back with her husband when he was released from prison but only rekindled their relationship in 2006.
At that point she failed to tell the authorities and for almost three years she wrongly claimed £19,872 in income support and £2,665 in council tax benefit.
Miss Moonan said: 'The claims for income support and council tax benefit were genuine for many years before they became false. When couples are trying to get back together, to try and give an exact date they were back together is always a difficult procedure because it's a gradual thing.
The offences themselves were committed by omission in the sense that Mrs Spindler failed to notify the authorities that her circumstances had changed.
The court heard that Spindler got back together and started living together and he was earning £130,000 working for a global telecommunications company. But despite the huge salary Spindler still carried on claiming benefits.
She was arrested and charged after the Department of Work and Pensions and Castlepoint Borough Council carried out a joint investigation.
The mother had originally be charged with five counts of fraudulently claiming benefits worth £37,000 but three of the charges dating to before 2006 against her were dropped.
Spindler paid back £500 of the benefits the day before she was sentenced and Judge Jonathan Black took pity on her and give her a six month prison sentence, suspended for a year. She was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of community work and has to pay £1,000 court costs.
Judge Jonathan Black said: 'Even though there was no fraud from the outset you were aware that changes had taken place to your financial circumstances, but it took you nearly three years to report these changes.
Speaking after the case the Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud said: 'When people receive benefits from us they enter into a contract to tell us of any change in their circumstances.
'Deliberately not doing so is a crime and takes valuable funds from those who need them the most. At best they will have to repay us all the money they have taken, at worst they will end up a criminal and in the pages of a newspaper.'
Lisa Spindler, 40, raked in £22,500 in benefits as she claimed to be a single mother struggling to make ends meet.
But she was in fact living with her high earning husband who made £130,000 a year.
Spindler admitted fraudulently claiming benefits for three years between 2006 and 2009 and was handed a suspended prison sentence at Basildon Crown Court in Essex.
The court heard Spindler from Benfleet in Essex started claiming income support when her husband was jailed for 12 months for assault .
Caroline Moonan, defending said Spindler had been left to look after their daughter and her step-daughter who was a 'troubled teen' while he was in prison. She said when the stepdaughter fell pregnant Spindler had become the full time carer for the baby.
She added that Spindler had not got back with her husband when he was released from prison but only rekindled their relationship in 2006.
At that point she failed to tell the authorities and for almost three years she wrongly claimed £19,872 in income support and £2,665 in council tax benefit.
Miss Moonan said: 'The claims for income support and council tax benefit were genuine for many years before they became false. When couples are trying to get back together, to try and give an exact date they were back together is always a difficult procedure because it's a gradual thing.
The offences themselves were committed by omission in the sense that Mrs Spindler failed to notify the authorities that her circumstances had changed.
The court heard that Spindler got back together and started living together and he was earning £130,000 working for a global telecommunications company. But despite the huge salary Spindler still carried on claiming benefits.
She was arrested and charged after the Department of Work and Pensions and Castlepoint Borough Council carried out a joint investigation.
The mother had originally be charged with five counts of fraudulently claiming benefits worth £37,000 but three of the charges dating to before 2006 against her were dropped.
Spindler paid back £500 of the benefits the day before she was sentenced and Judge Jonathan Black took pity on her and give her a six month prison sentence, suspended for a year. She was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of community work and has to pay £1,000 court costs.
Judge Jonathan Black said: 'Even though there was no fraud from the outset you were aware that changes had taken place to your financial circumstances, but it took you nearly three years to report these changes.
Speaking after the case the Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud said: 'When people receive benefits from us they enter into a contract to tell us of any change in their circumstances.
'Deliberately not doing so is a crime and takes valuable funds from those who need them the most. At best they will have to repay us all the money they have taken, at worst they will end up a criminal and in the pages of a newspaper.'
11 Feb 2011
Benefit thief writes cheque for £25k
A benefits cheat found to have a financial interest in four different houses has written a cheque for £25,000 to repay the money.
Cardiff Crown Court heard Kay Jones handed over the money to the authorities after selling a house she had rented out for £500 a month while claiming income support.
The DWP was unaware of that rental income when it assessed what benefits she was entitled to receive, and overpaid her by £25,560 between 2002 and 2008.
She had pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court three weeks ago to a charge of failing to notify the DWP of a change in her circumstances and was warned at the time that she could be locked up.
But, when she returned for sentence yesterday, Judge Stephen Hopkins QC said there were reasons in her case to suspend her eight-month jail term for two years.
He said health problems made it impossible for her to carry out unpaid community work as a punishment, so he ordered she be electronically tagged and observe a nighttime curfew for the next three months.
Jones, 47, was told she was not being jailed because she was of previous good character, had pleaded guilty and had repaid the cash.
Judge Hopkins said Jones hadn’t deliberately set out to cheat because of greed, but had turned a blind eye to what she was doing. Really?
Her original claim for benefits, made in 1999, had been lawful, but for reasons which were not detailed in open court she had left her home in Sunnyside, Bridgend, taking her children with her.
She then put a £500-a-month tenant in it and went on to become joint owner with an old friend, Richard Jones, of two other properties and landlord of a fourth.
Defence counsel David Webster said, if the crisis which caused her to move had not happened, she would never have got herself into trouble.
“She is sorry and a lady who has learned the most salutary of lessons,” he told the court.
Jones, now living at Cwm Coed, Bettws, Bridgend, asked the judge for three months to pay £1,000 costs towards her prosecution.
A Proceeds of Crime Hearing will be heard at the court later this year.
Cardiff Crown Court heard Kay Jones handed over the money to the authorities after selling a house she had rented out for £500 a month while claiming income support.
The DWP was unaware of that rental income when it assessed what benefits she was entitled to receive, and overpaid her by £25,560 between 2002 and 2008.
She had pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court three weeks ago to a charge of failing to notify the DWP of a change in her circumstances and was warned at the time that she could be locked up.
But, when she returned for sentence yesterday, Judge Stephen Hopkins QC said there were reasons in her case to suspend her eight-month jail term for two years.
He said health problems made it impossible for her to carry out unpaid community work as a punishment, so he ordered she be electronically tagged and observe a nighttime curfew for the next three months.
Jones, 47, was told she was not being jailed because she was of previous good character, had pleaded guilty and had repaid the cash.
Judge Hopkins said Jones hadn’t deliberately set out to cheat because of greed, but had turned a blind eye to what she was doing. Really?
Her original claim for benefits, made in 1999, had been lawful, but for reasons which were not detailed in open court she had left her home in Sunnyside, Bridgend, taking her children with her.
She then put a £500-a-month tenant in it and went on to become joint owner with an old friend, Richard Jones, of two other properties and landlord of a fourth.
Defence counsel David Webster said, if the crisis which caused her to move had not happened, she would never have got herself into trouble.
“She is sorry and a lady who has learned the most salutary of lessons,” he told the court.
Jones, now living at Cwm Coed, Bettws, Bridgend, asked the judge for three months to pay £1,000 costs towards her prosecution.
A Proceeds of Crime Hearing will be heard at the court later this year.
10 Feb 2011
"Beat the cheat" - good branding
A 36-year-old woman who falsely claimed housing and council tax benefit was caught after an anonymous tip-off.
Naomi Madden, from Datchet, was sentenced to four weeks in jail suspended for 18 months and 200 hours of community service for falsely claiming more than £19,000.
She pleaded guilty to six counts of making a false statement.
She was also ordered to pay £1,000 costs and a repayment plan will be arranged with the Royal Borough.
The case arose as a result of an anonymous call to the Royal Borough’s Beat the Cheat hotline suggesting Ms Madden was living with a partner while claiming housing and council tax benefit as a lone parent.
Between March 10, 2003 and October 3, 2009, Ms Madden received overpayments of £16,491.01 in housing benefit and £2,597.34 in council tax benefit, a total of £19,088.35.
Cllr Richard Kellaway, lead member for finance, said: “This was a high sum accumulated over a number of years. But thanks to the information supplied by a member of the public and our Beat the Cheat hotline, justice has been served".
Naomi Madden, from Datchet, was sentenced to four weeks in jail suspended for 18 months and 200 hours of community service for falsely claiming more than £19,000.
She pleaded guilty to six counts of making a false statement.
She was also ordered to pay £1,000 costs and a repayment plan will be arranged with the Royal Borough.
The case arose as a result of an anonymous call to the Royal Borough’s Beat the Cheat hotline suggesting Ms Madden was living with a partner while claiming housing and council tax benefit as a lone parent.
Between March 10, 2003 and October 3, 2009, Ms Madden received overpayments of £16,491.01 in housing benefit and £2,597.34 in council tax benefit, a total of £19,088.35.
Cllr Richard Kellaway, lead member for finance, said: “This was a high sum accumulated over a number of years. But thanks to the information supplied by a member of the public and our Beat the Cheat hotline, justice has been served".
Romanian immigrants 'sell Big Issue to gain benefits'
People from the former Communist country cannot claim the full rights of other European Union citizens in Britain, as it only joined the bloc recently.
However they are able to claim welfare payments such as Housing Benefit and Working Tax Credit if they register as vendors of the Big Issue - the magazine set up to help homeless people - and then declare themselves self-employed, reports The Telegraph.
There are now fears that some Romanian immigrants, many of whom are Roma gipsies, are selling just a few copies of The Big Issue each week in order to claim more valuable benefits.
Simon Ashley, a councillor in Manchester where the problem is said to be particularly bad, has said: “I believe The Big Issue in the North is allowing itself to be used as a gateway to benefits dependency.
“Fundamentally, these people aren’t homeless – they are all in houses. But because they’ve found a loophole which gives them access to benefits, selling the magazine is now an end in itself and not about genuine self-employment.”
The Big Issue, launched 20 years ago, is a weekly magazine sold on the street across Britain by homeless people. Its vendors, who buy bundles of the magazine and keep the profits when they sell them, are required to declare themselves self-employed with HMRC.
This status also entitles them to a National Insurance number and the right to start claiming welfare payments such as Working Tax Credit and Housing Benefit, although they are supposed to tell social security officers when they sign up to sell The Big Issue.
Self-employed status is particularly valuable to Romanian immigrants, as it entitles them to start claiming benefits they would not otherwise receive since the eastern European country only joined the EU in 2007.
Amid fears that some Romanian Big Issue sellers are exploiting the system, Manchester City Council is said to have cut the benefits of some it does not believe are “genuinely or effectively self-employed”.
HMRC is also said to be looking closely at the income of self-employed Romanians.
Last year a woman who set herself up as a consultant to help Roma who wanted to sell the magazine, Lavinia Olmazu, was jailed for helping 172 of her countrymen illegally claim a total of £2.9million in benefits with the help of false documents.
John Bird, the founder of The Big Issue, said that the magazine actively works with the authorities to weed out any vendors who exploit the system.
“If we ever find out that people are doing that, then we shop them,” he said.
He claimed that selling The Big Issue is often the only legitimate work Roma can find, as the Romanian government and even some charities will not help them.
“Some schools say if people aren’t selling The Big Issue, they put their children out doing other things. It gives the parents a chance to earn a legitimate income.”
The allegations against Romanian Big Issue sellers are made in a BBC Radio 4 programme, The Truth About Roma, to be broadcast at 11am on Monday.
However they are able to claim welfare payments such as Housing Benefit and Working Tax Credit if they register as vendors of the Big Issue - the magazine set up to help homeless people - and then declare themselves self-employed, reports The Telegraph.
There are now fears that some Romanian immigrants, many of whom are Roma gipsies, are selling just a few copies of The Big Issue each week in order to claim more valuable benefits.
Simon Ashley, a councillor in Manchester where the problem is said to be particularly bad, has said: “I believe The Big Issue in the North is allowing itself to be used as a gateway to benefits dependency.
“Fundamentally, these people aren’t homeless – they are all in houses. But because they’ve found a loophole which gives them access to benefits, selling the magazine is now an end in itself and not about genuine self-employment.”
The Big Issue, launched 20 years ago, is a weekly magazine sold on the street across Britain by homeless people. Its vendors, who buy bundles of the magazine and keep the profits when they sell them, are required to declare themselves self-employed with HMRC.
This status also entitles them to a National Insurance number and the right to start claiming welfare payments such as Working Tax Credit and Housing Benefit, although they are supposed to tell social security officers when they sign up to sell The Big Issue.
Self-employed status is particularly valuable to Romanian immigrants, as it entitles them to start claiming benefits they would not otherwise receive since the eastern European country only joined the EU in 2007.
Amid fears that some Romanian Big Issue sellers are exploiting the system, Manchester City Council is said to have cut the benefits of some it does not believe are “genuinely or effectively self-employed”.
HMRC is also said to be looking closely at the income of self-employed Romanians.
Last year a woman who set herself up as a consultant to help Roma who wanted to sell the magazine, Lavinia Olmazu, was jailed for helping 172 of her countrymen illegally claim a total of £2.9million in benefits with the help of false documents.
John Bird, the founder of The Big Issue, said that the magazine actively works with the authorities to weed out any vendors who exploit the system.
“If we ever find out that people are doing that, then we shop them,” he said.
He claimed that selling The Big Issue is often the only legitimate work Roma can find, as the Romanian government and even some charities will not help them.
“Some schools say if people aren’t selling The Big Issue, they put their children out doing other things. It gives the parents a chance to earn a legitimate income.”
The allegations against Romanian Big Issue sellers are made in a BBC Radio 4 programme, The Truth About Roma, to be broadcast at 11am on Monday.
9 Feb 2011
Jail for £29k benefit thief
A FATHER who cheated the taxpayer out of nearly £29,000 in benefits while he took his wife and children on a 10-month Caribbean cruise on the family yacht has been jailed.
Simon Daymond-Harris, aged 37, doctored bank statements to try and hide the fact he was out of the country – claiming one cash withdrawal was from Trago Mills when in fact it happened in St Lucia.
Plymouth Magistrates' Court was told that he claimed for nearly four years that he was paying £925 a month in rent at a four-bedroom waterside apartment in Millbay Marina Village. But the flat was owned by his parents and he lived there rent-free. He was overpaid £28,778.45 between 2006 and last year.
Daymond-Harris was paid between £460 and £560 a month in housing benefit by the city council because he was supposedly on a low income.
District judge Paul Farmer, sitting with a magistrate, said that his crime was deliberate and planned and involved a substantial amount of money.
He added: "This was a deliberate fraud which was dealt with in such a sophisticated way. Clearly it is appropriate that you and people like you the courts see are given a deterrent sentence."
Daymond-Harris, now living at Youlditch Barn in Tavistock, was jailed for 12 weeks.
He admitted making a false statement to obtain benefit in August 2006. He also admitted two similar offences in March 2007 and May 2008 including submitting false bank statemnets, rent books and a false written statement to support his claim.
Helen Morris, prosecuting for the city council, said that Daymond-Harris submitted a joint application with his wife for housing benefit in August 2006 because they were on a low income.
She added that he said he was renting a four-bedroom apartment in Custom House Lane for £925 a month.
Mrs Morris said that he claimed he was working for 16 hours a week behind the bar and also at home for a pub in High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire. His income was said to be just £90 a week.
She added that suspicions were aroused by unexplained deposits in his account shown on bank statements he gave in support of the claim.
The court heard that officials then found he was listed as the licensee of the pub in High Wycombe.
Mrs Morris said that checks with the Land Registry then proved that the flat was owned by Daymond-Harris's parents – in contradiction to what he had claimed.
She added that checks on the internet – including a blog from Daymond-Harris's seven-year-old son – seemed to show the family had gone on a trans-Atlantic yacht cruise shortly after submitting the claim.
Mrs Morris said that Daymond-Harris had left the UK on his parents' yacht the Sakida in November 2006 and he did not return until October 2007. He went with his wife and their three children, though all but the eldest son returned in May 2007.
The court heard that the couple now have a fourth child.
Mrs Morris said that the council obtained Daymond-Harris's original bank statements.
She said that the housing benefit paid into his bank account by his mother covered the cash withdrawals in the Caribbean.
Mrs Morris added: "When it was put to him in interview that a cash withdrawal made in St Lucia was changed to Trago Mills he admitted that it did not look terribly good."
Daymond-Harris admitted changing the bank statements, putting the wrong landlord's name on his claim and making up entirely false rent books.
He confessed to never paying any rent on the property.
Daymond-Harris, representing himself in court, said: "I know this is very serious and I am very sorry. I can assure you I will not appear in court again. I cannot say why I did it, I just don't know."
The court heard that he had quickly repaid the entire amount he had claimed, thanks to a loan from his father.
A Plymouth City Council spokesperson said after the case: "Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime. Those who obtain benefit fraudulently are stealing from the city and from the people of Plymouth."
Under the report, don't miss the forthright comments.
Simon Daymond-Harris, aged 37, doctored bank statements to try and hide the fact he was out of the country – claiming one cash withdrawal was from Trago Mills when in fact it happened in St Lucia.
Plymouth Magistrates' Court was told that he claimed for nearly four years that he was paying £925 a month in rent at a four-bedroom waterside apartment in Millbay Marina Village. But the flat was owned by his parents and he lived there rent-free. He was overpaid £28,778.45 between 2006 and last year.
Daymond-Harris was paid between £460 and £560 a month in housing benefit by the city council because he was supposedly on a low income.
District judge Paul Farmer, sitting with a magistrate, said that his crime was deliberate and planned and involved a substantial amount of money.
He added: "This was a deliberate fraud which was dealt with in such a sophisticated way. Clearly it is appropriate that you and people like you the courts see are given a deterrent sentence."
Daymond-Harris, now living at Youlditch Barn in Tavistock, was jailed for 12 weeks.
He admitted making a false statement to obtain benefit in August 2006. He also admitted two similar offences in March 2007 and May 2008 including submitting false bank statemnets, rent books and a false written statement to support his claim.
Helen Morris, prosecuting for the city council, said that Daymond-Harris submitted a joint application with his wife for housing benefit in August 2006 because they were on a low income.
She added that he said he was renting a four-bedroom apartment in Custom House Lane for £925 a month.
Mrs Morris said that he claimed he was working for 16 hours a week behind the bar and also at home for a pub in High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire. His income was said to be just £90 a week.
She added that suspicions were aroused by unexplained deposits in his account shown on bank statements he gave in support of the claim.
The court heard that officials then found he was listed as the licensee of the pub in High Wycombe.
Mrs Morris said that checks with the Land Registry then proved that the flat was owned by Daymond-Harris's parents – in contradiction to what he had claimed.
She added that checks on the internet – including a blog from Daymond-Harris's seven-year-old son – seemed to show the family had gone on a trans-Atlantic yacht cruise shortly after submitting the claim.
Mrs Morris said that Daymond-Harris had left the UK on his parents' yacht the Sakida in November 2006 and he did not return until October 2007. He went with his wife and their three children, though all but the eldest son returned in May 2007.
The court heard that the couple now have a fourth child.
Mrs Morris said that the council obtained Daymond-Harris's original bank statements.
She said that the housing benefit paid into his bank account by his mother covered the cash withdrawals in the Caribbean.
Mrs Morris added: "When it was put to him in interview that a cash withdrawal made in St Lucia was changed to Trago Mills he admitted that it did not look terribly good."
Daymond-Harris admitted changing the bank statements, putting the wrong landlord's name on his claim and making up entirely false rent books.
He confessed to never paying any rent on the property.
Daymond-Harris, representing himself in court, said: "I know this is very serious and I am very sorry. I can assure you I will not appear in court again. I cannot say why I did it, I just don't know."
The court heard that he had quickly repaid the entire amount he had claimed, thanks to a loan from his father.
A Plymouth City Council spokesperson said after the case: "Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime. Those who obtain benefit fraudulently are stealing from the city and from the people of Plymouth."
Under the report, don't miss the forthright comments.
8 Feb 2011
Immorality in the benefits system
I don't mean that the benefits system rewards sexual immorality, I mean that it encourages people to cheat, as IDS is pointing out:
It's similar to the failure to get government databases communicating.
It is just wrong for a lumbering state to put temptation in struggling people's way.
Britain's ‘crazy’ welfare system is turning committed young couples into fraudsters because getting married or living together means they will take a drastic cut in income....It is absolutely wrong for the benefits system to put temptation in people's way. What's more, it's serious temptation in relation to the amounts of money they have legitimately.
So, instead of seeing their living standards plummet, many co-habiting couples on benefits are deceiving the State by pretending to live at different addresses.
It's similar to the failure to get government databases communicating.
It is just wrong for a lumbering state to put temptation in struggling people's way.
No benefit fraud, it's just disgusting
You wish there was fraud involved in this gypsy story:
Pity poor Tanya Welch. All she wanted was a caravan site somewhere for herself, her partner and 12-strong brood of children.But no, it's just taxpayers being taken for mugs again.
Now she’s been stuck with a £1.2million house in one of London’s most sought-after suburbs, provided by the local council at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
And although they describe themselves as ‘travellers’, the family has lived in the elegant, five-bedroom semi for over a year, claiming annual state benefits of £70,000-plus – more than most people earn....
6 Feb 2011
Deliberate housing benefit fraud
A benefit cheat has recently been given an 80 hour community order to carry out unpaid work and ordered to pay £350 costs to Watford Borough Council.
Mr Mircea Paduraru of Addison Close, Northwood, claimed Housing Benefit between December 2008 and June 2010 from Watford Borough Council for a property in Kelmscott Crescent, Watford, but failed to declare in August 2009 that he had vacated the property.
An investigation was carried out by Watford Borough Council after a claim for the same address was received from another tenant. The case was then referred to the council’s fraud department as the benefits department had no record of Mr Paduraru vacating the property.
On 6 August 2010 Mr Paduraru was interviewed under caution by Fraud Investigators from Watford Borough Council. At the interview Mr Paduraru admitted that he failed to declare that he had moved and continued to claim Housing Benefit.
On 14 January 2011 Mr Paduraru appeared before Hemel Magistrates Court where he pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to notify a change in circumstances to Watford Borough Council that he knew would affect his claim to benefit under Section 112 of the Social Security Act 1992. The overpaid amount of Housing Benefit was £6,458. The full amount has to be repaid to the council and Mr Paduraru has agreed an arrangement to undertake this.
Not enough.
Mr Mircea Paduraru of Addison Close, Northwood, claimed Housing Benefit between December 2008 and June 2010 from Watford Borough Council for a property in Kelmscott Crescent, Watford, but failed to declare in August 2009 that he had vacated the property.
An investigation was carried out by Watford Borough Council after a claim for the same address was received from another tenant. The case was then referred to the council’s fraud department as the benefits department had no record of Mr Paduraru vacating the property.
On 6 August 2010 Mr Paduraru was interviewed under caution by Fraud Investigators from Watford Borough Council. At the interview Mr Paduraru admitted that he failed to declare that he had moved and continued to claim Housing Benefit.
On 14 January 2011 Mr Paduraru appeared before Hemel Magistrates Court where he pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to notify a change in circumstances to Watford Borough Council that he knew would affect his claim to benefit under Section 112 of the Social Security Act 1992. The overpaid amount of Housing Benefit was £6,458. The full amount has to be repaid to the council and Mr Paduraru has agreed an arrangement to undertake this.
Not enough.
4 Feb 2011
Thief "has £656" but mounts a legal appeal
A benefit cheat who scammed nearly £60,000 while working as a lifeguard has failed to convince top judges he cannot afford to repay his ill-gotten gains.
Despite his day job saving lives on a Teignmouth beach, Joseph William Olroy claimed he was too weak to lift a kettle and was given benefits for four years — spending the cash on 'high living' and surfing holidays, a court heard.
The 46-year-old, from Paignton, was jailed for two-and-a-half years at Exeter Crown Court in January 2009, after admitting six counts of obtaining money by deception and two of making a false representation.
In October 2009, he was ordered to pay back £25,000 to the Department for Work and Pensions, after a judge at the same court found he had the money available in 'hidden assets'.
Yesterday he challenged that decision at London's Criminal Appeal Court, where his lawyers argued he only had about £800 to his name and could not afford to repay the debt. Who paid for his appeal?
But his appeal was dismissed by top judges, who said the crown court judge had to deal with a 'determinedly dishonest man' and his conclusions about the available amount were justified.
Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Lindblom, told the court Olroy initially made a genuine claim for state benefits in 1998, including incapacity benefit, income support and housing benefit.
Olroy claimed he had 'very seriously limited mobility' caused by Crohn's disease and had difficulty boiling a kettle to make a cup of tea.
However, between 2001 and 2006, when his dishonesty was uncovered, he worked as a lifeguard for Teignbridge Council on Teignmouth beach, using the pseudonym Olroy Owen.
At his confiscation hearing in October 2009, he claimed the £59,494 he was paid in benefits had all but gone and — despite having 17 separate bank accounts — he had just £656 to his name.
The court heard Olroy said he donated £8,500 to a Sri Lankan charity after his fiancee was killed in the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, while the couple were on holiday there.
He also claimed he spent around £32,000 on a £50-a-day cocaine habit and £3,000 on a Ford Maverick car.
The crown court judge reduced the amount he had to pay back to £25,000, making allowances for nearly £9,000 housing benefit, which was paid directly to his landlord, the Sri Lankan charity donation, the car and his 'ordinary living expenses'.
However, he rejected Olroy's evidence about the cocaine, saying he had been 'unforthcoming' and refused to accept he spent 'anything like that amount' on fuelling his habit.
Olroy's barrister, Rosemary Walsh, argued that the judge was wrong about that and told the Appeal Court it was 'unlikely' he had £25,000 available, since the prosecution claimed he spent large sums on 'high living'.
But, dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Laws said there was 'no arguable basis' for challenging the confiscation order.
Observing that Olroy was 'fortunate' the Crown court judge accepted his evidence about the Sri Lankan donation, he added: "The judge was dealing with a determinedly dishonest man, who had opened and manoeuvred 17 bank accounts.
"Very significant sums were being moved about from the moment he was identified as a potential offender."
The court heard Olroy has been released from jail on home detention curfew, but faces a further 13 months behind bars if he doesn't pay the £25,000.
Despite his day job saving lives on a Teignmouth beach, Joseph William Olroy claimed he was too weak to lift a kettle and was given benefits for four years — spending the cash on 'high living' and surfing holidays, a court heard.
The 46-year-old, from Paignton, was jailed for two-and-a-half years at Exeter Crown Court in January 2009, after admitting six counts of obtaining money by deception and two of making a false representation.
In October 2009, he was ordered to pay back £25,000 to the Department for Work and Pensions, after a judge at the same court found he had the money available in 'hidden assets'.
Yesterday he challenged that decision at London's Criminal Appeal Court, where his lawyers argued he only had about £800 to his name and could not afford to repay the debt. Who paid for his appeal?
But his appeal was dismissed by top judges, who said the crown court judge had to deal with a 'determinedly dishonest man' and his conclusions about the available amount were justified.
Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Lindblom, told the court Olroy initially made a genuine claim for state benefits in 1998, including incapacity benefit, income support and housing benefit.
Olroy claimed he had 'very seriously limited mobility' caused by Crohn's disease and had difficulty boiling a kettle to make a cup of tea.
However, between 2001 and 2006, when his dishonesty was uncovered, he worked as a lifeguard for Teignbridge Council on Teignmouth beach, using the pseudonym Olroy Owen.
At his confiscation hearing in October 2009, he claimed the £59,494 he was paid in benefits had all but gone and — despite having 17 separate bank accounts — he had just £656 to his name.
The court heard Olroy said he donated £8,500 to a Sri Lankan charity after his fiancee was killed in the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, while the couple were on holiday there.
He also claimed he spent around £32,000 on a £50-a-day cocaine habit and £3,000 on a Ford Maverick car.
The crown court judge reduced the amount he had to pay back to £25,000, making allowances for nearly £9,000 housing benefit, which was paid directly to his landlord, the Sri Lankan charity donation, the car and his 'ordinary living expenses'.
However, he rejected Olroy's evidence about the cocaine, saying he had been 'unforthcoming' and refused to accept he spent 'anything like that amount' on fuelling his habit.
Olroy's barrister, Rosemary Walsh, argued that the judge was wrong about that and told the Appeal Court it was 'unlikely' he had £25,000 available, since the prosecution claimed he spent large sums on 'high living'.
But, dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Laws said there was 'no arguable basis' for challenging the confiscation order.
Observing that Olroy was 'fortunate' the Crown court judge accepted his evidence about the Sri Lankan donation, he added: "The judge was dealing with a determinedly dishonest man, who had opened and manoeuvred 17 bank accounts.
"Very significant sums were being moved about from the moment he was identified as a potential offender."
The court heard Olroy has been released from jail on home detention curfew, but faces a further 13 months behind bars if he doesn't pay the £25,000.
3 Feb 2011
Scottish TV family in benefits probe
A FAMILY who starred in "The Scheme" yesterday blamed the show for sparking a huge benefits fraud investigation.
Roseann and Gordon Cunningham are accused of fiddling £60,000 after investigators saw them on-screen apparently living together.
But the pair have told the Department for Work and Pensions that they live apart - and Gordon has a different address.
The family, who were not paid to appear on BBC Scotland's controversial documentary series, have now pulled out of a follow-up because of the fraud probe.
Roseann, 46, and Gordon, 47, say they split on their wedding night after a violent bust-up.
Roseann, who gets £80 per week in income support and suffers from depression, said yesterday: "Anyone watching the show would think that Gordon and I were together but we have been separated since our wedding night.
"I hit him with a vodka bottle and the police got involved. It's very embarrassing but it's the truth.
"I suffer from depression and still rely on Gordon for help with our children but we're definitely not together.
"The Department for Work and Pensions believe Gordon was working and living here and I was claiming income support.
"When I was being interviewed they kept going on about The Scheme and showing me benefit claims I've made.
"They don't believe that Gordon and I have been separated for years."
The pair were interviewed by investigators on Wednesday over the allegations.
They wanted to know why the couple were on-screen together when Roseann told the Department for Work and Pensions she was a struggling single mum.
Roseann says she now fears being convicted of fraud and forced to pay back cash she's claimed since the 1990s because of her appearance in the BBC show.
The Scheme was set in Kilmarnock's Onthank housing estate. The first episode pulled in 300,000 viewers - and it was such a sensation that 500,000 people tuned in for the second episode.
But the third and fourth episode of the show had to be postponed after one of the documentary's main stars was arrested and faced a court trial.
Despite dating since their teens, Gordon and Roseann only tied the knot in March 1995.
By then, they already had five kids - Claire, 27, Bryan, 26, David, 22, Christopher, 21, and Kimberley, 17.
In the show, Gordon was filmed gardening and doing domestic chores including washing the dishes.
Roseann was filmed accompanying him to a job interview and the family were also seen setting off on a foreign holiday - leaving tearaway son Chris behind.
Filming for a new series of The Scheme started earlier this month.
It is expected to be screened along with the whole of the first series later this year.
But on Friday, the Cunninghams pulled out of appearing in front of the camera for a second time.
Roseann added: "I had friends and family telling me not to get involved in the first series and I didn't listen to them.
"But I've now decided I just can't do any more."
Factory worker Gordon added: "Roseann has health issues and two of the boys were on drugs at one point so I had to go round there and straighten things out from time to time.
"I also went round to visit my youngest daughter but I've never lived there.
"I have letters and documents stored away in a folder which prove I wasn't living with Roseann."
A DWP spokeswoman said: "It would be inappropriate for us to comment at this stage."
The Scheme's production company Friel Kean and the BBC both declined to comment.
htp: Dave
Roseann and Gordon Cunningham are accused of fiddling £60,000 after investigators saw them on-screen apparently living together.
But the pair have told the Department for Work and Pensions that they live apart - and Gordon has a different address.
The family, who were not paid to appear on BBC Scotland's controversial documentary series, have now pulled out of a follow-up because of the fraud probe.
Roseann, 46, and Gordon, 47, say they split on their wedding night after a violent bust-up.
Roseann, who gets £80 per week in income support and suffers from depression, said yesterday: "Anyone watching the show would think that Gordon and I were together but we have been separated since our wedding night.
"I hit him with a vodka bottle and the police got involved. It's very embarrassing but it's the truth.
"I suffer from depression and still rely on Gordon for help with our children but we're definitely not together.
"The Department for Work and Pensions believe Gordon was working and living here and I was claiming income support.
"When I was being interviewed they kept going on about The Scheme and showing me benefit claims I've made.
"They don't believe that Gordon and I have been separated for years."
The pair were interviewed by investigators on Wednesday over the allegations.
They wanted to know why the couple were on-screen together when Roseann told the Department for Work and Pensions she was a struggling single mum.
Roseann says she now fears being convicted of fraud and forced to pay back cash she's claimed since the 1990s because of her appearance in the BBC show.
The Scheme was set in Kilmarnock's Onthank housing estate. The first episode pulled in 300,000 viewers - and it was such a sensation that 500,000 people tuned in for the second episode.
But the third and fourth episode of the show had to be postponed after one of the documentary's main stars was arrested and faced a court trial.
Despite dating since their teens, Gordon and Roseann only tied the knot in March 1995.
By then, they already had five kids - Claire, 27, Bryan, 26, David, 22, Christopher, 21, and Kimberley, 17.
In the show, Gordon was filmed gardening and doing domestic chores including washing the dishes.
Roseann was filmed accompanying him to a job interview and the family were also seen setting off on a foreign holiday - leaving tearaway son Chris behind.
Filming for a new series of The Scheme started earlier this month.
It is expected to be screened along with the whole of the first series later this year.
But on Friday, the Cunninghams pulled out of appearing in front of the camera for a second time.
Roseann added: "I had friends and family telling me not to get involved in the first series and I didn't listen to them.
"But I've now decided I just can't do any more."
Factory worker Gordon added: "Roseann has health issues and two of the boys were on drugs at one point so I had to go round there and straighten things out from time to time.
"I also went round to visit my youngest daughter but I've never lived there.
"I have letters and documents stored away in a folder which prove I wasn't living with Roseann."
A DWP spokeswoman said: "It would be inappropriate for us to comment at this stage."
The Scheme's production company Friel Kean and the BBC both declined to comment.
htp: Dave
Give the money back and don't do it again
A suspended prison sentence for a £32,000 fraud and no financial penalty. A pretty nothing punishment.
John McGonigle, 68, of Princes Road, appeared at Chester Crown Court, where he pleaded guilty to benefit fraud amounting to more than £32,400.
McGonigle admitted three offences of making false representations in order to claim housing and council tax benefit.
He failed to declare that he received an Army pension during a period of 10 years and also failed to declare receipt of a private pension when he became 65.
The court sentenced McGonigle to nine months' imprisonment suspended for two years. He must also fully repay the overpaid benefit to Cheshire West and Chester Council.
John McGonigle, 68, of Princes Road, appeared at Chester Crown Court, where he pleaded guilty to benefit fraud amounting to more than £32,400.
McGonigle admitted three offences of making false representations in order to claim housing and council tax benefit.
He failed to declare that he received an Army pension during a period of 10 years and also failed to declare receipt of a private pension when he became 65.
The court sentenced McGonigle to nine months' imprisonment suspended for two years. He must also fully repay the overpaid benefit to Cheshire West and Chester Council.
2 Feb 2011
The Guardian on "spies" in the welfare war
"At 6.30am, the housing estates that fringe Tunbridge Wells are silent, the roads empty", writes Amelia Gentleman. "Colin Stevens drives into a cul-de-sac, searching for house number 18. There's a light on downstairs, and two cars outside. He notes the number plates, does a U-turn, parks the car around the corner and waits."
There follows an account of some initial surveillances.
Then she writes that the DWP recently announced a zero-tolerance approach that would involve the recruitment of "another 200 anti-fraud officers to sanction a further 10,000 fraudsters every year", and proposed introducing a "system for rewarding members of the public who provide information that results in significant recovery of public funds". The department promised an additional £425m funding to combat the problem over the next four years, she adds, hoping this will deliver a £1.4bn reduction in fraud and error by 2014/15.
This being The Guardian, we are told that the new government's more robust tone on benefit fraud has unsettled many poverty campaigners. George Osborne has estimated that £5bn a year is being lost in this way.
After detailed discussion of surveillance tools and procedures, she questions in one case whether the work put in was worth the fraud it detected - five or six investigators involved in the case of a woman claiming £90 a week in disability living allowance. But clearly investigators need a level of proof which is likely to persuade offenders to plead guilty. The legal system just is not geared to the cost-effective sanctioning of huge numbers of low value cases.
But that is no argument for ignoring them. Many voters in the lower social groups who have low paid jobs are angry at the benefit fraud they see around them. Unchecked, it could grow even further.
"Encouraging people to shop their friends and neighbours is also uneasy territory", she writes.
After another right-on comparison with the amount of effort HMRC put into prosecuting "tax avoidance" (she means tax evasion, but then she is writing for The Guardian), she comments that "staff admit that a large proportion of people who commit fraud are not motivated by greed, but do it because they are struggling". More so than people in low paid jobs? There is no free money in the real world.
Almost inevitably Shami Chakrabarti is wheeled on, to say that officials should stay out of people's sex lives unless there is a very strong justification. Of course. But what if they are getting money from taxpayers by telling lies about their sex lives? Maybe the government shouldn't use that as a criterion for giving out taxpayers' money. But it does.
As Lord Freud says:
What Amelia Gentleman ignores is evidence at the general election that a lot of voters were angry at the benefit fraud they saw around them, and wanted it stamped on.
But we couldn't possibly have the opinions of ordinary voters sullying an effusion of Guardian politically correct posturing.
There follows an account of some initial surveillances.
Then she writes that the DWP recently announced a zero-tolerance approach that would involve the recruitment of "another 200 anti-fraud officers to sanction a further 10,000 fraudsters every year", and proposed introducing a "system for rewarding members of the public who provide information that results in significant recovery of public funds". The department promised an additional £425m funding to combat the problem over the next four years, she adds, hoping this will deliver a £1.4bn reduction in fraud and error by 2014/15.
This being The Guardian, we are told that the new government's more robust tone on benefit fraud has unsettled many poverty campaigners. George Osborne has estimated that £5bn a year is being lost in this way.
Tim Nichols, of the Child Poverty Action Group, says: "We've been worried by the government's language. There is more of a focus on benefit fraud in the Department for Work and Pensions' plan than there is on tax fraud and evasion in the Treasury plan, despite the fact that it is clearly a much smaller problem in terms of its cost. Recent figures show that we now have the lowest levels of benefit fraud that we've ever had."The government's benefit fraud figures have been understated for years - as he doubtless knows.
After detailed discussion of surveillance tools and procedures, she questions in one case whether the work put in was worth the fraud it detected - five or six investigators involved in the case of a woman claiming £90 a week in disability living allowance. But clearly investigators need a level of proof which is likely to persuade offenders to plead guilty. The legal system just is not geared to the cost-effective sanctioning of huge numbers of low value cases.
But that is no argument for ignoring them. Many voters in the lower social groups who have low paid jobs are angry at the benefit fraud they see around them. Unchecked, it could grow even further.
"Encouraging people to shop their friends and neighbours is also uneasy territory", she writes.
You can't help thinking that if this wasn't an issue that touched only the country's more marginalised people, these methods might have prompted more of an outcry.An outcry from whom? From The Guardian's Islington readers? Or from the benefit thieves' own neighbours?
After another right-on comparison with the amount of effort HMRC put into prosecuting "tax avoidance" (she means tax evasion, but then she is writing for The Guardian), she comments that "staff admit that a large proportion of people who commit fraud are not motivated by greed, but do it because they are struggling". More so than people in low paid jobs? There is no free money in the real world.
"Thirty to 40% say they did it because of a drug dependency, alcohol, debt, money for Christmas," Smith says. "If we impose an administrative penalty that will push them further into debt." Where they can, officials will just request repayments, and recommend that between £3 and £13.95 is deducted from the weekly benefits payment. When benefits are set so low, this will push them into poverty. Smith shrugs and looks sad.How much would be enough?
His colleague Leslie (who prefers not to give a surname) says: "You will interview people who have done some work [without declaring it] because they needed some money for a specific purpose, to give their kids a good Christmas, to clear a bit of debt. They know they have done wrong. If they are really sorry then hopefully you can offer them a caution that doesn't require a sanction.
"There's pure greed at one end of the spectrum . . . but you have more empathy for some people when you interview them. Most people will admit that they have done something wrong. Some people will say I just can't live on £64 a week, I can't live on benefits. But that's what the law says they are entitled to receive."
Almost inevitably Shami Chakrabarti is wheeled on, to say that officials should stay out of people's sex lives unless there is a very strong justification. Of course. But what if they are getting money from taxpayers by telling lies about their sex lives? Maybe the government shouldn't use that as a criterion for giving out taxpayers' money. But it does.
As Lord Freud says:
It is vital that people who attempt to undertake fraud feel that it is pretty high-risk and that the likelihood of detection is pretty high and that when they are caught the punishment regime is pretty effective. If we don't do those things, I think we are on a very slippery slopeThen up rolls the Guardianista special pleading.
"Less than 1% of people on benefits commit fraud, and most of those who do so need a bit of extra cash to tide them over. The complexity and perverse disincentives in the benefits system often leave them with little choice," Geraldine Blake, chief executive of Community Links, a charity working with claimants in east London, says.Excuse me: "less than 1%" have little choice, but somehow this doesn't apply to the other 99%? Oh please.
Katie Lane, benefits policy officer for Citizens Advice, says: "Of course fraud should not be tolerated, but it needs to be kept in perspective. The amount of money lost to the public purse through benefit fraud is a tiny fraction of the amount that goes unclaimed by people in real need who should be getting help."Which doesn't change the absolute amount being lost to benefit theft.
Helen Longfield of Oxfam adds: "We know that most people want to work, that there aren't enough decent, secure jobs and that the government rarely puts an equivalent amount of effort into cracking down on tax evaders, which costs the country far more."Oxfam? Are they saying benefit theft is justified because people are starving in the UK though a lack of "decent, secure" jobs? If not, what is she saying?
What Amelia Gentleman ignores is evidence at the general election that a lot of voters were angry at the benefit fraud they saw around them, and wanted it stamped on.
But we couldn't possibly have the opinions of ordinary voters sullying an effusion of Guardian politically correct posturing.
1 Feb 2011
Another conditional discharge
Jayne Marie Braisdell appeared at Chester Magistrates Court, where she pleaded guilty to six offences.
They were dishonestly failing to promptly notify Cheshire West and Chester Council and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of changes in her circumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Income Support.
She had conducted periods of undeclared work.
Braisdell was overpaid £7,061.
The court sentenced Braisdell to two years conditional discharge. She was also ordered to pay £100 towards the prosecution costs.
Braisdell is also required to fully repay the overpaid benefit to Cheshire West and Chester Council and the DWP. Of course.
Executive Member for Resources, Councillor Les Ford, made these odd remarks: “I am pleased with the outcome of this prosecution and hope that it will serve as a warning to others that benefit fraud will not be tolerated in West Cheshire at the expense of the borough’s law-abiding tax payers.”
A warning of what, exactly? ... That you can get away unpunished.
They were dishonestly failing to promptly notify Cheshire West and Chester Council and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of changes in her circumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Income Support.
She had conducted periods of undeclared work.
Braisdell was overpaid £7,061.
The court sentenced Braisdell to two years conditional discharge. She was also ordered to pay £100 towards the prosecution costs.
Braisdell is also required to fully repay the overpaid benefit to Cheshire West and Chester Council and the DWP. Of course.
Executive Member for Resources, Councillor Les Ford, made these odd remarks: “I am pleased with the outcome of this prosecution and hope that it will serve as a warning to others that benefit fraud will not be tolerated in West Cheshire at the expense of the borough’s law-abiding tax payers.”
A warning of what, exactly? ... That you can get away unpunished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)