In this particular case, based on the information that has been reproduced, it appears that the conviction was correct. Notwithstanding that, some more info about the law relating to Housing Benefit may be of interest.Which just shows what a morass good intentions land the state in. Hurrah the lawyers!
Firstly, it's worth noting that if the claimant's husband was not actually living in the claimant's "household", he is not counted as her partner for social security purposes (barring a couple of exceptions that don't appear to apply in this case). It doesn't matter whether they are married; what counts is whether they are members of the same household - there is a substantial body of case law on the meaning of "household" in this context.
Within HB legislation, there are some bars to entitlement where partners and former partners are the landlord. The main provisions are set out below:
1) former partner: HB is not payable where the claimant is liable to make payments to a former partner AND they have previously lived in the dwelling before they ceased to be partners - this also extends to partners of former partners.
2) landlord is responsible for a child of the claimant or claimant's partner: no HB is payable in these circumstances. "Child" means aged UNDER 16, so this bar doesn't apply where all dependents are aged 16 or over.
3) payments made by a claimant to a partner who is an owner of the dwelling: such payments are ineligible for HB.
The third "bar" notably does not extend to payments between partners who do NOT own the dwelling ("own" for HB purposes normally means the freeholder, so doesn't apply to leaseholders). In the latter circumstances, LAs will be required to consider other factors, including (but not limited to):
i) is the arrangement on a commercial basis?
ii) has the liability been created to take advantage of the HB scheme?
If "no" for "i" or "yes" for "ii", HB is not payable. Where the LA relies on the above exclusions, the onus is on the LA to show, on the balance of probability, that an exclusion applies.
There is old case law that suggests the nature of a relationship between partners means it will be very rare for financial arrangements between them to be on a commercial basis in this context. But, there is no direct, express, bar to HB between partners who do not own the dwelling.
In the case blogged, it isn't clear whether the claimant and her husband ever lived in the dwelling as a couple, nor is it clear whether the husband was responsible for the two sons (and, if so, whether either of the two sons were aged under 16).
However, the ownership of the property by the husband does not, in itself, exclude entitlement to HB.
Relevant legislation: regulations 9 and 12 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (and, possibly, the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006).
30 Jun 2011
Housing benefit fraud
Here's another useful comment from "Benefits Bod", on this post.
HMRC asleep on the job
Kerry Melia is cleverer than Gordon Brown. Well, she has more imagination than that stolid, Stalinist imitation of a human being.
He couldn't see that if you set up a centralised operation which gives money away, it will get taken for a ride.
Kerry understood, though, in spades.
A jobless mother of six already living on handouts invented 15 more children to claim more than £60,000 in a benefits fraud.
Stop there a moment. She had six children, she was already living on benefits ....
Her brazen operation was rumbled only when investigators realised she had made claims for ten new ‘foster children’ in just six months.
Hold hard. She was already claiming as a parent of six. Would even one additional foster child be plausible without checks? Let alone two ... or three ... or ten! And in six months?
She was able to get away with it because no one from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, who run the system, checked whether the children existed.
How hard can this be to check anyway? Get the name of the organisations arranging the fostering, and confirm it with them.
The greedy mother was jailed for eight months yesterday after a court heard she had continued to submit claims for a further five ‘foster children’ even though she was under investigation.
Sentencing her, Judge Michael Dudley said Melia was guilty of an ‘absolutely blatant fraud’ as he dismissed a plea from her barrister that a custodial sentence would prevent her continuing to breast-feed her seven-month-old child.
The judge said she had fraudulently ‘obtained public money from people who work hard for it’.
Wolverhampton Crown Court heard that Melia obtained a total of £62,243 in tax credits for her fictitious brood – £10,000 more than she had claimed legitimately with husband Stephen, 34, in income support, child benefit, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
The couple, both unemployed, lived in a shabby council house in Tipton, West Midlands, where Melia was arrested last year. Investigators discovered they had turned their three-bedroom home into a menagerie of exotic pets including terrapins, cockatiels, and a large snake. (HMRC add the detail that their officials also discovered dead mice in the freezer to feed the reptile.)
Investigators are at a loss as to how the couple – who do not own a car – spent the money.
They are believed to have used some of the cash to buy a static caravan, which was kept on a site in North Wales. But a source told the Daily Mail they had been forced to give it up after defaulting on the payments.
The court heard that the pair also made legitimate claims for four nephews and nieces who were briefly in their care.
Melia began legitimately claiming tax credits for her own children in 2005. The first nine fictitious claims were successfully lodged between January and May 2007. She attempted – without success – to claim for six other children between June 2007 and April last year. She admitted five specimen charges of fraud at a previous hearing.
And it comes to court in 2011.
Regan Peggs, defending, told the court she had co-operated with the investigation and that her husband had not been involved in any fraudulent activity. Prosecutor Barbara Webster told the court she was not seeking to recoup the money Melia fraudulently claimed because it was clear she had ‘no means’.
HMRC spokesman Jennie Kendall said, presumably with a straight face:
The Mail explains the system.
He couldn't see that if you set up a centralised operation which gives money away, it will get taken for a ride.
Kerry understood, though, in spades.
A jobless mother of six already living on handouts invented 15 more children to claim more than £60,000 in a benefits fraud.
Stop there a moment. She had six children, she was already living on benefits ....
Her brazen operation was rumbled only when investigators realised she had made claims for ten new ‘foster children’ in just six months.
Hold hard. She was already claiming as a parent of six. Would even one additional foster child be plausible without checks? Let alone two ... or three ... or ten! And in six months?
She was able to get away with it because no one from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, who run the system, checked whether the children existed.
How hard can this be to check anyway? Get the name of the organisations arranging the fostering, and confirm it with them.
The greedy mother was jailed for eight months yesterday after a court heard she had continued to submit claims for a further five ‘foster children’ even though she was under investigation.
Sentencing her, Judge Michael Dudley said Melia was guilty of an ‘absolutely blatant fraud’ as he dismissed a plea from her barrister that a custodial sentence would prevent her continuing to breast-feed her seven-month-old child.
The judge said she had fraudulently ‘obtained public money from people who work hard for it’.
Wolverhampton Crown Court heard that Melia obtained a total of £62,243 in tax credits for her fictitious brood – £10,000 more than she had claimed legitimately with husband Stephen, 34, in income support, child benefit, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
The couple, both unemployed, lived in a shabby council house in Tipton, West Midlands, where Melia was arrested last year. Investigators discovered they had turned their three-bedroom home into a menagerie of exotic pets including terrapins, cockatiels, and a large snake. (HMRC add the detail that their officials also discovered dead mice in the freezer to feed the reptile.)
Investigators are at a loss as to how the couple – who do not own a car – spent the money.
They are believed to have used some of the cash to buy a static caravan, which was kept on a site in North Wales. But a source told the Daily Mail they had been forced to give it up after defaulting on the payments.
The court heard that the pair also made legitimate claims for four nephews and nieces who were briefly in their care.
Melia began legitimately claiming tax credits for her own children in 2005. The first nine fictitious claims were successfully lodged between January and May 2007. She attempted – without success – to claim for six other children between June 2007 and April last year. She admitted five specimen charges of fraud at a previous hearing.
And it comes to court in 2011.
Regan Peggs, defending, told the court she had co-operated with the investigation and that her husband had not been involved in any fraudulent activity. Prosecutor Barbara Webster told the court she was not seeking to recoup the money Melia fraudulently claimed because it was clear she had ‘no means’.
HMRC spokesman Jennie Kendall said, presumably with a straight face:
The outcome of this latest prosecution shows we are tackling the ruthless theft of money from the public purse needed to fund public services for the benefit of everyone.Indeed it will - go for it, and probably you will only be caught if you get ludicrously greedy.
This will send out a clear and firm message to those falsely claiming tax credits or considering such measures.’
The Mail explains the system.
The ease with which Kerry Melia could claim thousands in fraudulent tax credits reveals startling inadequacies in the payout system.Anyone spot any problems with this?
Melia brazenly crafted identities of fake foster children before calling an HMRC tax helpline to tell them she had become a foster parent.
She provided the child’s name and date of birth but, as she was posing as a foster parent, she did not have to provide a birth certificate.
As soon as these details were entered into the HMRC’s system, Melia started to receive monthly payouts.
Melia would have later received an award notice confirming the details of her new foster child. The letter would encourage her to alert the tax office if the details were incorrect.
Using this simple system, Melia registered the details of nine fake children over five months from January to May 2007.
Benefit thief wails at jail sentence
A 61-year-old benefit crook wailed as she was jailed for eight months for a £51,000 fraud.
Well, good.
Amtul Bibi gave a fake tenancy agreement to claim up to £180-a-week for five years, while living with her two sons in a £260,000 house owned by her husband.
The couple were estranged but Bibi’s ex-partner let her move in to the property within weeks of him buying it in April 2002, while he lived elsewhere.
Bibi, of Kensington Avenue, Manor Park, admitted nine counts of making a false representation.
Sentencing at Inner London Crown Court, Judge Usha Karu told Bibi: “There can be no doubt that from the beginning, you knew it was your husband who owned the property, and therefore you were not entitled to claim that benefit.
“So this was a fraudulent claim from the outset and lasted something like five years.
“The total amount, a substantial amount, was £51,353.”
Ben Rogers, prosecuting, said Bibi’s late husband Mohammed Latif Bhatti registered the property with Londinium Estate Agents in Romford Road, Manor Park.
He told them he had a tenant at the house, in Kensington Avenue and the handouts were paid to the agent by Newham Council.
Later he started using lettings firm Faith International and from then the cheques went to Bibi, who was legitimately claiming income support.
The bogus claims were exposed in 2007 when Mr Bhatti noted his ownership of the property on an official document.
She was quizzed by investigators in November that year but denied he was her landlord.
Despite pleas by defence counsel for a suspended sentence, Judge Karu told Bibi: “I take the view that this was deliberate and conscious offending by you.
“The only sentence it seems to me, bearing in mind all the factors, is one of custody.’
Well, good.
Amtul Bibi gave a fake tenancy agreement to claim up to £180-a-week for five years, while living with her two sons in a £260,000 house owned by her husband.
The couple were estranged but Bibi’s ex-partner let her move in to the property within weeks of him buying it in April 2002, while he lived elsewhere.
Bibi, of Kensington Avenue, Manor Park, admitted nine counts of making a false representation.
Sentencing at Inner London Crown Court, Judge Usha Karu told Bibi: “There can be no doubt that from the beginning, you knew it was your husband who owned the property, and therefore you were not entitled to claim that benefit.
“So this was a fraudulent claim from the outset and lasted something like five years.
“The total amount, a substantial amount, was £51,353.”
Ben Rogers, prosecuting, said Bibi’s late husband Mohammed Latif Bhatti registered the property with Londinium Estate Agents in Romford Road, Manor Park.
He told them he had a tenant at the house, in Kensington Avenue and the handouts were paid to the agent by Newham Council.
Later he started using lettings firm Faith International and from then the cheques went to Bibi, who was legitimately claiming income support.
The bogus claims were exposed in 2007 when Mr Bhatti noted his ownership of the property on an official document.
She was quizzed by investigators in November that year but denied he was her landlord.
Despite pleas by defence counsel for a suspended sentence, Judge Karu told Bibi: “I take the view that this was deliberate and conscious offending by you.
“The only sentence it seems to me, bearing in mind all the factors, is one of custody.’
29 Jun 2011
Conditional discharge for £62k benefit fraud
An informant's tip-off led to the arrest and prosecution of a benefits cheat who had secret savings of £35,000 in a Spanish bank.
Steven Homes, from Bourne End, was handed a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs of £2,000 for the £62,000 fraud.
He was caught after an anonymous tip-off was passed to authorities and pleaded guilty to four counts of benefit fraud at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court.
From 2001-2010 the 53-year-old claimed housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support based on him having a very low income and negligible savings.
But a subsequent investigation found he had another source of income and had also failed to declare savings of just over £35,000 being held in a Spanish bank.
Steven Homes, from Bourne End, was handed a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs of £2,000 for the £62,000 fraud.
He was caught after an anonymous tip-off was passed to authorities and pleaded guilty to four counts of benefit fraud at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court.
From 2001-2010 the 53-year-old claimed housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support based on him having a very low income and negligible savings.
But a subsequent investigation found he had another source of income and had also failed to declare savings of just over £35,000 being held in a Spanish bank.
28 Jun 2011
Knots in law enforcement of benefits fraud
Many thanks to "Benefits Bod" for a very useful comment, which I have pulled out into a post so that it won't be overlooked.
The system for dealing with benefits fraudsters needs to combine adequate safeguards with the ability to handle huge volumes.
It's another aspect of the benefits system that the coalition should tackle. But reform in the legal system is glacial.
Longish post - intended to be informative and constructive.To me as a layman what emerges is that benefits sanctions and recovery have got snarled up in existing structures of law. Dickens might recognise some of what "Benefits Bod" describes.
"Councils should be able to get the necessary order as part of the same hearing, and then press on with getting our money back, with interest if possible."
As the law currently stands, it isn't actually legally possible to get ALL aspects dealt with by way of criminal proceedings - irrespective of whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
Something not widely appreciated (even by some LAs and some DWP officers!) is that once a "civil" decision is made that a claimant is entitled to less benefit AND that there is merit in criminal proceedings, two concurrent legal systems are engaged AND, courtesy of some rather wishy washy drafting of benefits legislation, the standards and approaches between the two differ substantially.
Concurrently with criminal proceedings, a claimant is entitled to challenge the decision(s) of the DWP/LA through the "civil" dispute system by way of EITHER requesting a revision of the decision(s) or directly appealing to a Tribunal. Criminal proceedings are conducted on an adversarial basis whilst Tribunal proceedings are conducted on an inquisitorial basis. The standard of proof for the criminal case is "beyond reasonable doubt"; for the Tribunal it is the "balance of probability".
It doesn't take a genius to work out the potential for conflict. It can (and does) lead to cases where a Tribunal appeal can be successful whilst the claimant is still legitimately convicted of an offence. I am also personally aware of a small number of cases where a conviction has been achieved on the basis of "X" and, later, the Tribunal has found that "X" was wrong - that leaves the possibility of convictions being quashed (quite legitimately).
My personal view is that where fraud is alleged in social security benefit / tax credit cases, the civil appeals system should automatically be engaged by way of an Upper Tribunal Judge being seconded to assist the Criminal Court. The idea is to avoid the massive confusion that can be created by two separate jurisdictions considering the same matter. It is arguable that such an approach would also save money (no need for separate hearings).
As an aside, it doesn't help with different overpayment regimes for 1) HB/CTB; 2) tax credits; 3) most other social security benefits. The only common denominator is that once an overpayment is legally "recoverable", actual "recovery" of that overpayment is then discretionary. Confiscation is a separate issue. As the law currently stands, interest cannot lawfully be added to benefit overpayments (R v Kensington & Chelsea RBC, ex parte Brandt [1995] 28 HLR 528, QBD), although Court costs can.
Whether the arrival of Universal Credit will, in reality, deal with any of these issues remains to be seen.
The system for dealing with benefits fraudsters needs to combine adequate safeguards with the ability to handle huge volumes.
It's another aspect of the benefits system that the coalition should tackle. But reform in the legal system is glacial.
27 Jun 2011
Benefit thief's wife had French property
A benefits cheat has been ordered to undertake 100 hours of community work and pay £16,000 in compensation after falsely claiming benefits.
Philip Venables (64) from Chichester pleaded guilty to four charges of making a false declaration to obtain benefits at Worthing Magistrates Court.
When Mr Venables claimed Jobseeker's Allowance, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, and Council Tax Benefit, he was asked specifically whether he or his partner owned any property here or abroad. Mr Venables responded on all four applications 'no'.
It was discovered that Mr Venables' wife owned a property in France, which he had not declared. The offence was uncovered after Chichester District Council received a data match indicating the ownership of the property. Due to the value of the property, Mr Venables was not entitled to benefits.
Mr Venables was overpaid benefits totalling £13902. He was ordered to undertake 100 hours of unpaid work over a 12-month period. He was also ordered to pay Chichester District Council compensation of £6,000 and the Department for Work and Pensions £10,000.
Philip Venables (64) from Chichester pleaded guilty to four charges of making a false declaration to obtain benefits at Worthing Magistrates Court.
When Mr Venables claimed Jobseeker's Allowance, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, and Council Tax Benefit, he was asked specifically whether he or his partner owned any property here or abroad. Mr Venables responded on all four applications 'no'.
It was discovered that Mr Venables' wife owned a property in France, which he had not declared. The offence was uncovered after Chichester District Council received a data match indicating the ownership of the property. Due to the value of the property, Mr Venables was not entitled to benefits.
Mr Venables was overpaid benefits totalling £13902. He was ordered to undertake 100 hours of unpaid work over a 12-month period. He was also ordered to pay Chichester District Council compensation of £6,000 and the Department for Work and Pensions £10,000.
26 Jun 2011
Light sentence for £30k benefit fraud
A benefit cheat from Dewsbury invented a fictional landlord to claim more than £30,000 in an eight-year scam.
Self-employed single mother Julie Squires, 50, created the character in order to illegally obtain housing benefit from 2002 to last year. Squires, whose son is a trainee police officer, was handed a 10-month jail term suspended for two years at a Leeds hearing.
The court heard Squires created false tenancy documents showing the character was the landlord of her home in Dewsbury’s Princess Street.
Squires, also given 150 hours unpaid work and a six-month supervision order, pleaded guilty to six counts of making false representations to obtain benefit.
Howard Shaw, prosecuting, said Squires had made up a “complete lie” to conceal the real owner of the property was a friend who lived with her. The deception, involving a total of £30,200 in housing benefit, was revealed after a tip-off. Squires later admitted in interviews to inventing the landlord.
Kama Melly, mitigating, said Squires started the offences after separating from her husband. She was sorry and embarrassed by the shame it had brought on her family, especially her son.
Self-employed single mother Julie Squires, 50, created the character in order to illegally obtain housing benefit from 2002 to last year. Squires, whose son is a trainee police officer, was handed a 10-month jail term suspended for two years at a Leeds hearing.
The court heard Squires created false tenancy documents showing the character was the landlord of her home in Dewsbury’s Princess Street.
Squires, also given 150 hours unpaid work and a six-month supervision order, pleaded guilty to six counts of making false representations to obtain benefit.
Howard Shaw, prosecuting, said Squires had made up a “complete lie” to conceal the real owner of the property was a friend who lived with her. The deception, involving a total of £30,200 in housing benefit, was revealed after a tip-off. Squires later admitted in interviews to inventing the landlord.
Kama Melly, mitigating, said Squires started the offences after separating from her husband. She was sorry and embarrassed by the shame it had brought on her family, especially her son.
- This is mitigation?
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.
Benefit thieves should 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.
24 Jun 2011
Large scale fraud checks using technology
Government officials are trawling through people’s credit files to see if benefit claimants have lied about living with a partner, reports the Daily Mail.
They have already clawed back £2million in six months by using credit reference agencies to verify the circumstances of 20,000 benefit and tax-credit claimants.
Credit reference agencies keep a record of a person’s name and address every time they apply for a credit card, loan or mortgage.
A single parent could be caught out if they had told the Government they are living alone, but then their partner moves in and applies for a credit card, thereby flagging up the fact that they live at that address.
HM Revenue & Customs, which administers tax credits, aims to take back an astonishing £700 million over two years by using credit reference agencies to identify ‘undisclosed partners.’
And the Department for Work and Pensions, which administers income support and housing benefits, aims to save £490million over four years.
It comes as the Government announced last week it will introduce ‘instant’ fines for anyone caught lying on their benefit application forms. Pensioners who lie about the amount of savings they have in order to qualify for pension credit or council tax benefit are thought to be a target. The £50 fines will be introduced next year.
Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud says: ‘It is not acceptable for people to give us incorrect information, or have no reasonable excuse for not telling us when circumstances change.’
The changes are all part of the Government’s plan to reduce benefit fraud and overpayments by a quarter — £1.4billion — by March 2015. It says it wants to ‘access more data’ about people to check that benefit applications are correct.
Anita Monteith, of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, says: ‘We shouldn’t be surprised at this. HMRC has all sorts of ways of verifying if a person’s information is correct.’
They have already clawed back £2million in six months by using credit reference agencies to verify the circumstances of 20,000 benefit and tax-credit claimants.
Credit reference agencies keep a record of a person’s name and address every time they apply for a credit card, loan or mortgage.
A single parent could be caught out if they had told the Government they are living alone, but then their partner moves in and applies for a credit card, thereby flagging up the fact that they live at that address.
HM Revenue & Customs, which administers tax credits, aims to take back an astonishing £700 million over two years by using credit reference agencies to identify ‘undisclosed partners.’
And the Department for Work and Pensions, which administers income support and housing benefits, aims to save £490million over four years.
It comes as the Government announced last week it will introduce ‘instant’ fines for anyone caught lying on their benefit application forms. Pensioners who lie about the amount of savings they have in order to qualify for pension credit or council tax benefit are thought to be a target. The £50 fines will be introduced next year.
Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud says: ‘It is not acceptable for people to give us incorrect information, or have no reasonable excuse for not telling us when circumstances change.’
The changes are all part of the Government’s plan to reduce benefit fraud and overpayments by a quarter — £1.4billion — by March 2015. It says it wants to ‘access more data’ about people to check that benefit applications are correct.
Anita Monteith, of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, says: ‘We shouldn’t be surprised at this. HMRC has all sorts of ways of verifying if a person’s information is correct.’
23 Jun 2011
Suspended sentence for £73k benefit fraud
An Alton woman has been given an eight-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, after pleading guilty to benefit fraud at Winchester Crown Court.
Sandra Turner admitted receiving £73,000 in benefits when she wrongly claimed as a single parent, despite having been married for more than seven years.
She claimed Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as a single parent of two children, despite the fact she began living with Richard Sherfield in April 2001, going on to marry him in September of the same year.
However, Turner failed to inform the authorities of her change in circumstances, which led to her continuing to claim benefits and be overpaid the sum of £73,000 between 2001 and 2009.
She was arrested in December 2009 following a long investigation by East Hampshire District Council and JobCentre Plus.
And it's just come to court.
Turner pleaded guilty on six counts, including obtaining money by deception.
In mitigation, her defence said she did not live an extravagant lifestyle and her claims had been genuine initially.
The court was also told she had health issues and had been “petrified” by the outcome of the case.
In addition to the suspended sentence, Turner was ordered to repay the money and a six-month residence requirement was made preventing her from going on holiday or away for the weekend.
Holiday? She owes us money. And by the way, where did her husband think the £73,000 came from?
Sandra Turner admitted receiving £73,000 in benefits when she wrongly claimed as a single parent, despite having been married for more than seven years.
She claimed Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as a single parent of two children, despite the fact she began living with Richard Sherfield in April 2001, going on to marry him in September of the same year.
However, Turner failed to inform the authorities of her change in circumstances, which led to her continuing to claim benefits and be overpaid the sum of £73,000 between 2001 and 2009.
She was arrested in December 2009 following a long investigation by East Hampshire District Council and JobCentre Plus.
And it's just come to court.
Turner pleaded guilty on six counts, including obtaining money by deception.
In mitigation, her defence said she did not live an extravagant lifestyle and her claims had been genuine initially.
The court was also told she had health issues and had been “petrified” by the outcome of the case.
In addition to the suspended sentence, Turner was ordered to repay the money and a six-month residence requirement was made preventing her from going on holiday or away for the weekend.
Holiday? She owes us money. And by the way, where did her husband think the £73,000 came from?
22 Jun 2011
Blow to housing benefit fraud investigations as stiff prosecution test confirmed
The legal tests to be met in order for a successful housing benefit fraud prosecution to succeed are often complex. But this is the prosecution’s problem. For defendants, it provides ample opportunities to defeat the case against them.
As this High Court ruling confirms, there are many hurdles for a ‘failure to notify’ prosecution to overcome. The fact that a person has a civil liability to repay overpaid housing benefit does not automatically mean that a housing benefit fraud offence has been committed. Far from it. Accordingly, the basis for any prosecution should be closely scrutinised.
As this High Court ruling confirms, there are many hurdles for a ‘failure to notify’ prosecution to overcome. The fact that a person has a civil liability to repay overpaid housing benefit does not automatically mean that a housing benefit fraud offence has been committed. Far from it. Accordingly, the basis for any prosecution should be closely scrutinised.
- Mr V made a claim for Jobseekers Allowance. At the same time, he claimed housing benefit. The Jobcentre to which he presented his claim forms sent the housing benefit claim form to Coventry council.
- Coventry council awarded Mr V housing benefit.
- Subsequently, Mr V became a full-time student. This meant that he no longer satisfied the entitlement criteria for Jobseekers Allowance and housing benefit.
- Mr V told his Jobcentre about having become a student. They stopped his JSA.
- Mr V did not separately notify Coventry Council. He assumed that the Jobcentre had notified the council and that the council had decided that he was still entitled to housing benefit. But the Jobcentre had not notified the council. Mr V was receiving housing benefit to which he was not entitled.
- Mr V’s housing benefit remained in payment and he received about £6,000 to which he was not entitled. When the council found out, they brought a criminal prosecution against Mr V for the offence of failing promptly to notify a change of circumstance (contrary to s.112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
- A Magistrates’ Court found Mr V not guilty. The council challenged the Magistrates’ interpretation of the law in the High Court.
- The offence with which Mr V was charged required the prosecution to prove three elements.
- The first element was that there was a change of circumstances affecting Mr V’s entitlement to housing benefit. The second matter to be proved was that Mr V knew that the change of circumstances affected his entitlement to benefit. The third was that Mr V had failed promptly to notify the change of circumstances to the council office designated in his original claim form.
- If any one of those elements is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must fail (King v Kerrier DC, 2006).
- The first element of the offence was clearly met in this case. The fact that Mr V was a student in receipt of student financial support meant that he did not meet the housing benefit entitlement conditions.
- The second element of the offence, however, was not met. It requires a prosecution to prove that a person knew that a change of circumstance would affect benefit entitlement. It is not enough to prove that a person knew a change only could affect entitlement.
- As the High Court observed, this is a point of some significance. It makes it difficult to prove that an offence has been committed. The prosecution must show that a person had sufficient knowledge of the housing benefit system to know that a change would affect entitlement. In the present case, the High Court found it was clear that Mr V did not know that becoming a student would affect his housing benefit entitlement. All Mr V thought was that the change might affect his entitlement. That was not enough for the offence to be proved.
- The above finding was sufficient to dispose of the appeal. Mr V could not be guilty of the offence of failing to notify a material change of circumstance. However, the High Court went on to address what the prosecution need to prove to make out the third element of the offence.
- The third element requires the prosecution to prove that a person “failed” promptly to notify the change of circumstance to the designated benefit office. The Court held that this does not simply address whether there was an absence of prompt notification. The prosecution must prove that a person knowingly failed to give a prompt notification. That means they must show that the person knew these matters: to whom the notice was to be given and the manner in which it was to be given.
- So this is important for a person such as Mr V who never notified the designated office. An absence of notification does not necessarily mean that the third element of the offence is proven.
- The High Court also pointed out that its interpretation of the third element of the offence imposes obligations on local authorities. They should set out “in clear terms” in benefit claim forms details of how changes of circumstances are to be notified.
- This was not done in Mr V’s case. He was not clearly told how he was to notify changes of circumstance. This was shown by him notifying his Jobcentre rather than the council direct. As a result, the prosecution could not possibly prove that Mr V had knowingly failed promptly to give a correct notification of a change of circumstance.
21 Jun 2011
Prison for deliberate £25k benefit fraud
A 61-year-old woman is starting a seven-month jail term after she defrauded Havering Council of more than £25,300 in housing benefit.
Anigal Hemasiri claimed the benefit for herself and her daughter after moving into a property in Southdown Road, Hornchurch in 2005, according to a Havering Council statement.
Her son and his wife were already living at the four bedroom home.
Hemasiri claimed the property was owned by Prasantha Kurera, who also lived there, but council investigators discovered it was jointly owned by Mr Kurera and her son, Sanjeeva.
“Council investigators also found that while all the household utility bills were being paid from the same bank account, which the benefit payments were paid into, there was no evidence that any rent was being paid,” a council spokesman said.
Hemasiri pleaded guilty to her indictment of dishonesty in May. She was sentenced to seven months in jail at Basildon Crown Court after Judge Alan Saggerson said only immediate custody would be appropriate.
The judge said Hemasiri had been fraudulent from the outset, allowing her family to live rent and mortgage-free by freeloading off the state.
The council will be seeking to recover the overpaid benefit.
And that's part of the problem. Councils should be able to get the necessary order as part of the same hearing, and then press on with getting our money back, with interest if possible.
Anigal Hemasiri claimed the benefit for herself and her daughter after moving into a property in Southdown Road, Hornchurch in 2005, according to a Havering Council statement.
Her son and his wife were already living at the four bedroom home.
Hemasiri claimed the property was owned by Prasantha Kurera, who also lived there, but council investigators discovered it was jointly owned by Mr Kurera and her son, Sanjeeva.
“Council investigators also found that while all the household utility bills were being paid from the same bank account, which the benefit payments were paid into, there was no evidence that any rent was being paid,” a council spokesman said.
Hemasiri pleaded guilty to her indictment of dishonesty in May. She was sentenced to seven months in jail at Basildon Crown Court after Judge Alan Saggerson said only immediate custody would be appropriate.
The judge said Hemasiri had been fraudulent from the outset, allowing her family to live rent and mortgage-free by freeloading off the state.
The council will be seeking to recover the overpaid benefit.
And that's part of the problem. Councils should be able to get the necessary order as part of the same hearing, and then press on with getting our money back, with interest if possible.
20 Jun 2011
More single parent fraud
A welfare cheat has been ordered to pay back over £18,000 worth of falsely claimed benefits.
Chesterfield magistrates’ court heard how Tracey Hayward, 48, from Shirebrook, falsely claimed income support, housing and council tax benefits as a single parent despite moving back in with her partner.
Bolsover District Cllr Duncan McGregor, cabinet member for corporate efficiencies, said: “This case stems back to 2008 and that’s nearly three years where the defendant was claiming money that was not rightfully hers and money that could have helped someone actually in need.”
Hayward was prosecuted under the Social Security Administration Act after a joint investigation was launched by Bolsover District Council and the Government’s Department for Works and Pensions.
She pleaded guilty to failing to declare that she had returned to live with a partner in June 2008 while continuing to claim benefits as a single parent at her former, privately rented address.
Cllr McGregor added: “She had every opportunity to give us the right information and stop claiming, but people think they can get away with it.
“We are telling you that you won’t and we will have no hesitation in taking the strongest course of action against those who continue to flout the law.”
Hayward was given a 12-month community order to complete 160 hours of unpaid work and was ordered to pay £100 in legal costs and to pay back over £18,000 in falsely claimed benefits.
We probably won't get those back any time soon.
Chesterfield magistrates’ court heard how Tracey Hayward, 48, from Shirebrook, falsely claimed income support, housing and council tax benefits as a single parent despite moving back in with her partner.
Bolsover District Cllr Duncan McGregor, cabinet member for corporate efficiencies, said: “This case stems back to 2008 and that’s nearly three years where the defendant was claiming money that was not rightfully hers and money that could have helped someone actually in need.”
Hayward was prosecuted under the Social Security Administration Act after a joint investigation was launched by Bolsover District Council and the Government’s Department for Works and Pensions.
She pleaded guilty to failing to declare that she had returned to live with a partner in June 2008 while continuing to claim benefits as a single parent at her former, privately rented address.
Cllr McGregor added: “She had every opportunity to give us the right information and stop claiming, but people think they can get away with it.
“We are telling you that you won’t and we will have no hesitation in taking the strongest course of action against those who continue to flout the law.”
Hayward was given a 12-month community order to complete 160 hours of unpaid work and was ordered to pay £100 in legal costs and to pay back over £18,000 in falsely claimed benefits.
We probably won't get those back any time soon.
17 Jun 2011
Benefit fraud in Brighton & Hove
A benefits cheat claimed more than £26,000 – whilst living in Egypt for two years.
Stanley Snowden, 62, from Brighton, did not tell the authorities he had moved abroad and continued to claim housing and pension benefits.
He was given a ten-week suspended prison sentence at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on Monday but was told he was lucky to be spared jail.
The chairman of the magistrates told Snowden he had “come as close as anyone could get to being sent to immediate custody”.
The court was told that Snowden had claimed housing benefit using an address in Sussex Square, Brighton.
In total he fraudulently claimed £15,412 in housing benefit and £10,769 in pension credit.
Brighton and Hove City Council received an anonymous tip-off that Snowden had never lived at the address in Sussex Square and had moved to Egypt two-and-a-half years earlier.
But he was caught out when the council stopped his payments in February and he phoned them to ask why.
The court was told that Snowden had been claiming at Sussex Square since May 2009 and prior to that for a home in Arundel Road from September 2008.
As well as the suspended prison sentence, Snowden was ordered to carry out 300 hours of unpaid work and pay back all the benefits owed, along with £930 court costs.
Another benefit cheat who failed to declare an inheritance of £89,000 was also spared jail this week.
Photographer Richard Chapman, 31, of Clarenden Villas, Hove, admitted fraudulently claiming more than £16,000 in benefits despite having £70,000 in a bank account. Chapman was given an eight-week suspended prison sentence. He was also ordered to do 200 hours of community service, pay back the benefits and £930 court costs.
Stanley Snowden, 62, from Brighton, did not tell the authorities he had moved abroad and continued to claim housing and pension benefits.
He was given a ten-week suspended prison sentence at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on Monday but was told he was lucky to be spared jail.
The chairman of the magistrates told Snowden he had “come as close as anyone could get to being sent to immediate custody”.
The court was told that Snowden had claimed housing benefit using an address in Sussex Square, Brighton.
In total he fraudulently claimed £15,412 in housing benefit and £10,769 in pension credit.
Brighton and Hove City Council received an anonymous tip-off that Snowden had never lived at the address in Sussex Square and had moved to Egypt two-and-a-half years earlier.
But he was caught out when the council stopped his payments in February and he phoned them to ask why.
The court was told that Snowden had been claiming at Sussex Square since May 2009 and prior to that for a home in Arundel Road from September 2008.
As well as the suspended prison sentence, Snowden was ordered to carry out 300 hours of unpaid work and pay back all the benefits owed, along with £930 court costs.
Another benefit cheat who failed to declare an inheritance of £89,000 was also spared jail this week.
Photographer Richard Chapman, 31, of Clarenden Villas, Hove, admitted fraudulently claiming more than £16,000 in benefits despite having £70,000 in a bank account. Chapman was given an eight-week suspended prison sentence. He was also ordered to do 200 hours of community service, pay back the benefits and £930 court costs.
16 Jun 2011
Judge jails mother, suggests sentence light
THE woman boss of a bus and taxi company was jailed for nine months for cheating the state out of £48,000.
Mother-of-one, Gail Hamblin, 40, had a school transport contract worth more than a quarter of a million pounds a year, but claimed she was earning just £25.35 a week.
In reality, her firm Atlas Travel and Private Hire, had a £256,501.90 annual contract with Gloucestershire County Council, as well as a number of other contracts, prosecutor Nick O'Brien said.
Hamblin, from Abbeymead, admitted eight charges of making false representation to Gloucester City Council to obtain benefits between September 2001 and November 2009.
Jailing her, Judge William Hart said:
Mr O'Brien told Gloucester Crown Court the total Hamblin obtained in housing and council tax benefit was £48,345.
"She made applications for benefits on the basis that she was a single parent of one child and her only income was from self employed taxi driving," said Mr O'Brien.
"She said she had a very limited income from her business – £25 to £35 a week with one or two fares at weekends."
Hamblin told investigators she was not making money from her business despite the large amounts going into her accounts.
Investigations revealed she was paying money out of her business account for personal items like Sky TV, added Mr O'Brien.
Other contracts she held included £61,000 from Luminar Leisure, £7,000 from Care Associates, £4,000 from Spirit Group and £2,250 from English Holiday Cruises.
Jason Coulter, defending, said although she had no accounts for her business while she was running it, she now had books which showed from 2005 she was making a "fairly significant annual loss".
She had not declared her income for tax either and had now been made bankrupt by the Inland Revenue for £150,000, he said.
"She clearly lived a life of financial chaos."
Doesn't say much for the council's due diligence. Did she have all the required permits? Where were HMRC all this time?
Phillip Wright, benefit fraud and recovery service manager at the city council, said: "We are pleased with the outcome but this case is not concluded. She has a responsibility upon her release from prison to repay the sums she has dishonestly obtained."
Mother-of-one, Gail Hamblin, 40, had a school transport contract worth more than a quarter of a million pounds a year, but claimed she was earning just £25.35 a week.
In reality, her firm Atlas Travel and Private Hire, had a £256,501.90 annual contract with Gloucestershire County Council, as well as a number of other contracts, prosecutor Nick O'Brien said.
Hamblin, from Abbeymead, admitted eight charges of making false representation to Gloucester City Council to obtain benefits between September 2001 and November 2009.
Jailing her, Judge William Hart said:
Sentences of this length look to be quite lucrative for the offender. Where else can you obtain £48,000 by losing four to five months of your liberty? I have some sympathy with that perception.He said he was bound by sentencing guidelines.
Mr O'Brien told Gloucester Crown Court the total Hamblin obtained in housing and council tax benefit was £48,345.
"She made applications for benefits on the basis that she was a single parent of one child and her only income was from self employed taxi driving," said Mr O'Brien.
"She said she had a very limited income from her business – £25 to £35 a week with one or two fares at weekends."
Hamblin told investigators she was not making money from her business despite the large amounts going into her accounts.
Investigations revealed she was paying money out of her business account for personal items like Sky TV, added Mr O'Brien.
Other contracts she held included £61,000 from Luminar Leisure, £7,000 from Care Associates, £4,000 from Spirit Group and £2,250 from English Holiday Cruises.
Jason Coulter, defending, said although she had no accounts for her business while she was running it, she now had books which showed from 2005 she was making a "fairly significant annual loss".
She had not declared her income for tax either and had now been made bankrupt by the Inland Revenue for £150,000, he said.
"She clearly lived a life of financial chaos."
Doesn't say much for the council's due diligence. Did she have all the required permits? Where were HMRC all this time?
Phillip Wright, benefit fraud and recovery service manager at the city council, said: "We are pleased with the outcome but this case is not concluded. She has a responsibility upon her release from prison to repay the sums she has dishonestly obtained."
Illegal immigrant jailed for £80k benefit fraud
An illegal immigrant who falsely claimed more than £80,000 in benefits has been jailed for 18 months.
Jamaican Laura Lee Jones, 37, pleaded guilty at Wood Green crown court to a seven-year fraud. It was ruled that when she has completed her sentence she will be deported.
Jones started claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit from Enfield council in March 2004 using the name Clover Jameson.
When she had a son in 2005 Jones registered his birth in Enfield and pretended to be a single mother. However, her partner also registered the child in the borough of Waltham Forest.
Enfield council's benefit investigation team learned Jones had no legal right to reside in the UK and used false identification to enter the country and claim benefits.
When officers visited her registered address in Edmonton, they discovered she was not living there but with her partner in Walthamstow where their child attended school.
Jones was jailed following a joint investigation involving Enfield council, the Department for Work and Pensions and the UK Border Agency.
Councillor Andrew Stafford said: "A custodial sentence will satisfy hardworking taxpayers and genuine claimants who are sick of being ripped off."
Do we get our money back?
Jamaican Laura Lee Jones, 37, pleaded guilty at Wood Green crown court to a seven-year fraud. It was ruled that when she has completed her sentence she will be deported.
Jones started claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit from Enfield council in March 2004 using the name Clover Jameson.
When she had a son in 2005 Jones registered his birth in Enfield and pretended to be a single mother. However, her partner also registered the child in the borough of Waltham Forest.
Enfield council's benefit investigation team learned Jones had no legal right to reside in the UK and used false identification to enter the country and claim benefits.
When officers visited her registered address in Edmonton, they discovered she was not living there but with her partner in Walthamstow where their child attended school.
Jones was jailed following a joint investigation involving Enfield council, the Department for Work and Pensions and the UK Border Agency.
Councillor Andrew Stafford said: "A custodial sentence will satisfy hardworking taxpayers and genuine claimants who are sick of being ripped off."
Do we get our money back?
15 Jun 2011
Is there too much stress on paying benefits fast?
A reader writes:
I work in Housing Benefit and I despair at the dodgy claims I receive and am expected to pay, its a losing battle, if I dont pay, they just appeal and they pay it.
Piece on welfare dependency
Christina Patterson isn't discussing benefit fraud, but the change in political attitudes to welfare dependency. Many people have just drifted into this existence, she says, like those living around them. Labour condoned it.
And now the bills are too high. Everyone says the bills are too high. Even the Labour Party, which didn't say anything about the bills when they were paying them, now says that the bills are too high. Even the leader of the Labour Party, who speaks at rallies where people say there shouldn't be any cuts at all, gave a speech on Monday saying that some people on benefits were "just not taking responsibility" and that "the rest of us are left picking up the pieces".Both main parties are responding to public opinion.
It was clear that the rules had changed on a sunny day a year ago, when George Osborne told the House of Commons, and the country, that the welfare bill had gone up 45 per cent in a decade, and that more children were living in households where nobody had jobs than anywhere else in Europe. And he said that he wanted this to stop. He said that he wanted to change the system so that people on benefits were encouraged to work. He said that he didn't want any household to get more in benefits than the average household wage.There will be winners and losers.
When he said this, a lot of people in the country were very happy, because they didn't like the idea of their taxes paying for people they thought were lazy, and a lot of people on the left were very angry, because they didn't like the idea of poor people becoming poorer, and a lot of people on benefits were very, very scared. Some of the people on benefits were right to be scared, because it meant that some of them would have to move, and many of them would have to look for jobs, and they'd never worked before, and didn't have many skills. And they felt that they were being punished, when they hadn't done anything wrong.P.S. This may also be of interest.
They are being punished, and they haven't done anything wrong, and when Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reform Bill becomes law, some people will be poorer, because when you make changes to a very complicated benefit system, some people will always be poorer, though other people won't. It's very, very hard for the people who will be poorer, and very unfair that the rules have changed. It would be hard in a time of boom, when there are lots of jobs, and this is not a time of boom.
But paying healthy people not to work doesn't help the healthy people, or their children, or the people whose taxes are paying for the healthy people's food and clothes and homes. And if you want to make a change – a difficult, painful, imperfect change – what you have to do is make a start.
Benefit fraud investigations recover over £310k
Benefit fraud investigators working for Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire District Councils helped to recover more than £310,000 in fraudulent overpayments last year.
Between April 1 2010 and 31 March 2011 action was successfully taken against 87 people across southern Oxfordshire who were found to have claimed money they were not entitled to.
The action will eventually result in the recovery of more than £160,000 in South Oxfordshire and £150,000 in the Vale of White Horse. This money is currently being returned through various individually assigned payment schemes. It also means that a significant amount of potential future fraudulent payments have also been prevented from taking place.
The 87 people includes 15 who were successfully prosecuted in court (five from Vale, ten from South), 57 cautioned (30 from Vale, 27 from South), and a further 15 were fined (eight from Vale, seven from South).
The majority of those caught admitted that they had failed to report at least one change in circumstance which would have affected the amount of money they were entitled to. This included nine of the 15 who were prosecuted in court, whose actions were either deemed serious enough from the start to warrant a prosecution or who had declined to accept a sanction (an alternative to prosecution), leaving officers with no other course of action but to prosecute. In one case an individual was prosecuted after repeatedly ducking the issue by failing to turn up for a number of scheduled interviews under caution.
Other offences taken to court were as a result of claimants dishonestly making a false statement on their original application for benefits or dishonestly failing to report a change.
Those successfully prosecuted in court received a range of punishments including suspended prison sentences, curfew orders, unpaid work and substantial fines, as well as being ordered to re-pay money that they had wrongly claimed.
Cllr David Dodds, Cabinet Member for Finance at South Oxfordshire District Council said: “The work that officers put into investigating individuals suspected of committing benefit fraud has resulted in the recovery of a substantial amount of tax payers’ money across both districts. Many of those caught claiming money they weren’t entitled to have ended up paying a substantial penalty, for what was in reality a very short term gain.”
Cllr Matthew Barber, Cabinet Member for Finance and Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council, said: “The simple message to those claiming benefits is that you must declare all capital and earnings on your original application and ensure that you tell us about any changes in your circumstance after that. Failing to do so is likely to result in an investigation which may lead to a prosecution and a potential criminal record.”
Paul Howden, responsible for fraud investigations at South and Vale, said: “We will not hesitate to take action against anyone suspected of committing benefit fraud. It is simply not on that the honest majority should pay money to support those cheats who think they can swindle the system.”
Between April 1 2010 and 31 March 2011 action was successfully taken against 87 people across southern Oxfordshire who were found to have claimed money they were not entitled to.
The action will eventually result in the recovery of more than £160,000 in South Oxfordshire and £150,000 in the Vale of White Horse. This money is currently being returned through various individually assigned payment schemes. It also means that a significant amount of potential future fraudulent payments have also been prevented from taking place.
The 87 people includes 15 who were successfully prosecuted in court (five from Vale, ten from South), 57 cautioned (30 from Vale, 27 from South), and a further 15 were fined (eight from Vale, seven from South).
The majority of those caught admitted that they had failed to report at least one change in circumstance which would have affected the amount of money they were entitled to. This included nine of the 15 who were prosecuted in court, whose actions were either deemed serious enough from the start to warrant a prosecution or who had declined to accept a sanction (an alternative to prosecution), leaving officers with no other course of action but to prosecute. In one case an individual was prosecuted after repeatedly ducking the issue by failing to turn up for a number of scheduled interviews under caution.
Other offences taken to court were as a result of claimants dishonestly making a false statement on their original application for benefits or dishonestly failing to report a change.
Those successfully prosecuted in court received a range of punishments including suspended prison sentences, curfew orders, unpaid work and substantial fines, as well as being ordered to re-pay money that they had wrongly claimed.
Cllr David Dodds, Cabinet Member for Finance at South Oxfordshire District Council said: “The work that officers put into investigating individuals suspected of committing benefit fraud has resulted in the recovery of a substantial amount of tax payers’ money across both districts. Many of those caught claiming money they weren’t entitled to have ended up paying a substantial penalty, for what was in reality a very short term gain.”
Cllr Matthew Barber, Cabinet Member for Finance and Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council, said: “The simple message to those claiming benefits is that you must declare all capital and earnings on your original application and ensure that you tell us about any changes in your circumstance after that. Failing to do so is likely to result in an investigation which may lead to a prosecution and a potential criminal record.”
Paul Howden, responsible for fraud investigations at South and Vale, said: “We will not hesitate to take action against anyone suspected of committing benefit fraud. It is simply not on that the honest majority should pay money to support those cheats who think they can swindle the system.”
14 Jun 2011
Conditional discharge for £18k benefit fraud
Jayne Hudson, 42, admitted three charges of benefit fraud over almost four years.
She had married Sandra Green in April 2006, shortly after civil partnerships were introduced - but never informed the relevant authorities, The Sun report.
Hudson claimed the pair were only friends who visited each other on occasion, but the Department for Work and Pensions discovered that they were using a joint bank account registered to one address, which they shared as the marital home.
In total, Hudson, from Tamworth, Staffordshire, was given £18,721 in income Support, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
She was given an 18-month conditional discharge at Stafford Crown Court and told by Judge Michael Challinor that she "should be ashamed".
She had married Sandra Green in April 2006, shortly after civil partnerships were introduced - but never informed the relevant authorities, The Sun report.
Hudson claimed the pair were only friends who visited each other on occasion, but the Department for Work and Pensions discovered that they were using a joint bank account registered to one address, which they shared as the marital home.
In total, Hudson, from Tamworth, Staffordshire, was given £18,721 in income Support, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
She was given an 18-month conditional discharge at Stafford Crown Court and told by Judge Michael Challinor that she "should be ashamed".
13 Jun 2011
Ed Miliband disowns benefit fraud
Odd, but there it is.
Labour is seen by many as the party of those "ripping off our society" by abusing the benefits system, leader Ed Miliband is to say.
In a speech later, he will say Labour must become a party that "rewards contribution, not worklessness".
He will suggest that people who work or volunteer should get priority on council house waiting lists.
Light sentences for benefit theft couple
A courier escaped jail after being caught on camera lifting and delivering heavy boxes - while raking in thousands of pounds of benefits by claiming he could barely walk.
Nigel Barnes was also spotted working in a second job at Asda where he was a shelf stacker, and skipping up and down steps.
His wife Linda had also been conning the taxpayer out of thousands of pounds by claiming she was single while living with her husband in Lancaster, Lancashire.
Barnes admitted his deception after undercover officers from the Department for Work and Pension (DWP) secretly filmed his movements which included driving his wife’s Motability car to carry out his second job as a parcel courier.
The surveillance operation caught him red-handed delivering parcels from a DHL van and then driving around town.
The 48-year-old can be seen walking up and down steps without any trouble and getting in and out of the car with ease.
Barnes and his wife, 58, were handed two-year community orders after fraudulently claiming almost £30,000 in benefits they weren’t entitled to.
He had made a legitimate claim for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in April 2005 when he was suffering walking difficulties and had care issues because he had rheumatoid arthritis.
Prosecuting at Preston Crown Court, David McLaughlin said the claim became bogus when his condition improved after a change of medication.
He made a further claim for DLA in March last year stating he had difficulties walking which resulted in an overpayment of £9,835.
Supermarket bosses at Asda described him as an 'efficient and effective worker' despite having a high rate of absenteeism.
Defending Chris Hudson said Barnes had not take the relevant steps to ensure the DWP were aware of his change in circumstances and had learned a 'painful lesson'.
He said his client had lost his entitlement to benefits and now had a part-time job delivering pizzas.
His wife, who said she was single, claimed £18,500 in Income Support. She admitted three counts of failing to notify the DWP in a change of circumstances after her husband returned to live with her.
She claimed the £18,500 over a four year period from 2006 to 2010 as a single person but the court was told she had an 'on-off' relationship with her husband.
Her defence Joe Hart said she suffered ill health and received no financial assistance from her husband.
They were both also ordered to carry out 250 hours of unpaid work.
A source said: 'The picture he portrayed was of someone who was virtually unable to walk. But the undercover surveillance operation clearly proved this was not the case.
'He was seen going all over town to various offices delivering heavy parcels and packages and working at Asda as a shelf stacker.
'And she claimed she was single but they had been living together for years.
Nigel Barnes was also spotted working in a second job at Asda where he was a shelf stacker, and skipping up and down steps.
His wife Linda had also been conning the taxpayer out of thousands of pounds by claiming she was single while living with her husband in Lancaster, Lancashire.
Barnes admitted his deception after undercover officers from the Department for Work and Pension (DWP) secretly filmed his movements which included driving his wife’s Motability car to carry out his second job as a parcel courier.
The surveillance operation caught him red-handed delivering parcels from a DHL van and then driving around town.
The 48-year-old can be seen walking up and down steps without any trouble and getting in and out of the car with ease.
Barnes and his wife, 58, were handed two-year community orders after fraudulently claiming almost £30,000 in benefits they weren’t entitled to.
He had made a legitimate claim for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in April 2005 when he was suffering walking difficulties and had care issues because he had rheumatoid arthritis.
Prosecuting at Preston Crown Court, David McLaughlin said the claim became bogus when his condition improved after a change of medication.
He made a further claim for DLA in March last year stating he had difficulties walking which resulted in an overpayment of £9,835.
Supermarket bosses at Asda described him as an 'efficient and effective worker' despite having a high rate of absenteeism.
Defending Chris Hudson said Barnes had not take the relevant steps to ensure the DWP were aware of his change in circumstances and had learned a 'painful lesson'.
He said his client had lost his entitlement to benefits and now had a part-time job delivering pizzas.
His wife, who said she was single, claimed £18,500 in Income Support. She admitted three counts of failing to notify the DWP in a change of circumstances after her husband returned to live with her.
She claimed the £18,500 over a four year period from 2006 to 2010 as a single person but the court was told she had an 'on-off' relationship with her husband.
Her defence Joe Hart said she suffered ill health and received no financial assistance from her husband.
They were both also ordered to carry out 250 hours of unpaid work.
A source said: 'The picture he portrayed was of someone who was virtually unable to walk. But the undercover surveillance operation clearly proved this was not the case.
'He was seen going all over town to various offices delivering heavy parcels and packages and working at Asda as a shelf stacker.
'And she claimed she was single but they had been living together for years.
10 Jun 2011
No jail for £75k benefits thief
A judge controversially suggested that Afro-Caribbean husbands are more likely to abandon their wives than others.
He later went on to say that he was not racially stereotyping.
Judge Nigel Seed QC was passing sentence on fraud cheat Jennifer Baiden at Inner London Crown Court and said he was “unimpressed” with the efforts made to trace her husband, who had received some of the cash.
He said: “This could well be a man who has left women to fend for themselves.
“I do not wish to be accused of racially stereoptyping, but I am aware that is quite often the attitude of Afro-Caribbean males.”
Mother-of-three Baiden, jetted around the world on the proceeds of her dole fraud.
She lied about husband Samuel Baiden’s income to claim £75,000 in benefits.
The scam, involving housing and council tax benefits as well as income support, ran from 2000 until her arrest in 2009.
She also lied about a previous conviction in 1997 for false accounting, which was listed under her maiden name of Newman and a false date of birth.
The 45-year-old, of Jacobs House, New City Road, Plaistow, used the cash on shopping sprees and holidays in Canada and Jamaica.
The court heard that she has £40,000 of debts despite claiming the cash.
Imposing a 12-month jail sentence, suspended for two years, he told her: “I consider you to be dishonest.
“I accept that you were entitled to some benefits and it is of great misfortune that further inquiries weren’t made of your husband.
“But you told a series of lies to people and you are now taking the brunt.
“You are the only person who is going to be sentenced by the court, whereas your husband has got away and he benefited from the money to which you were not entitled.”
Andrew Evans, prosecuting, said Baiden was first declined an application for benefits back in 1999 while living with Samuel Baiden, who was then her boyfriend, as she did not state his income.
The following year she successfully reapplied, claiming he had left her and “gone abroad”.
Mr Evans said: “Since February 2000 the defendant has been in receipt of income support which she claimed from the Department of Work and Pensions on the basis that she was a lone parent, as she was separated from her partner, whom she believed had gone abroad and had no other source of income.
“She also received from the London Borough of Newham housing benefit and council tax benefit for the property at Jacobs House.
“Therefore, as a result of her false benefit claims, the defendant has received an overpayment of £74,800.99 in benefits to which she was not entitled.”
He later went on to say that he was not racially stereotyping.
Judge Nigel Seed QC was passing sentence on fraud cheat Jennifer Baiden at Inner London Crown Court and said he was “unimpressed” with the efforts made to trace her husband, who had received some of the cash.
He said: “This could well be a man who has left women to fend for themselves.
“I do not wish to be accused of racially stereoptyping, but I am aware that is quite often the attitude of Afro-Caribbean males.”
Mother-of-three Baiden, jetted around the world on the proceeds of her dole fraud.
She lied about husband Samuel Baiden’s income to claim £75,000 in benefits.
The scam, involving housing and council tax benefits as well as income support, ran from 2000 until her arrest in 2009.
She also lied about a previous conviction in 1997 for false accounting, which was listed under her maiden name of Newman and a false date of birth.
The 45-year-old, of Jacobs House, New City Road, Plaistow, used the cash on shopping sprees and holidays in Canada and Jamaica.
The court heard that she has £40,000 of debts despite claiming the cash.
Imposing a 12-month jail sentence, suspended for two years, he told her: “I consider you to be dishonest.
“I accept that you were entitled to some benefits and it is of great misfortune that further inquiries weren’t made of your husband.
“But you told a series of lies to people and you are now taking the brunt.
“You are the only person who is going to be sentenced by the court, whereas your husband has got away and he benefited from the money to which you were not entitled.”
Andrew Evans, prosecuting, said Baiden was first declined an application for benefits back in 1999 while living with Samuel Baiden, who was then her boyfriend, as she did not state his income.
The following year she successfully reapplied, claiming he had left her and “gone abroad”.
Mr Evans said: “Since February 2000 the defendant has been in receipt of income support which she claimed from the Department of Work and Pensions on the basis that she was a lone parent, as she was separated from her partner, whom she believed had gone abroad and had no other source of income.
“She also received from the London Borough of Newham housing benefit and council tax benefit for the property at Jacobs House.
“Therefore, as a result of her false benefit claims, the defendant has received an overpayment of £74,800.99 in benefits to which she was not entitled.”
9 Jun 2011
Light sentence for £35k benefit theft
An Arnold woman, who falsely claimed almost £35,000 in benefits, has been given a nine month custodial sentence suspended for two years and 40 hours community work.
Kristin Levers, aged 30, pleaded guilty to two accounts of failing to tell Gedling Borough Council and the DWP her partner was living with her in her privately rented house between February 2007 and May 2009.
As she failed to declare her change in circumstances, she was overpaid £26,576.21in income support, £6,670.62 in housing benefit and £1,684.27 in council tax benefit – a total of £34,931, which she must pay back.
When sentencing the judge told Levers the offence warranted an immediate prison sentence, but took into account her health, personal circumstances and the fact that she has dependent children in her care.
The fraud was discovered following an investigation led by the council’s benefits fraud team, in partnership with the DWP. Levers was interviewed under caution by council officers and a representative from the DWP, where she denied her partner was living with her.
Levers attended Nottingham Magistrates’ Court earlier this year where she pleaded not guilty and asked for her case to be referred to Nottingham Crown Court. After a pre-case management hearing at the Crown Court on 6 May 2011 she changed her plea to guilty and the case was referred for sentencing on 3 June.
If you're a mother in poor health with dependent children, why not go for it, then?
We know the repayments will be trivial.
Kristin Levers, aged 30, pleaded guilty to two accounts of failing to tell Gedling Borough Council and the DWP her partner was living with her in her privately rented house between February 2007 and May 2009.
As she failed to declare her change in circumstances, she was overpaid £26,576.21in income support, £6,670.62 in housing benefit and £1,684.27 in council tax benefit – a total of £34,931, which she must pay back.
When sentencing the judge told Levers the offence warranted an immediate prison sentence, but took into account her health, personal circumstances and the fact that she has dependent children in her care.
The fraud was discovered following an investigation led by the council’s benefits fraud team, in partnership with the DWP. Levers was interviewed under caution by council officers and a representative from the DWP, where she denied her partner was living with her.
Levers attended Nottingham Magistrates’ Court earlier this year where she pleaded not guilty and asked for her case to be referred to Nottingham Crown Court. After a pre-case management hearing at the Crown Court on 6 May 2011 she changed her plea to guilty and the case was referred for sentencing on 3 June.
If you're a mother in poor health with dependent children, why not go for it, then?
We know the repayments will be trivial.
8 Jun 2011
Feeble targets for overdue fraud initiative
Private-sector firms will be used to check whether claimants have undeclared income that would disqualify them from claiming.
The use of credit-ratings agencies is part of a wider crackdown on public sector fraud that ministers will today claim can save up to £1.5 billion over the next four years.
Fraud including tax evasion costs the public services an estimated £21 billion a year and Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister will today set out the Coalition’s plans to reduce it.
The use of credit ratings agencies is the centrepiece of the Cabinet Office Counter Fraud Taskforce’s plan.
Small-scale pilot schemes using the agencies to verify the financial status of 20,000 claimants have already eliminated £2 million of fraud, the report reveals.
The technique will now be rolled out across the tax and benefits systems.
HM Revenue and Customs estimates that it will save £700 million over the next two years by running checks on people asking for tax credits. The Department of Work and Pensions expects to save £490 million from welfare payments over next four years.
The ratings agencies will be paid partly according to how many cases of fraud they uncover, leading some to dub them “bounty hunters”.
Public sector bodies will also be told to pool information about fraudulent claimants, since evidence suggests that fraudsters often target several different agencies.
Ministers are also considering creating a “watch-list” of people who have committed fraud against the public sector.
Mr Maude said that too often, the public sector takes a “pay first, check later” approach to fraud.
To change that, HMRC will introduce a new “firewall” for tax credit applications to detect possible fraud in advance, suspending suspect applications until they are verified.
A pilot scheme employing greater scrutiny on applications for tax credits revealed that more than one in fifty of all applications were potentially fraudulent.
Between September 2010 and March this year, 615,000 applications for tax credits were tested. A total of 13,061 were rejected or reduced, saving £10.6 million of public money.
As well as prevention measures, the taskforce has also explored using more persuasive techniques to “nudge” people into greater compliance with the rules.
That could include HMRC sending text messages to remind people to submit their tax returns on time. A pilot scheme with 31,000 people led to a 5 per cent increase in on-time submissions, worth £180,000 in revenues.
Writing for www.telegraph.co.uk. Mr Maude warned that fraud is a problem across the public sector, and promised a “zero-tolerance” approach.
“This is not a problem which is restricted to one Government department; it has an alarming prevalence throughout government,” he said.
“We will not stand by and allow this to happen any longer. No business in the world would put up with this scale of fraudulent activity.”
Mr Maude said that the scale of public sector fraud was proof that Labour had failed to act on the problem.
But Tessa Jowell, his Labour shadow, said Mr Maude’s targets for savings were “modest and unambitious compared to the proposals that Labour made in Government”.
The use of credit-ratings agencies is part of a wider crackdown on public sector fraud that ministers will today claim can save up to £1.5 billion over the next four years.
Fraud including tax evasion costs the public services an estimated £21 billion a year and Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister will today set out the Coalition’s plans to reduce it.
The use of credit ratings agencies is the centrepiece of the Cabinet Office Counter Fraud Taskforce’s plan.
Small-scale pilot schemes using the agencies to verify the financial status of 20,000 claimants have already eliminated £2 million of fraud, the report reveals.
The technique will now be rolled out across the tax and benefits systems.
HM Revenue and Customs estimates that it will save £700 million over the next two years by running checks on people asking for tax credits. The Department of Work and Pensions expects to save £490 million from welfare payments over next four years.
The ratings agencies will be paid partly according to how many cases of fraud they uncover, leading some to dub them “bounty hunters”.
Public sector bodies will also be told to pool information about fraudulent claimants, since evidence suggests that fraudsters often target several different agencies.
Ministers are also considering creating a “watch-list” of people who have committed fraud against the public sector.
Mr Maude said that too often, the public sector takes a “pay first, check later” approach to fraud.
To change that, HMRC will introduce a new “firewall” for tax credit applications to detect possible fraud in advance, suspending suspect applications until they are verified.
A pilot scheme employing greater scrutiny on applications for tax credits revealed that more than one in fifty of all applications were potentially fraudulent.
Between September 2010 and March this year, 615,000 applications for tax credits were tested. A total of 13,061 were rejected or reduced, saving £10.6 million of public money.
As well as prevention measures, the taskforce has also explored using more persuasive techniques to “nudge” people into greater compliance with the rules.
That could include HMRC sending text messages to remind people to submit their tax returns on time. A pilot scheme with 31,000 people led to a 5 per cent increase in on-time submissions, worth £180,000 in revenues.
Writing for www.telegraph.co.uk. Mr Maude warned that fraud is a problem across the public sector, and promised a “zero-tolerance” approach.
“This is not a problem which is restricted to one Government department; it has an alarming prevalence throughout government,” he said.
“We will not stand by and allow this to happen any longer. No business in the world would put up with this scale of fraudulent activity.”
Mr Maude said that the scale of public sector fraud was proof that Labour had failed to act on the problem.
But Tessa Jowell, his Labour shadow, said Mr Maude’s targets for savings were “modest and unambitious compared to the proposals that Labour made in Government”.
Woman judge jails benefits thief mother
A mother of three was jailed for five months for swindling more than £70,000 in benefits.
For five years Maxine Ireland claimed income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit on the premise that her husband Paul Rutherford was not living with the family.
But the Department for Work and Pensions investigated the claims when Mr Rutherford signed a credit agreement saying he was living at the Clevedon property.
Bristol Crown Court heard that Ireland, 40, had never worked and started claiming benefits in 1990.
She married Mr Rutherford in 2004 but after they had a son the following year Ireland put in a claim for benefits, saying her husband did not live with her.
Prosecuting at Bristol Crown Court on behalf of the DWP and North Somerset Council, James Cranfield said that between 2004 and 2009 Ireland claimed £71,500 which she wasn't entitled to – £44,182 in income support, £22,943 in housing benefit and £4,557 in council tax benefit.
She later admitted failing to notify of a change of circumstances that could affect a benefit claim, two counts of making false statements to gain benefits and two counts of deception.
Mr Cranfield said: "In interview she said she and her husband had married on a Saturday, had an enormous argument and the relationship had broken down by the Monday.
"She said he lived in his car and at friends' houses and that she didn't have a partner who was in work living at the address."
Defending Ireland, who sobbed in the dock throughout the hearing which was attended by her two daughters, Jennifer Talentire told the court that she had since gained work as a domestic assistant and she was well-thought of by her employers.
Ms Talentire said Ireland had a "turbulent" personal life, and had issues with alcohol and depression since she first had children.
Ms Talentire said that after she and Mr Rutherford had a son together he was happy to feed him and give him pocket money, but didn't feel that it was his responsibility to look after Ireland's daughters.
Ireland told the DWP that she was scared of being left with no money.
Ms Talentire said the claim amounted to about £14,000 a year for four people, and that Ireland was by no means living a luxurious lifestyle.
She said Ireland was terrified her family would be torn apart if she went to prison.
But Her Honour Judge Carol Hagen said: "The fact of the matter is that you claimed £70,000 to which you were not entitled over five years, and the sentence has to reflect that fact."
For five years Maxine Ireland claimed income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit on the premise that her husband Paul Rutherford was not living with the family.
But the Department for Work and Pensions investigated the claims when Mr Rutherford signed a credit agreement saying he was living at the Clevedon property.
Bristol Crown Court heard that Ireland, 40, had never worked and started claiming benefits in 1990.
She married Mr Rutherford in 2004 but after they had a son the following year Ireland put in a claim for benefits, saying her husband did not live with her.
Prosecuting at Bristol Crown Court on behalf of the DWP and North Somerset Council, James Cranfield said that between 2004 and 2009 Ireland claimed £71,500 which she wasn't entitled to – £44,182 in income support, £22,943 in housing benefit and £4,557 in council tax benefit.
She later admitted failing to notify of a change of circumstances that could affect a benefit claim, two counts of making false statements to gain benefits and two counts of deception.
Mr Cranfield said: "In interview she said she and her husband had married on a Saturday, had an enormous argument and the relationship had broken down by the Monday.
"She said he lived in his car and at friends' houses and that she didn't have a partner who was in work living at the address."
Defending Ireland, who sobbed in the dock throughout the hearing which was attended by her two daughters, Jennifer Talentire told the court that she had since gained work as a domestic assistant and she was well-thought of by her employers.
Ms Talentire said Ireland had a "turbulent" personal life, and had issues with alcohol and depression since she first had children.
Ms Talentire said that after she and Mr Rutherford had a son together he was happy to feed him and give him pocket money, but didn't feel that it was his responsibility to look after Ireland's daughters.
Ireland told the DWP that she was scared of being left with no money.
Ms Talentire said the claim amounted to about £14,000 a year for four people, and that Ireland was by no means living a luxurious lifestyle.
She said Ireland was terrified her family would be torn apart if she went to prison.
But Her Honour Judge Carol Hagen said: "The fact of the matter is that you claimed £70,000 to which you were not entitled over five years, and the sentence has to reflect that fact."
The council should have known
A woman narrowly avoided a prison sentence after fraudulently claiming almost £37,000 in benefits despite her family owning a portfolio of properties worth more than £1 million.
Anuysa Parmar, 51, was told she was “very fortunate” not to be jailed as a judge imposed a 24-week prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered her to do 100 hours of unpaid work after she admitted three counts of benefit fraud at Leeds Crown Court.
The court was told Parmar fraudulently claimed income support, council tax and housing benefit over a seven-year period while owning her own home which she bought from her council under the right to buy scheme.
Brilliant.
Other family members also owned a total of 10 properties between them in north Leeds, investigators said.
The court was told her initial claims for benefit were not fraudulent but over a number of years she failed to tell the authorities of her financial situation and received overpayments totalling £36,938.
Judge Kerry Macgill said Parmar had gained from her fraudulent activities and her crimes had passed the custody threshold, but he was able to impose a suspended sentence after hearing of her difficult life and unhappy marriage.
He told her: “You got yourself into a situation where you fell foul of the rules and did not declare what you should have declared. Many people work very hard for money and don’t make false claims for benefit and get by by being thrifty and hard-working.
“They must feel very angry and frustrated when they see people like you taking money out of the system they are not entitled to. It sets a bad example to them,” he told her.
During the investigation into her family’s activities by Leeds City Council, the Department for Work and Pensions and West Yorkshire Police, officers discovered more than £100,000 in used notes spilling out of plastic carrier bags in the home of the defendant’s mother. The cash was confiscated by West Yorkshire Police.
Parmar was investigated along with three members of her family - her mother and two brothers - who between them also falsely claimed a total of £57,194 in benefits, investigators said today.
Leeds City Council began to unravel the web of lies spun by the family when data held on benefit and land registry records was cross-checked.
Despite having piles of cash on the premises and being the part-owner of land and property off Woodhouse Street in Leeds, Parmar, of Raynel Approach, Leeds, still made her fraudulent claims between February 2002 and January 2009.
Leeds City Council said two of Parmar’s brothers died prior to sentencing after they were prosecuted for their part in the fraud.
Their elderly mother was in receipt of income support and pension credit dating back to 1985 and council tax benefit from 1993, but failed to declare that she was joint owner of land and buildings off Woodhouse Street in Leeds and a property in Holt Road in Cookridge. Due to her ill health it was decided not to take proceedings against her.
The court was told today a confiscation hearing in connection with Parmar’s activities will take place in August.
htp Dave
Anuysa Parmar, 51, was told she was “very fortunate” not to be jailed as a judge imposed a 24-week prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered her to do 100 hours of unpaid work after she admitted three counts of benefit fraud at Leeds Crown Court.
The court was told Parmar fraudulently claimed income support, council tax and housing benefit over a seven-year period while owning her own home which she bought from her council under the right to buy scheme.
Brilliant.
Other family members also owned a total of 10 properties between them in north Leeds, investigators said.
The court was told her initial claims for benefit were not fraudulent but over a number of years she failed to tell the authorities of her financial situation and received overpayments totalling £36,938.
Judge Kerry Macgill said Parmar had gained from her fraudulent activities and her crimes had passed the custody threshold, but he was able to impose a suspended sentence after hearing of her difficult life and unhappy marriage.
He told her: “You got yourself into a situation where you fell foul of the rules and did not declare what you should have declared. Many people work very hard for money and don’t make false claims for benefit and get by by being thrifty and hard-working.
“They must feel very angry and frustrated when they see people like you taking money out of the system they are not entitled to. It sets a bad example to them,” he told her.
During the investigation into her family’s activities by Leeds City Council, the Department for Work and Pensions and West Yorkshire Police, officers discovered more than £100,000 in used notes spilling out of plastic carrier bags in the home of the defendant’s mother. The cash was confiscated by West Yorkshire Police.
Parmar was investigated along with three members of her family - her mother and two brothers - who between them also falsely claimed a total of £57,194 in benefits, investigators said today.
Leeds City Council began to unravel the web of lies spun by the family when data held on benefit and land registry records was cross-checked.
Despite having piles of cash on the premises and being the part-owner of land and property off Woodhouse Street in Leeds, Parmar, of Raynel Approach, Leeds, still made her fraudulent claims between February 2002 and January 2009.
Leeds City Council said two of Parmar’s brothers died prior to sentencing after they were prosecuted for their part in the fraud.
Their elderly mother was in receipt of income support and pension credit dating back to 1985 and council tax benefit from 1993, but failed to declare that she was joint owner of land and buildings off Woodhouse Street in Leeds and a property in Holt Road in Cookridge. Due to her ill health it was decided not to take proceedings against her.
The court was told today a confiscation hearing in connection with Parmar’s activities will take place in August.
htp Dave
7 Jun 2011
Thief stole because benefits stopped
A shoplifter said his benefits were stopped because he refused to take up the job centre's initiative where he would have to work for them.
Jay Arnold Carver of Heol Cadifor, Penlan, made the revelation to probation officer Helen Beckers, when she was interviewing him in relation to a theft offence.
The 20-year-old pleaded guilty to stealing £175.33 worth of makeup from Tesco in Parc Fforestfach on May 16.
He committed the offence jointly with a female who received a caution for her part in the incident.
Julie Sullivan, prosecuting at Swansea Magistrates' Court said Carver was seen to put the goods into a bag in the supermarket.
Following his arrest he made full admissions in police interview.
Nick Devonald, defending, said Carver's benefits had been suspended for 26 weeks in the latter part of last year.
He said: "As a result of that he's relied upon family and friends.
"It got to the stage where he was too embarrassed to go with his begging bowl once again."
Probation officer Miss Beckers said Carver told her he stole the items because he was not in receipt of state benefits.
She said: "He tells me they were stopped in November last year as he refused to take up the job centre's initiative where he would work for his benefits, and that he was not going to work for £50 per week.
"He tells me currently his mother and his girlfriend are supporting him financially."
Carver was sentenced to a 12 month community order with 40 hours unpaid work.
He must also pay £85 court costs.
htp Dave
Jay Arnold Carver of Heol Cadifor, Penlan, made the revelation to probation officer Helen Beckers, when she was interviewing him in relation to a theft offence.
The 20-year-old pleaded guilty to stealing £175.33 worth of makeup from Tesco in Parc Fforestfach on May 16.
He committed the offence jointly with a female who received a caution for her part in the incident.
Julie Sullivan, prosecuting at Swansea Magistrates' Court said Carver was seen to put the goods into a bag in the supermarket.
Following his arrest he made full admissions in police interview.
Nick Devonald, defending, said Carver's benefits had been suspended for 26 weeks in the latter part of last year.
He said: "As a result of that he's relied upon family and friends.
"It got to the stage where he was too embarrassed to go with his begging bowl once again."
Probation officer Miss Beckers said Carver told her he stole the items because he was not in receipt of state benefits.
She said: "He tells me they were stopped in November last year as he refused to take up the job centre's initiative where he would work for his benefits, and that he was not going to work for £50 per week.
"He tells me currently his mother and his girlfriend are supporting him financially."
Carver was sentenced to a 12 month community order with 40 hours unpaid work.
He must also pay £85 court costs.
htp Dave
6 Jun 2011
Benefit thief caught again
A Crewkerne woman caught twice by benefit fraud investigators in three years must repay £7,000 and carry out 200 hours of unpaid work.
A district council benefit fraud investigation revealed she had not told the council that her partner was working resulting in her receiving more than £7,000 in housing benefit and council tax benefits she was not entitled to.
It is the second time that Tina Sully has been prosecuted by South Somerset District Council in three years for separate benefit fraud cases.
In 2008, Mrs Sully claimed a further £2,800 in benefits after failing to declare that she had been awarded tax credits, and received a £300 fine.
South Somerset District Council said it had clawed back more than £137,000 in the past 12 months as part of its work to eliminate benefit fraud and error.
On May 24, South Somerset Magistrates asked why she did not learn anything from last time and said it was a very serious matter as the rest of the community has to pay for the large amount of money she had defrauded.
Mrs Sully stated she had dyslexia and suffered from depression.
But she was clued up enough to perpetrate two benefit frauds.
Mrs Sully was also ordered to pay the district council's £175 costs (!) and has now begun to repay the £7,000 in full.
A spokesperson for South Somerset District Council said:
A district council benefit fraud investigation revealed she had not told the council that her partner was working resulting in her receiving more than £7,000 in housing benefit and council tax benefits she was not entitled to.
It is the second time that Tina Sully has been prosecuted by South Somerset District Council in three years for separate benefit fraud cases.
In 2008, Mrs Sully claimed a further £2,800 in benefits after failing to declare that she had been awarded tax credits, and received a £300 fine.
South Somerset District Council said it had clawed back more than £137,000 in the past 12 months as part of its work to eliminate benefit fraud and error.
On May 24, South Somerset Magistrates asked why she did not learn anything from last time and said it was a very serious matter as the rest of the community has to pay for the large amount of money she had defrauded.
Mrs Sully stated she had dyslexia and suffered from depression.
But she was clued up enough to perpetrate two benefit frauds.
Mrs Sully was also ordered to pay the district council's £175 costs (!) and has now begun to repay the £7,000 in full.
A spokesperson for South Somerset District Council said:
It is simply unacceptable for a person to claim benefits when they are not entitled to as it is theft from every person who pays council tax in the community, as well as income tax.Every case? That is clearly a lie.
That is why we investigate and pursue every case. This money will now be returned so that it can be paid to those who really need it.
3 Jun 2011
Nigerians' benefit scam exposed
A gas explosion which blew the roof off a house inadvertently exposed a scam by a Nigerian couple who fraudulently claimed £80,000 in benefits and funnelled the money back home to set up a string of businesses.
Mini cab driver Nura Kamara, 34, and care worker Hadiza Mohammed, 31, had their cover quite literally blown when they applied for temporary accommodation following the blast in September last year.
The explosion, started by another tenant who lived in the converted three-storey Victorian property in South Norwood, London, left five families homeless after the flats were declared unsafe.
Kamara and Mohammed approached Croydon Council’s homeless unit to arrange temporary accommodation but were caught out when checks showed that housing and council tax benefit was being paid to a couple at their address but with different names.
Checks with the Home Office Criminal Investigation Unit showed that applications for leave to stay in the country had been submitted in yet another set of names by the pair, who were subsequently arrested during a visit to the council’s offices.
Following a search of their temporary accommodation a rented lock-up was uncovered and several passports - many false - belonging to them were found.
Home Office records showed Kamara had married a Frenchwoman in 2003. Pictures of their wedding were found on a roll of film – which also contained pictures of him and Mohammed enjoying a day out at Chessington World Of Adventures.
It is thought likely that Kamara married the Frenchwoman – who made a fleeting visit to the UK for the wedding – because he wrongly believed that marriage to an EU national entitled him to remain in the UK.
The Frenchwoman’s passport was also found in the lock up.
Kamara told the UK Border Agency he had divorced and would like to make an application for asylum for his new partner, Mohammed. This application was still pending when they were arrested.
Further evidence recovered found that Kamara owned a house, land and a goat and fish farm that had an attached farm shop in Nigeria, which officials believed he bought with the proceeds of his benefit scam.
Kamara was jailed for three years and Mohammed was sentenced to 18 months at Croydon Crown Court after both pleaded guilty to a number of offences on the day of the trial, including seeking leave to remain in the UK by deceptive means, and obtaining property by deception. They both face deportation.
Councillor Dudley Mead, Croydon Council’s cabinet member for finance and resources, said: 'This was a complex and difficult case that demonstrates the great pressures councils are under to stop people stealing money that is meant to pay for people who really need the help that state benefits can give.
'But it also shows that where necessary Croydon Council will always take the strongest possible action against benefit cheats.'
Mini cab driver Nura Kamara, 34, and care worker Hadiza Mohammed, 31, had their cover quite literally blown when they applied for temporary accommodation following the blast in September last year.
The explosion, started by another tenant who lived in the converted three-storey Victorian property in South Norwood, London, left five families homeless after the flats were declared unsafe.
Kamara and Mohammed approached Croydon Council’s homeless unit to arrange temporary accommodation but were caught out when checks showed that housing and council tax benefit was being paid to a couple at their address but with different names.
Checks with the Home Office Criminal Investigation Unit showed that applications for leave to stay in the country had been submitted in yet another set of names by the pair, who were subsequently arrested during a visit to the council’s offices.
Following a search of their temporary accommodation a rented lock-up was uncovered and several passports - many false - belonging to them were found.
Home Office records showed Kamara had married a Frenchwoman in 2003. Pictures of their wedding were found on a roll of film – which also contained pictures of him and Mohammed enjoying a day out at Chessington World Of Adventures.
It is thought likely that Kamara married the Frenchwoman – who made a fleeting visit to the UK for the wedding – because he wrongly believed that marriage to an EU national entitled him to remain in the UK.
The Frenchwoman’s passport was also found in the lock up.
Kamara told the UK Border Agency he had divorced and would like to make an application for asylum for his new partner, Mohammed. This application was still pending when they were arrested.
Further evidence recovered found that Kamara owned a house, land and a goat and fish farm that had an attached farm shop in Nigeria, which officials believed he bought with the proceeds of his benefit scam.
Kamara was jailed for three years and Mohammed was sentenced to 18 months at Croydon Crown Court after both pleaded guilty to a number of offences on the day of the trial, including seeking leave to remain in the UK by deceptive means, and obtaining property by deception. They both face deportation.
Councillor Dudley Mead, Croydon Council’s cabinet member for finance and resources, said: 'This was a complex and difficult case that demonstrates the great pressures councils are under to stop people stealing money that is meant to pay for people who really need the help that state benefits can give.
'But it also shows that where necessary Croydon Council will always take the strongest possible action against benefit cheats.'
2 Jun 2011
Benefit claimant owned property
A Norwich man who wrongly claimed more than £20,000 in benefit has been given a four month suspended prison sentence.
Terence Block, 59, appeared at Norwich Crown Court to be sentenced for 11 benefit fraud offences.
These included 10 counts of making a false representation to obtain benefit and one count of failing to notify a change of circumstances - and they involved incapacity benefit, and housing and council tax benefit.
The court was told the total amount of money involved was just over £20,000.
Yvonne Blake, prosecuting, told the court the offences had begun in 2007. She said Block had claimed incapacity benefit while working. She also said that he had a number of undeclared bank accounts and that money seemed to move from one to another every six months or so. She said Block had said he did not have any property when he actually had a bungalow and that his mother had lived there as a tenant.
Andrew Oliver, defending, said Block was “something of a Walter Mitty character” who had some delusions in terms of his position and at times simply stuck his head in the sand. He said the property Block owns had been in the family for 40 years and had been in different people’s names during that time. He said Block had bought the bungalow in 2003 with the assistance of a very large mortgage so that his mother could continue to live there, and that he had always operated on the basis that it was his mother’s property.
He said Block had mountains of debt problems and the property was now up for sale, and he added that Block, who had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, intended to pay the benefit money back.
Block was sentenced to a total of four months in prison suspended for a period of 12 months, and he was also ordered to comply with a curfew.
The matter of an order to ensure some of the proceeds of the property sale would go towards paying some of the benefit money back was adjourned.
Terence Block, 59, appeared at Norwich Crown Court to be sentenced for 11 benefit fraud offences.
These included 10 counts of making a false representation to obtain benefit and one count of failing to notify a change of circumstances - and they involved incapacity benefit, and housing and council tax benefit.
The court was told the total amount of money involved was just over £20,000.
Yvonne Blake, prosecuting, told the court the offences had begun in 2007. She said Block had claimed incapacity benefit while working. She also said that he had a number of undeclared bank accounts and that money seemed to move from one to another every six months or so. She said Block had said he did not have any property when he actually had a bungalow and that his mother had lived there as a tenant.
Andrew Oliver, defending, said Block was “something of a Walter Mitty character” who had some delusions in terms of his position and at times simply stuck his head in the sand. He said the property Block owns had been in the family for 40 years and had been in different people’s names during that time. He said Block had bought the bungalow in 2003 with the assistance of a very large mortgage so that his mother could continue to live there, and that he had always operated on the basis that it was his mother’s property.
He said Block had mountains of debt problems and the property was now up for sale, and he added that Block, who had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, intended to pay the benefit money back.
Block was sentenced to a total of four months in prison suspended for a period of 12 months, and he was also ordered to comply with a curfew.
The matter of an order to ensure some of the proceeds of the property sale would go towards paying some of the benefit money back was adjourned.
1 Jun 2011
Suspended sentence for £77k fraud
A BENEFIT cheat, who swindled a staggering £77,128, has walked free from court after being given a suspended prison sentence.
Tracey Greenall, 32, pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to three offences of failing to notify the authorities of a change in her circumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to benefits.
Greenall did not tell the council’s Housing and Council Tax Benefit Department and the Department for Work and Pensions that her partner was living with her. This meant she was paid £8,253 in Housing Benefit, £1,840 in Council Tax Benefit and £56,940 in Income Support.
She was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 120 hours unpaid work.
Greenall must pay back the full amount as well as £350 in costs. Yeah right.
Tracey Greenall, 32, pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to three offences of failing to notify the authorities of a change in her circumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to benefits.
Greenall did not tell the council’s Housing and Council Tax Benefit Department and the Department for Work and Pensions that her partner was living with her. This meant she was paid £8,253 in Housing Benefit, £1,840 in Council Tax Benefit and £56,940 in Income Support.
She was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 120 hours unpaid work.
Greenall must pay back the full amount as well as £350 in costs. Yeah right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)