Benefit cheat who dishonestly claimed £20,000 was 'naive'
A Barton woman who admitted dishonestly claiming more than £20,000 in benefits has avoided jail.
Shirley Smith, 46, of Fairfield Drive, admitted six offences dating back to 2005 – which saw her being overpaid a total of £20,360.42 in income support, council tax benefit and housing benefit.
-

Prosecutor Michael Cranmer-Brown told Grimsby Crown Court that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) believed the total amount overpaid may have been closer to £56,000 and that it may yet pursue a civil action to reclaim the full amount.
However, he said she only faced criminal convictions relating to the lower figure, as the Crown Prosecution Service had agreed to reduce an original indictment of 11 charges to the six admitted by Smith.
FREE MEAL OFFER at our award winning restaurant
View detailsWhatever your occasion, book a table for 6 or more and we will give you a free meal up to the value of £15 with this voucher.
Terms: Cannot be used with any other offers or vouchers. Your email address.......................... (if you want to receive vouchers in the future). Print voucher or show us the voucher on your phone.
Contact: 01724 281289
Valid until: Tuesday, June 25 2013
Mr Cranmer-Brown told the court that Smith's offences came to light after she and her husband – who is an active member of the travelling community – made a joint application to buy their council house.
Previously, she had legitimately claimed housing benefit, income support and council tax benefit, after the couple split up.
However, she failed to notify North Lincolnshire Council and the DWP after they reconciled, admitting at interview that she "knew she should have told them" her husband had moved back in.
In mitigation, Chris Dickins said his client was the sole carer for her 15-year-old daughter and that her husband, who neither worked nor claimed benefits, was "often absent from the family home for considerable periods of time", leaving her to manage the finances alone.
He said his client was "naive" and may have been acting under the influence of others, adding that she had seemed "unable to assess the outcome of her behaviour".
Mr Dickins said she was now paying back both the local authority and DWP at a rate of £56 per week, out of her modest income as a part-time cleaner and family tax credits.
Recorder Euan Duff sentenced Smith to 12 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months, with 150 hours of unpaid work and the requirement to undertake eight sessions of activity, specifically for women.




Comments
by Paranoid61
Saturday, June 30 2012, 7:22PM
“The good news is this lady has ALL the qualifications to be a top level banker ,or at least has a future as an MP”
by localad
Saturday, June 30 2012, 2:27PM
“Her husband did not work or claim benefits, well he didn't need to, she was fiddling the benefits, making enough to keep the whole family, no wonder he didn't work or claim anything.
In mitigation, Chris Dickins said his client was the sole carer for her 15-year-old daughter and that her husband, who neither worked nor claimed benefits, was "often absent from the family home for considerable periods of time", leaving her to manage the finances alone.
How can the above be true, the reason she was prosecuted was because her husband had moved back in with her, so she couldn't have been sole carer.
The courts will believe any old s***e.”
by johndebmax
Saturday, June 30 2012, 1:09PM
“She knew what she was doing all right, its just the stupid courts that believe all this bull.this the second case in the last few months where the woman escaped jail. They say crime doesn't pay well in these two cases it has.”
by gordonio
Saturday, June 30 2012, 11:07AM
“Hang on a minute, it states her husband 'is an active member of the travelling community', it also states he doesn't work and doesn't receive benefits, how does he manage to support himself if he receives no money, am I missing something here?”
by ewbfchamp
Saturday, June 30 2012, 10:38AM
“Lets hope the DWP do take action - why shouldn't the full amount be re-paid? Why should tax-payers foot the bill for these people - no wonder taxes are high !”