Benefits fraudster paying back money (From Daily Echo)

Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them.

Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Goldenwight wrote:
Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them.

Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Cashed cheques ?? What era are you from!!

The lady in question admitted her guilt, so why even waste tax payers money and take her to court.

Get off your soap box Goldenwight, this story is not about you.

Did she steal hundreds of thousands and live beyond her means, ermmm no !!

Looks like she will repay every single penny she was overpaid.
I think the amount she pays back each time should be less. If in receipt of benefits surely this puts her below the poverty line.

The legal/benefits systems just stink. Think of the amount of man hours and legal costs and stress this has caused. Surely if someone admits guilt just set up a payment plan an stop bloody wasting more money than the claims worth to prosecute.

jazzi, I can understand where you are coming from, but would that not send out the wrong message?

If it was as simple and just paying back the money weekly at a low rate it would encourage others to 'try' the benefit system on the understanding they would pay back a small amount weekly 'IF' caught.

jazzi wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:
Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them.

Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Cashed cheques ?? What era are you from!!

The lady in question admitted her guilt, so why even waste tax payers money and take her to court.

Get off your soap box Goldenwight, this story is not about you.

Did she steal hundreds of thousands and live beyond her means, ermmm no !!

Looks like she will repay every single penny she was overpaid.
I think the amount she pays back each time should be less. If in receipt of benefits surely this puts her below the poverty line.

The legal/benefits systems just stink. Think of the amount of man hours and legal costs and stress this has caused. Surely if someone admits guilt just set up a payment plan an stop bloody wasting more money than the claims worth to prosecute.

No you stink, this is exactly why the benefits bill is so high because there is so much fraud going on and is why genuine claimants don't get enough to live on. If you bite the hand that feeds you it should be cut off, I don't see why should even be allowed to claim benefits again it should be one false claim and then no claim that would warn people.

I am totally against any form of fraud albeit it benefit or any other form.

However I can see why some people do it, some people don't have a choice, its a case of feeding them selves and paying out high energy bills and rent.

In this case, she did plead guilty and has made an attempt to pay back.

Again I don't agree with fraud but with the state of the economy and people's health what other choice do they have?

Just my two pence worth.

bigfella777 wrote:

jazzi wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:
Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them.

Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Cashed cheques ?? What era are you from!!

The lady in question admitted her guilt, so why even waste tax payers money and take her to court.

Get off your soap box Goldenwight, this story is not about you.

Did she steal hundreds of thousands and live beyond her means, ermmm no !!

Looks like she will repay every single penny she was overpaid.
I think the amount she pays back each time should be less. If in receipt of benefits surely this puts her below the poverty line.

The legal/benefits systems just stink. Think of the amount of man hours and legal costs and stress this has caused. Surely if someone admits guilt just set up a payment plan an stop bloody wasting more money than the claims worth to prosecute.

No you stink, this is exactly why the benefits bill is so high because there is so much fraud going on and is why genuine claimants don't get enough to live on. If you bite the hand that feeds you it should be cut off, I don't see why should even be allowed to claim benefits again it should be one false claim and then no claim that would warn people.

Thanks, but I don't stink !!
I do not condone this you fool.
Your draconian attitude is a pathetic argument . Cut off hands and feet ??

Step away from your medication and calm down.

Love these stories.

You don't get the moaning minis in the comments sounding off about ' da guverment' but then I suspect that committing fraud is ok because 'da guverment' made her do it.

IronLady2010 wrote:
jazzi, I can understand where you are coming from, but would that not send out the wrong message?

If it was as simple and just paying back the money weekly at a low rate it would encourage others to 'try' the benefit system on the understanding they would pay back a small amount weekly 'IF' caught.

I hate the fact we live in a " Bite your nose off to spite your face " society.

I just don't understand how you can justify the court costs and legal fees to the tax payer, when you will get the money back anyway. Imposed on benefits or taken direct from pay.

So the only beneficiaries are the legal and courts system.

But this is what we pay all our taxes for, so we can label people right or wrong.

jazzi wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
jazzi, I can understand where you are coming from, but would that not send out the wrong message?

If it was as simple and just paying back the money weekly at a low rate it would encourage others to 'try' the benefit system on the understanding they would pay back a small amount weekly 'IF' caught.

I hate the fact we live in a " Bite your nose off to spite your face " society.

I just don't understand how you can justify the court costs and legal fees to the tax payer, when you will get the money back anyway. Imposed on benefits or taken direct from pay.

So the only beneficiaries are the legal and courts system.

But this is what we pay all our taxes for, so we can label people right or wrong.

Whilst I agree Court time and costs are taken up by prosecuting these people. What alternative is their to preventing benefit fraud in the first place which must cost us Tax payers a fortune?

It's similar to non Council Tax payers, if we didn't put non payers before the Courts then NO-ONE would pay Council Tax?

In any crime there has to be a punishment so as to prevent others doing similar?

I do see where you are coming from although I don't fully agree :-)

jazzi wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them. Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Cashed cheques ?? What era are you from!! The lady in question admitted her guilt, so why even waste tax payers money and take her to court. Get off your soap box Goldenwight, this story is not about you. Did she steal hundreds of thousands and live beyond her means, ermmm no !! Looks like she will repay every single penny she was overpaid. I think the amount she pays back each time should be less. If in receipt of benefits surely this puts her below the poverty line. The legal/benefits systems just stink. Think of the amount of man hours and legal costs and stress this has caused. Surely if someone admits guilt just set up a payment plan an stop bloody wasting more money than the claims worth to prosecute.

Firstly, HB is still paid by cheque in many cases.

Whilst it is true that she admitted her guilt, the same could be said of many murderers. Would you be happy if none of them were tried either?

Did she steal hundreds of thousands? No, but neither did the gang who stole £100 from the old granny in the High Street just before Christmas. Presumably you believe they should have walked free also?

'She will repay every penny she was overpaid.' Firstly she wasn't overpaid, she fraudulently claimed benefits to which she was not entitled- the original story gives far more detail here. Secondly, you are quite correct- the payments will come from benefits. In other words, she won't actually be paying anything- I will, as a taxpayer, be paying on her behalf.

As to man hours legal costs and stress, I quite agree- had she been honest and law abiding in the first place this would have been avoided.

Payment plans? The first case I took in Court was Jamshid Hashemi, a multi-million pound fraud. Would you have been happy for him to pay this off at £10 a week? No, of course you wouldn't, so what is the difference between the two cases?

Goldenwight wrote:

jazzi wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them. Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Cashed cheques ?? What era are you from!! The lady in question admitted her guilt, so why even waste tax payers money and take her to court. Get off your soap box Goldenwight, this story is not about you. Did she steal hundreds of thousands and live beyond her means, ermmm no !! Looks like she will repay every single penny she was overpaid. I think the amount she pays back each time should be less. If in receipt of benefits surely this puts her below the poverty line. The legal/benefits systems just stink. Think of the amount of man hours and legal costs and stress this has caused. Surely if someone admits guilt just set up a payment plan an stop bloody wasting more money than the claims worth to prosecute.

Firstly, HB is still paid by cheque in many cases.

Whilst it is true that she admitted her guilt, the same could be said of many murderers. Would you be happy if none of them were tried either?

Did she steal hundreds of thousands? No, but neither did the gang who stole £100 from the old granny in the High Street just before Christmas. Presumably you believe they should have walked free also?

'She will repay every penny she was overpaid.' Firstly she wasn't overpaid, she fraudulently claimed benefits to which she was not entitled- the original story gives far more detail here. Secondly, you are quite correct- the payments will come from benefits. In other words, she won't actually be paying anything- I will, as a taxpayer, be paying on her behalf.

As to man hours legal costs and stress, I quite agree- had she been honest and law abiding in the first place this would have been avoided.

Payment plans? The first case I took in Court was Jamshid Hashemi, a multi-million pound fraud. Would you have been happy for him to pay this off at £10 a week? No, of course you wouldn't, so what is the difference between the two cases?

Is it a cheque or a Giro or whatever they're called? I thought benefits can be cashed instantly at a Post Office whereas a Cheque takes 5 days.

I always see queues of people with them in the Post Office!

IronLady2010 wrote:

jazzi wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
jazzi, I can understand where you are coming from, but would that not send out the wrong message?

If it was as simple and just paying back the money weekly at a low rate it would encourage others to 'try' the benefit system on the understanding they would pay back a small amount weekly 'IF' caught.

I hate the fact we live in a " Bite your nose off to spite your face " society.

I just don't understand how you can justify the court costs and legal fees to the tax payer, when you will get the money back anyway. Imposed on benefits or taken direct from pay.

So the only beneficiaries are the legal and courts system.

But this is what we pay all our taxes for, so we can label people right or wrong.

Whilst I agree Court time and costs are taken up by prosecuting these people. What alternative is their to preventing benefit fraud in the first place which must cost us Tax payers a fortune?

It's similar to non Council Tax payers, if we didn't put non payers before the Courts then NO-ONE would pay Council Tax?

In any crime there has to be a punishment so as to prevent others doing similar?

I do see where you are coming from although I don't fully agree :-)

Prevention would be so much better and easier in the long run.

Why can't housing benefits have the same plastic policies as council tax courts, oops i mean our legal courts.
You will go to prison if you don't pay council tax, so the same if you defraud benefits. Surely a plan, Alas no as our prisons are full and costing us greatly. That is why people fiddle the system as what consequence to action is there. Other than a label from the magistrates saying guilty of benefit fraud. Cut out the middle man an just name and shame to someone who cares, because trust me no one cares as long as the money is paid back.

She is paying back £20 a month out of her legitimately claimed benefits”
No she’s not!! She is just claiming £20 less in benefits paid for by the honest hard working tax payers.
There are many people in financial difficulties but they do not choose to steal.

Goldenwight wrote:

jazzi wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them. Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Cashed cheques ?? What era are you from!! The lady in question admitted her guilt, so why even waste tax payers money and take her to court. Get off your soap box Goldenwight, this story is not about you. Did she steal hundreds of thousands and live beyond her means, ermmm no !! Looks like she will repay every single penny she was overpaid. I think the amount she pays back each time should be less. If in receipt of benefits surely this puts her below the poverty line. The legal/benefits systems just stink. Think of the amount of man hours and legal costs and stress this has caused. Surely if someone admits guilt just set up a payment plan an stop bloody wasting more money than the claims worth to prosecute.

Firstly, HB is still paid by cheque in many cases.

Whilst it is true that she admitted her guilt, the same could be said of many murderers. Would you be happy if none of them were tried either?

Did she steal hundreds of thousands? No, but neither did the gang who stole £100 from the old granny in the High Street just before Christmas. Presumably you believe they should have walked free also?

'She will repay every penny she was overpaid.' Firstly she wasn't overpaid, she fraudulently claimed benefits to which she was not entitled- the original story gives far more detail here. Secondly, you are quite correct- the payments will come from benefits. In other words, she won't actually be paying anything- I will, as a taxpayer, be paying on her behalf.

As to man hours legal costs and stress, I quite agree- had she been honest and law abiding in the first place this would have been avoided.

Payment plans? The first case I took in Court was Jamshid Hashemi, a multi-million pound fraud. Would you have been happy for him to pay this off at £10 a week? No, of course you wouldn't, so what is the difference between the two cases?

She has also been a tax payer !!!!
READ the story.
As for the rest of your garble , do you mind if I go get a pillow first !!

Do not presume to think for me, unless of course in your next post you can pre warn me if pillow needed. Yaaawn .

all this it's ok to commit benefit fraud as people are living hand to mouth. This is one of the reasons the country is in soo much debt. I have no sympathy for benefit cheats and i bet she wasn't depressed while she was getting the money she wasn't entitled to and everyone else footing the bill

Former Landlady of a pub, there are loads of bar/nightclub jobs going in Southampton. Seems a bit far fetched but why not get a job?

Goldenwight wrote:

jazzi wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: Someone else filled in the form and she didn't read it?? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I myself frequently sign documents I haven't read, particularly when there is money involved and especially so when I may incur financial penalties, and am always obliging those lovely Nigerian Bankers who keep emailing me by providing my bank details to them. Presumably the same un-named third party intercepted all of the HB cheques sent to her and cashed them too?

Cashed cheques ?? What era are you from!! The lady in question admitted her guilt, so why even waste tax payers money and take her to court. Get off your soap box Goldenwight, this story is not about you. Did she steal hundreds of thousands and live beyond her means, ermmm no !! Looks like she will repay every single penny she was overpaid. I think the amount she pays back each time should be less. If in receipt of benefits surely this puts her below the poverty line. The legal/benefits systems just stink. Think of the amount of man hours and legal costs and stress this has caused. Surely if someone admits guilt just set up a payment plan an stop bloody wasting more money than the claims worth to prosecute.

Firstly, HB is still paid by cheque in many cases.

Whilst it is true that she admitted her guilt, the same could be said of many murderers. Would you be happy if none of them were tried either?

Did she steal hundreds of thousands? No, but neither did the gang who stole £100 from the old granny in the High Street just before Christmas. Presumably you believe they should have walked free also?

'She will repay every penny she was overpaid.' Firstly she wasn't overpaid, she fraudulently claimed benefits to which she was not entitled- the original story gives far more detail here. Secondly, you are quite correct- the payments will come from benefits. In other words, she won't actually be paying anything- I will, as a taxpayer, be paying on her behalf.

As to man hours legal costs and stress, I quite agree- had she been honest and law abiding in the first place this would have been avoided.

Payment plans? The first case I took in Court was Jamshid Hashemi, a multi-million pound fraud. Would you have been happy for him to pay this off at £10 a week? No, of course you wouldn't, so what is the difference between the two cases?

Only you could compare benefit fraud with murder! do you actually read back what you put?

I agree with Jazzi, in THIS instance the outlay of Court etc is not reflective of immediate admission of guilt. This is hardly the stuff of the huge frauds that you see on TV, she will pay with more than money, she now has a criminal record and humilation. What more do you want Goldenwright blood?!

It IS possible for other people to complete benefits forms on your behalf, these include Advisors in Agencies etc, but obviously they only write what you tell them. Not all people are whizzes at forms, I see a lot of people who find them very confusing and complicated. I'm not saying this was the case here as I don't know but there should be some leeway for people who plead 'guilty' straight away and offer to repay straight away. As AlexSoton says these sorts of cases will increase as people struggle (fraud isn't only the domain of the deceitful it's also committed by the desperate).

jazzi, I still feel they need to go before the Courts, I just feel if this wasn't the case there would be no end to false claims.

As an example, why should I not then make a false claim, knowing all that would happen if I were caught all I'd have to do is hold my hands up and offer £5 a week.

If I was never caught I'd be laughing at you and every other Tax payer and if I was, no harm done, just pay back a stupid amount each week!

Hardly fair on Tax payers in my opinion.

The same with shoplifters, imagine if EVERY shop who caught a thief, just took the goods off them and let them go, it sends out the wrong message as everyone will be doing it knowing there is no punishment, all you have to do is give the stolen goods back and walk away.

We live in a society where an increasing number don't want to work and want everyone else to pay for them. We need to put our foot down and say enough is enough?

In fairness to jazzi, you are also correct in saying Tax payers are the losers, but we lose either way wether we take them to Court or not! :-)

IronLady2010 wrote:
In fairness to jazzi, you are also correct in saying Tax payers are the losers, but we lose either way wether we take them to Court or not! :-)

I think that taking her to court would have cost all of us £10,000. She only needs to pay back about £4,000. This is a case of diminishing returns., Now she will have to claim benefits for the rest of her life because she wont be able to get work with a criminal record. An administrative penalty would have been enough, say £400.00 imposed by the DWP. They then would not have lost £6,000 in costs to prosecute someone who could have been dealt with in a more informal way. Its different if £20,000 or more is fraudulently claimed and there can be some real reckoning plus a criminal record. But this is really small fish. Someone somewhere out there is claiming a large salary and not paying tax on it to a proper extent; why not go after them instead of someone whose a dime a dozen. Who has not heard of proportionality when they go to prosecute?

Donald2000 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
In fairness to jazzi, you are also correct in saying Tax payers are the losers, but we lose either way wether we take them to Court or not! :-)

I think that taking her to court would have cost all of us £10,000. She only needs to pay back about £4,000. This is a case of diminishing returns., Now she will have to claim benefits for the rest of her life because she wont be able to get work with a criminal record. An administrative penalty would have been enough, say £400.00 imposed by the DWP. They then would not have lost £6,000 in costs to prosecute someone who could have been dealt with in a more informal way. Its different if £20,000 or more is fraudulently claimed and there can be some real reckoning plus a criminal record. But this is really small fish. Someone somewhere out there is claiming a large salary and not paying tax on it to a proper extent; why not go after them instead of someone whose a dime a dozen. Who has not heard of proportionality when they go to prosecute?

I feel £10,000 is over exaggerated. Imagine if we didn't take them to Court, it would mean job losses for Council workers who prepare the case for Court action, then we'd have the Unions kicking off and striking!

Like I say, we lose either way!

@ Goldenwight

"The first case I took in Court was Jamshid Hashemi, a multi-million pound fraud."

Tell us more.

You brought it up, now I'm curious.

In what capacity were you acting?

IronLady2010 wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote: In fairness to jazzi, you are also correct in saying Tax payers are the losers, but we lose either way wether we take them to Court or not! :-)

I think that taking her to court would have cost all of us £10,000. She only needs to pay back about £4,000. This is a case of diminishing returns., Now she will have to claim benefits for the rest of her life because she wont be able to get work with a criminal record. An administrative penalty would have been enough, say £400.00 imposed by the DWP. They then would not have lost £6,000 in costs to prosecute someone who could have been dealt with in a more informal way. Its different if £20,000 or more is fraudulently claimed and there can be some real reckoning plus a criminal record. But this is really small fish. Someone somewhere out there is claiming a large salary and not paying tax on it to a proper extent; why not go after them instead of someone whose a dime a dozen. Who has not heard of proportionality when they go to prosecute?

I feel £10,000 is over exaggerated. Imagine if we didn't take them to Court, it would mean job losses for Council workers who prepare the case for Court action, then we'd have the Unions kicking off and striking! Like I say, we lose either way!

Believe me a lot of the cases are exaggerated and are riddled with mistakes. Some of them are a waste of both dwp time and court time. At the moment there are a list of 25 officials within the NHS who are getting their large salaries paid through a scheme which by-passes the regular tax system. These people could be prosecuted straight away for tax evasion instead of going after some pub landlady. There's big bucks out there waiting to be earned by the DWP and the HMRC if they just stopped looking at what is, after all, incredibly small fish. Whats one pub landlady compared to letting Vodafone off £5.1BN worth of tax. Somewhere aslong the line we have lost all sense of proportion.

Donald2000 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote: In fairness to jazzi, you are also correct in saying Tax payers are the losers, but we lose either way wether we take them to Court or not! :-)

I think that taking her to court would have cost all of us £10,000. She only needs to pay back about £4,000. This is a case of diminishing returns., Now she will have to claim benefits for the rest of her life because she wont be able to get work with a criminal record. An administrative penalty would have been enough, say £400.00 imposed by the DWP. They then would not have lost £6,000 in costs to prosecute someone who could have been dealt with in a more informal way. Its different if £20,000 or more is fraudulently claimed and there can be some real reckoning plus a criminal record. But this is really small fish. Someone somewhere out there is claiming a large salary and not paying tax on it to a proper extent; why not go after them instead of someone whose a dime a dozen. Who has not heard of proportionality when they go to prosecute?

I feel £10,000 is over exaggerated. Imagine if we didn't take them to Court, it would mean job losses for Council workers who prepare the case for Court action, then we'd have the Unions kicking off and striking! Like I say, we lose either way!

Believe me a lot of the cases are exaggerated and are riddled with mistakes. Some of them are a waste of both dwp time and court time. At the moment there are a list of 25 officials within the NHS who are getting their large salaries paid through a scheme which by-passes the regular tax system. These people could be prosecuted straight away for tax evasion instead of going after some pub landlady. There's big bucks out there waiting to be earned by the DWP and the HMRC if they just stopped looking at what is, after all, incredibly small fish. Whats one pub landlady compared to letting Vodafone off £5.1BN worth of tax. Somewhere aslong the line we have lost all sense of proportion.

Name and shame!

£10 a week is my reckoning. £4,000 t0 repay. That makes it 8 YEARS !
She must have had property to be able to collect rent. What would she have done if her tenant defaulted ??
If you don't proscecute, how will you know the extent of this fraud and many similar frauds ?
Think this through before giving opinions.