daveh Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 http://www.daventryexpress.co.uk/news/local/suspended-sentence-for-daventry-benefits-cheat-1-5207446 Published on 20/06/2013 13:26 A woman from Daventry has received a suspended prison sentence after admitting to fraudulently claiming over £12,000 in benefits. Lillian Payne, of Hawke Road, illegally claimed £12,500 in Income Support, Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit between February 2009 and October 2011. At Northampton Magistrates Court on Tuesday, June 11, the 61-year-old was sentenced to four months in prison, suspended for 12 months, having previously admitted the offences. The case was brought following an investigation by Daventry District Council and the Department for Works and Pensions. Leader of DDC cllr Chris Millar said: “This is another case that highlights our determination to ensure that benefit cheats won’t be allowed to get away with it in our district.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335048/Benefits-cheat-mother-said-fat-make-cup-tea-claimed-100-000-despite-shedding-19-stone.html Benefits cheat mother who said she was too fat to make herself a cup of tea claimed £100,000 despite being fit to work after shedding 19 stoneJudge branded Tracey Shellard a 'lying scrounger' for continuing to claim benefits despite massive weight loss 49-year-old claimed she depended on a mobility scooter Four-month sting operation caught Shellard on camera carrying heavy TVShellard, of Manchester, was given 12-month suspended sentence PUBLISHED: 10:44, 3 June 2013 | UPDATED: 17:19, 4 June 2013 Weighing 28 stone, Tracey Shellard claimed she was so unwell she could hardly walk and struggled even to make a cup of tea. Over the years Shellard, 49, claimed almost £100,000 in benefits by detailing severe health problems linked to her obesity. But her sob story, a court heard, turned out to be a big fat lie. While receiving the benefits, Shellard went on a strict calorie-controlled diet and began to lose vast amounts of weight, slimming down to 10 stone. Tracey Shellard, 49, said she needed benefits because she could not even make a cup of tea due to her 28 stone weight Yet she hid the news from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Far from being incapable of looking after herself, she ditched her mobility scooter, began taking her dog on long walks and was fit enough to carry heavy shopping bags. A covert surveillance operation was launched by the DWP, and she was spotted carrying a 32-inch television from the shops. Eventually Shellard was arrested and hauled before the courts, where she admitted four charges of failing to notify of a change in circumstances. She was branded a ‘lying scrounger’ by the judge at Manchester Crown Court, but was spared jail, despite a previous conviction for benefit fraud in the 1990s. Jonathan Rogers, prosecuting, told the court that Shellard had been overpaid a total of £98,000, although she would have been entitled to £8,000 of the cash in tax credits if she had been honest. She claimed disability living allowance from 2000, with payments increased to a higher rate after she detailed health problems linked to her obesity. However, in 2008, Shellard began getting more exercise and lost eight stone. By 2011, she had lost a further ten stone. After she was arrested in September 2011, she got a job at a nursing home, working up to 48 hours a week. Shellard also lied about living alone to rake in income support, housing benefit, and council tax benefit. In fact, she was living with her husband of 23 years, who was in work and supporting her financially. Denise Fitzpatrick, defending, said Shellard had ‘learned her lesson’. Handing her a 12-month suspended sentence, with a six-month curfew and 80 hours of unpaid work, Recorder Craig Sephton QC said she had been ‘taking money this country desperately needs to serve your own ends’. The judge said he took into account that she had got a job and had completed training courses which meant she had made herself ‘a useful member of society instead of a sponger’. Back in 2003, she had said in a DWP interview that she struggled to stand up again after sitting down, used a walking stick indoors, needed help to stop her ‘sliding off pillows’ in bed, couldn’t make a cup of tea without dropping it, and was dependent on a mobility scooter when she left the house. She told officers: 'If I had help I would go everywhere - I just want to be normal, but I know that will never be.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Reigate-couple-jailed-benefit-fraud/story-19250599-detail/story.html#axzz2WlKhNyKt Reigate couple jailed for benefit fraud A Reigate couple have been jailed for a total of 18 months after they were convicted of falsely claiming more than £75,000 in benefits. John Ronald Cattrall, 43, and Julia Jones, 41, both of Lonesome Lane, were sentenced at Guildford Crown Court after a jury found them guilty of a total of nine charges. Cattrall was sentenced to 12 months and Jones to 6 months. Under the fraud, which dates back to August 2000 and lasted for almost 11 years, they claimed £49,031 in housing benefit and £12,246 in council tax benefit that they were not entitled to, plus £14,093 in income support from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). The fraud was uncovered by the council’s corporate anti-fraud investigators, working in partnership with the DWP and Surrey Police. They revealed the couple had been living together as husband and wife since August 2000, contrary to their declarations on their benefit claims. The couple were arrested at their home by Surrey Police on July 14 2011 and evidence was recovered. They were then interviewed by council investigators whilst in custody at Reigate Police Station. After pleading not guilty at an earlier hearing, the case progressed to a trial, which ran from April 22 to May 6. Following sentencing, Councillor Julian Ellacott, executive member for housing and welfare at the council, said: “We work hard to prevent, detect and investigate all types of fraud against the council. Housing and council tax benefit is there for people who really need it and we will not tolerate those who abuse the system. “The court has seen all of the relevant evidence and found Mr Cattrall and Miss Jones guilty, and handed down a custodial sentence which highlights the serious nature of these crimes. I hope this serves as a warning to others that cheating the system does not pay.†Separate to the court action, the council is pursuing repayment of the full overpaid benefits of £103,000 from the pair for their whole claim period, 1997 to 2011. The council will also be seeking payment of its legal costs from them at a subsequent hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Daveh, what do all the above prove?. That some people on benefits commit fraud?. Yes this is true and it is good that people providing benefits have systems in place to track down and prosecute such fraudsters. But the relevance of this to ATOS is what exactly. ATOS seem to be contracted to reduce the number of claimants without much consideration of the needs of those claimants and there are suspicions that their doctors have to work to a quota rather than being able to judge each case on its merits. Almost defrauding genuine claimants in the process one might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go.oot.by.dog Posted June 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 0.7%, of total benefit expenditure is overpaid due to fraud The percentage overpaid due to fraud in the preliminary 2012/13 estimate is the same as the 2011/12 estimate, 0.7%. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-fraud-and-error-hard-work-must-continue-to-cut-35bn-loss And i think Dunderhead has just posted links to most of them Keep up the good work davey boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 "Daveh, what do all the above prove?. That some people on benefits commit fraud?" Yes - the welfare budget needs to be substantially reduced because Labour created a society where folks could go on benefits as a lifestyle choice.If people are entitled to benefits, payable by the taxpaying population, then I strongly believe that they should be periodically assessed to see that they have a continuing entitlement to such benefits. If they are genuinely entitled to them, then there is nothing whatsoever for them to fear. It is and was totally wrong, in my eyes, to carry out an initial assessment and then rely on the honesty of the claimant in the future with no further assessments. Such a policy inevitably leads to a substantial number of fraudulent claims that make the headlines such as the ones that I have posted about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 If they are genuinely entitled to them, then there is nothing whatsoever for them to fear. But yes there is plenty for claimants to fear. ATOS and others denying people benefits they need and are entitled to. Yes I have seen this myself recently and in Shetland. Someone totally unfit to work being judged by an ATOS doctor to be fit for work. Overturned on appeal but after lots of stress for the claimant who needed to concentrate on getting well rather than fighting an unjust decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 ^^I can accept that there is an appeal system and feel that, where there is a genuine case, the benefits payments will continue after a successful appeal as it should do. However, I am strongly of the opinion that regular assessments should be done to weed out claimants who are fraudulently making claims. Are you actually suggesting that, once someone qualifies for benefits due to a disability, they should never be assessed again? If so, I consider that to be a totally unacceptable approach to the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 ^^Are you actually suggesting that, once someone qualifies for benefits due to a disability, they should never be assessed again? If so, I consider that to be a totally unacceptable approach to the situation.No way!. What I suggest is that the assessments should be fair and accurate and sadly ATOS seems to be neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 ^^I can accept that there is an appeal system and feel that, where there is a genuine case, the benefits payments will continue after a successful appeal as it should do. However, I am strongly of the opinion that regular assessments should be done to weed out claimants who are fraudulently making claims. Are you actually suggesting that, once someone qualifies for benefits due to a disability, they should never be assessed again? If so, I consider that to be a totally unacceptable approach to the situation. They had to employ hundreds more appeal judges due to the inept way the assessments were done. SO, put all those who are disabled and not committing fraud (over 90%) to subjective tests that increase stress in many folk due to the fact that they will never improve to catch a VERY SMALL minority. I can only assume then you will be in favour of the police stopping you at regular intervals to see if you are breaking the law. Or the council checking on you to make sure you are not breaking any by-laws at frequent intervals. Folk should be tested to see if they are in need of additional benefit, many conditions get worse and additional help will be required, as this is not always forwarded, it has been all about cutting benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 ATOS use a building for assessing the disabled which is not designed for disabled access. Disabled are turned away, because they are disabled, how mad is that. The disabled are then told, there is a complaints procedure.Is this not discrimination in design? Why use a building that is not fit for purpose. http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Man-wheelchair-labelled-hazard/story-19342242-detail/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 ^^I can only assume then you will be in favour of the police stopping you at regular intervals to see if you are breaking the law. Or the council checking on you to make sure you are not breaking any by-laws at frequent intervals. Folk should be tested to see if they are in need of additional benefit, many conditions get worse and additional help will be required, as this is not always forwarded, it has been all about cutting benefits. I am very happy to be stopped by the police at regular intervals as I know that I wouldn't have done anything wrong. No problem with that whatsoever. similarly with the council. I am a law-abiding citizen so it wouldn't cause me any concerns. I accept what you say about the testing, in the quote above, as it could obviously go both ways. No problem with that at all but I stand by my opinion that all claimants should be assessed on a periodic basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 You may be happy if you thought you were ok, but, remember, ATOS tests are about looking to catch folk out. So, would you be happy for the police say to try to catch you out, would that be a fair treatment, after all, they do not know or care for you. Say, they were paid on catching folk, what protection then do you think would need to be in place to stop mistakes, and to prevent any mistakes having a detrimental affect on your state of mind and welfare. That is, if you were vulnerable, would it then be ok to be subjected to these regular stops. Any how, to say you had not done anything wrong is folly, you cannot tell me or us you have never broken a law, say, one you did not know about. I find the "I am very happy to be stopped by the police at regular intervals as I know that I wouldn't have done anything wrong. No problem with that whatsoever. similarly with the council. I am a law-abiding citizen so it wouldn't cause me any concerns." bit of a white lie, to say you have never done anything which could be against criminal or civil law is bs. You will however, strive to give the perfect answer to the situation that is created in order to justify the answer given before or to suit an ideology you have of yourself in order to justify the stance you take. Where, no doubt you will complain most virulently if you are caught because you believe, you think you are untouchable because of you belief you do not cross any line that could make you guilty of a criminal or civil offence. More worrying is it is that sort of person who has little feeling towards the care of others privately but will of course declare compassion, which will not bode with your statement. You think, I guess, if you break a rule you should be punished, regardless of any circumstance that lead you to commit to the offence. Alas, you are part of this society that is to blame, you cannot step aside because it suits you. In a nut shell, these tests are causing more harm to folk than good to the nation. Justify why the disabled, socially housed, benefit claimants and public sector workers should pay for the reckless gambling of other peoples money and why, if it goes wrong, it is the poorer of society who has to pay it back? Can you tell me the benefit this nation will gain when one of the residents cannot provide for a disabled adult because they were forced to give up a house designed for the disabled adult because of the additional charge placed on them yet next door a single person rattles around in a 3 bed social house on their own without having to suffer because they have the means to afford the rent. It seems it is only under occupancy by the poorer of our nation is wrong. Oh to be as perfect as you DaveH, it would then be a simple colourless life I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go.oot.by.dog Posted June 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Blog: Mr Perrin and the ATOS experience Date posted: 20-06-2013 “A Word in Your Ear†from Mr Perrin. The Downing Street “Robber Barons†and the ATOS Healthcare “Gangâ€. I recently accompanied my nephew, who suffers with chronic schizophrenia, to an “assessment†by ATOS Healthcare, in partnership with the Government’s Department for Work and Pensions [DWP], to determine his fitness for work. I was appalled by the experience and considered the whole procedure nothing short of “state sponsored†harassment of people with serious physical disabilities or mental illness. They attend these†assessments†under duress and the†threat†that failure to attend could result in the loss of all or part of their disability benefits. It fails to say that by attending they are also at serious risk of losing all or part of their disability benefits on the arbitrary assessment of an employee of a Company, paid by the Government, whose remit is to “force†the sick and disabled into work regardless of the consequences. These “assessors†know little or nothing of the history of the “client†and rely mainly on the answers given, by the “clientâ€, on the day, to questions they have already answered in a form sent to them by the DWP some weeks or months previously. Full article here - http://www.yourthurrock.com/2013/06/20/blog-mr-perrin-and-the-atos-experience/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go.oot.by.dog Posted June 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Benefit appeals are on the rise.... Sickness benefit appeals up by 70%.... 'Chaos is looming' Latest statistics from Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) reveal that the DWP's increasingly controversial Employment & Support Allowance is leading to a massive surge in the numbers of appeals lodged with independent Tribunals. The Ministry of Justice figures can be read here and confirm that for the period July to September 2012 the number of appeals was up by 69% on the same quarter on the previous year. Benefit appeals are now accounting for 58% of all cases received for appeals across all Tribunals - an alarming increase. The Ministry of Justice figures exhibits all the signs of impending chaos with a staggering 813,500 tribunal cases in total; an increase on the previous year when the number had already exceeded three quarters of a million appeal cases. The number of Employment & Support Allowance appeal receipts is of particular concern, in the year 2011/2012 a total of 181,000 appeals were received by the Tribunals. In the first six months of 2012/2013 the figure has shot up to 133,700 indicating that these appeals alone are well on track to exceed a quarter of a million by year end. 42% of DWP decisions in ESA cases are wrong! By comparison with the second quarter of 2009/2010 when Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) appeal receipts stood at 29,000 - the same quarter in 2012/2013 has zoomed up to 73,700 - an increase of 44,700. Of the 53,200 ESA cases cleared at an appeal hearing 22,500 (42%) were found in favour of the claimant. These figures highlight ongoing problems with the standards of decision - making following Atos 'Work Capability Assessments' - the DWP is still making an unacceptably large number of incorrect decisions. "Another excellent piece of investigative work by "nickd" from ilegal.org"Full piece can be seen here - http://ilegal.org.uk/thread/7377 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now