Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

friend may go to prison for benefit fraud. AIBU to think its unfair her partner will get off scot free?

438 replies

balenciaga · 27/02/2014 11:08

there is a back story here, which i will try and keep brief. my good friend has been with a guy on and off for 4 years, he was amazing at first and promised the earth as they do, then he became very abusive (mentally, physically and financially) and she was frightened of him. He even left her twice for 2 different women but she took him back. However, 2 months ago she finally left him (thank god) and moved back home to her mums and is starting again, looking for a house, a job etc.

she has 4 dcs and turns out she was claiming as a single parent the whole time he was with her :( I am not making excuses for her but she was scared to stop claiming as he would not contribute financially and she was scared of not being able to pay bills, eat etc. Also, he pressured her into keeping claiming (which I can WELL believe) and assured her it would be fine, no one would know etc Hmm - basically so he could carry on spending his wages like water living rent free and doing whatever the fuck he pleased.

she only told me a few weeks ago what had happened. while she was still with her ex, she had been called in for an interview with the fraud team at DWP as they had suspicions and she confessed it all to them. I couldn't believe she had done it TBH but as much as I absolutely do not condone what she's done I can kind of understand her reasons, its not black and white, yes I did think why the hell did you not leave him earlier etc but its not that easy is it :(

her court date was yesterday. because of the length of time she kept the fraud up for and the amount of money involved (over 33k and that's just HB and income support - ie before tax credits even Shock ) the judge pretty much decided as soon as she went in that the case would go straight to Crown. Her solicitor has warned her that a prison sentence is a real possibility :(

AIBU to think this could be quite a common reason for women committing benefit fraud? and that the law seriously needs looking at and these cocklodging bastards of an ex should also be made accountable?? it takes two ffs !!

OP posts:
CalamitouslyWrong · 27/02/2014 22:02

WooWoo: it is a failing which derives from the need for sufficient proof. It doesn't make the actual situation perfect. That's why I said it may well be a completely unavoidable one. The legal system can never be perfect, so sometimes outcomes will not provide perfect just resolutions. This way may simple provide the least scope for doing so out of the available options.

The fact is that in cases like these only the woman will be signing (and therefore committing the fraud) despite the 'partner' being completely aware and benefitting from it because of the nature of the fraud. They couldn't pretend that the woman is a single parent is the 'partner' was involved in the claim. So it's a situation where women will be making themselves vulnerable and liable while a man (who benefits equally) can face no consequences.

caruthers · 27/02/2014 22:05

She made herself vulnerable by claiming fraudulently and having him back not once but twice.

But still yet the blame game continues.

Sharaluck · 27/02/2014 22:07

I think it went on for too long to put all the blame on him.

A few months is different. But she was recieving the money and she knew for the whole 4 years that she shouldn't have been. 4 years is a long time and she only stopped because she got caught? Is that right?

I feel sorry for your friend but I think the law is right in this case. I don't think she deserves to go to jail though, pay back the money yes, but I don't think jail is the answer.

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 22:08

"And, even then, the thread is not really about the OP's friend at all (beyond the OP hoping that she doesn't get a custodial sentence). It's about the fact that one of the beneficiaries of the fraud faces no consequences because they didn't actually sign anything. The fact that the law can only hold those who sign the declaration accountable is a failing in the law (it may be an unavoidable one for various reasons, but the law and legal system remain imperfect). It's highly unlikely that the cocklodger was unaware of the fraud and, if he'd wanted it to stop (and most of us wouldn't want our partners to be committing fraud because we actually care about them) he could have stepped up and contributed. But he didn't."

Thank you calamitously. I agree.

WooWooOwl · 27/02/2014 22:09

But presumably when she signed the benefit forms originally, she was genuinely single.

I don't know because I haven't claimed, but I'd have thought that she also signed to say that she was aware it was her responsibility to inform the DWP/HMRC if her circumstances changed.

So there is no way that this man can or should be held accountable for her failure to do that.

And the man didn't benefit equally in this case because he was not financially responsible for the children involved because he wasn't their parent. He gets no benefit from money that is provided to pay for the children to have food and clothing unless the claimant is neglecting her children or she is given enough money that she can afford to purchase luxuries for her boyfriend.

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 22:09

Fucking hell, I think I might combust if I read any more of this.

YES
SHE
WAS
WRONG
BUT
SO
WAS
HE

It is simple, really simple.

caruthers · 27/02/2014 22:10

Mintyy

So she stole because he wouldn't give her any money Hmm

Is there no depths you wont stoop to to make sure a benefit fraudster doesn't take the blame?

This woman stole for 4 years not 4 weeks.

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 22:11

Her benefits would have paid for her housing WooWoo. He was living in her house. If she didn't have those benefits he would have had to give her more money = he was

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 22:12

because he was benefiting from them.

caruthers · 27/02/2014 22:12

The law disagrees with you thank god.

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 22:12

caruthers
and the man did too.

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 22:13

Thank God. That's a bit melodramatic don't you think?

BusinessUnusual · 27/02/2014 22:14

Caruthers

Her choice wasn't to get him to pay and hence save the taxpayer some money. He wouldn't pay.

Her only choice was to throw him out (if he would go), meaning the taxpayer would have kept paying exactly the same.

(Yes, the fraud was wrong, as noted)

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 22:16

WooWoo If he is living in a house with a single mother on benefits and working, he is financially responsible for them (although depending on income could probably claim tax credits as a top up) even though the children aren't his. So he was benefitting because he didn't have to pay for them.

caruthers · 27/02/2014 22:16

She committed benefit fraud and he didn't.

Her choice not his.

There's always an excuse isn't there.

As I said fortunately the law states she's at fault and will suffer the consequences.

fideline · 27/02/2014 22:17

Decision makers' guide, Chapter 11 - Living together as husband and wife or civil partners

(28 pages worth of guidance Confused)

BusinessUnusual · 27/02/2014 22:21

There are often mitigating circumstances in legal proceedings, yes.

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 22:21

Probably more of a joint choice I'd say but he obviously wouldn't have signed the form as he wasn't "supposed" to be living there so he cannot legally be held responsible. She took all the risk and is taking all the fall and he gets to disappear into the sunset.

WooWooOwl · 27/02/2014 22:21

He was wrong for treating her badly, but he wasn't wrong for living with her when he wasn't the one claiming the benefits. He didn't commit any crime, so while he may be a twat, he cannot be given a criminal record.

His wrongdoing does not come anywhere even close to the size of hers.

fideline · 27/02/2014 22:22

"Probably more of a joint choice I'd say"

Yes

BusinessUnusual · 27/02/2014 22:22

WooWoo, the mental, physical and financial abuse he committed...?

kilmuir · 27/02/2014 22:22

She has been a fool. And a criminal.

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 22:23

I wonder how he thought the rent was being paid? Did she pretend to go out to work every day to fool him? Or had he previously lived under a rock and not realised that things called bills are popped through the door occasionally. Grin

WooWooOwl · 27/02/2014 22:24

Tetris, is he actually legally financially responsible for children that aren't his, or is it just that a parent isn't allowed to claim benefits as a single parent when she isn't single?

Does you mean that anyone who lives with a partner who has resident children is financially responsible for them whether or not they claim benefits?

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 22:26

He's financially responsible if he is living in a house with a single mother in benefits. ^^