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

[balenciaga]

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 - 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 ) 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 !!

With regards to the crime that was bad enough to be passed to crown court, he didn't.

And I also said that he may have been a twat and done things wrong in other posts, can't remember exactly what words I used though, and can't be arsed to check.

Let's not argue.

I'm not excusing the fraud, I just think it's unfair that he was probably responsible for the situation but doesn't have to face the consequences.

I have recovered fraudulent overpayments from landlords before when it has been successfully argued that they accepted payments knowing that fraud was being committed.

If the argument is that all income is taken into account for the household as one unit under the assumption that everyone in the household has access to the income (clumsy, sorry, wine) then the partner also can be presumed to have received the fraudulent funds, knowing that they were fraudulently claimed. But they aren't going after him as far as we know. It was only her name on the forms. She took the risk and he can walk away.

Evening all,
we have had quite a few reports about this thread tonight, and while we appreciate that it is a subject that many feel deeply about, we would remind you about our very few guidelines.

Can't imagine how scary facing prison is, however this woman did wrong & willingly, knowingly committed fraud.

She should have kicked him out, he is a complete tossed, but she's an adult, making her own decisions.

It can't be different rules for everyone, that being the case we'd all break the law & claim mitigating circumstances.

Sentencing can take into account mitigating circumstances.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but I don't think it's fair to say that he was probably responsible for the situation.

He might have had a hand in it but he wasn't responsible because it wasn't him that had the power to change or stop the benefit claims.

She was the one with the children and she was the one that could have made the call to sort it out without implicating her partner so the responsibility has to lie with her.

It bugs me how it's automatically assumed by some that she was this weak, powerless, vulnerable little flower while he was a predatory villain on the lookout to take as much advantage as possible.

For all we know he could have suffered all sorts of traumas that could have caused him to make negative choices for his life, and while that would provide an excuse for a woman to have too many children she can't afford and to find herself in unhealthy relationships, it makes a man an evil bastard, despite the fact that the actual crime isn't his.

Sorry Helen. I'm taking my wine-addled self off to bed now. I love this place, really interesting discussion. But sorry it is at the expense of your friend op.

The OP says he pressured her into continuing to claim. Obviously the OP is on her friend's side but that does seem consistent with the abusuve behaviour described.

Not saying she was a little flower but I wonder what would have happened if she'd made the call? Would he have paid his share? Said it was her decision and he wasn't going to give her any money? Lost his temper?

It might have been the first option. But maybe not.

Can i ask a question? He was benefitting from not having to pay rent etc so why has he got off scott free.

IF the OPs friend wasnt on benefits but was working as an escort he could be prosecuted for living off immoral earnings.
Now ive seen enough ppl/ Gov/media etc state that benefit fraud is immoral so why shouldnt the same rules apply.

We either have a situation where women are capable of understanding the law and their responsibilities or they are not competent as they are too vulnerable. At which point there are a pile of other legal implications, none of which I find remotely palatable and far worse than this.

Whilst he might be abusive thats only a mitigating factor I'm afraid. She still took decisions that others don't take. She still knowingly and intentionally committed a criminal offence over a lengthy period of time, because she had the opportunity and believed she could get away with it. If in a situation where pressured to commit a criminal offence then she has to either take steps to prevent that or accept the consequences of her actions in full.

If someone commits fraud in the workplace under pressure to meet targets because they fear they may loose their job they will still be held responsible for their actions. If they are pressured by someone even one more senior it is their responsibility to whistle blow especially if things are done in their name rather than the other person's because you are the one who legally is signing off, not them.

The man can only be held responsible for criminal actions he has taken himself. That might mean abuse. But he hasn't committed fraud in this case. He is not eligible for those benefits (in this case not being the father), so only she is the one who is able to claim those benefits.

The real issue is not whether he should be done for benefit fraud or not too. Its how the system is weighted so much towards women taking responsibility for their children and very little is done to pressure fathers to take on their financial role. Thats where more needs to be done. That and having a system which means that women aren't so dependent on benefits or a partner in the first place.

I think you have to be careful about assuming that benefits simply need to be weighted differently, I think there is a danger of women being trapped in other ways by abusive partners or ex partners as they aren't in control of finances unless it is very well thought out. For the most part I don't think there is an ideal solution unfortunately. The only thing that I can think of, is universal free child care which is not means tested. I can't see that happening any time soon.

red

Free universal childcare from age 2.

And a tax-code based system for collecting Child Support.

The cost of living is through the roof and women disproportionately bear the cost of raising chidren, especially post break-up.

Equal Pay Act more rigorously and punitively enforced.

These are not such wacky suggestions that they couldn't make it onto a mainstream manifesto, surely? (I can't believe they'd cost votes)

And if it takes a windfall tax or somesuch to fund it, so what?

"IF the OPs friend wasnt on benefits but was working as an escort he could be prosecuted for living off immoral earnings.
Now ive seen enough ppl/ Gov/media etc state that benefit fraud is immoral so why shouldn't the same rules apply."

Yes darkest I quite agree. If a minimum wage bar-person inadvertently serves alcohol to an under-18 they can be fined £1k. There are 'should have known' laws. It wouldn't be hard

There is just no consistency. fideline. The law seems to want it both ways.

If you are on tax credits and break up with your DH , father of your children, but he hasn't moved out, you can declare this to tax credits people and they will reassess you as a single parent .
So there are people living in the same house with the person they are married to, contributing, but able to make seperate claims.

The thing is darkest this current push for convictions, isn't driven by the law. It is driven by DWP (HMRC) investigators and they are under the direct control of the gov't (far more so than police). And the government have one hell of an 'anti-scrounger' agenda. So it won't change.

It is obvious why this feels instinctively wrong.
Because the man has been judged ti be materially part of her household one minute, when they identify a crime, and then not, the very next second when they identify who did it.

Either their affairs are joint, in which case fraud has taken place, and they both go down.

Or their affairs are separate, and there has been no fraud.

I know this is not the law but it feels wrong that it can have this deep inconsistency.

I agree with the op, the partner should be prosecuted also. He has knowingly lived for free on stolen money which in most circumstances would be a prosecutable offence.

As the law only makes the person making the claim accountable and not the other adult benefitting from the crime and encouraging it there is no disincentive for cocklodgers to continue helping to commit benefit fraud.

It's not surprising there is so much fraud being committed when there is no risk of prosecution. I hope the law is changed to make cocklodging illegal

He has knowingly lived for free on stolen money which in most circumstances would be a prosecutable offence.

Agree that it's very likely that he knew about the fraud (where did he think the money to pay the rent was coming from?) and benefitted from it.
Harder to prove beyond reasonable doubt, 'though. In her case they have her signature on the claims documents. In his, he could shrug and say he had no idea what she was up to.

For those who think that the man not bring found responsible makes the benefits system into an abuser's weapon, do you not think it would be worse if a man could threaten to claim benefits and without her ever signing anything be found responsible for any fraud involved in his part?

Thatswhatimtalkingabout, you put your finger on it!

Exactly that.

That's a good point PintofTea.

If people could be held responsible for something they haven't agreed to it could lead to many men and women being manipulated by their partners and being charged for crimes they knew nothing about.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think it would be a very dangerous road to go down if laws were changed to assume that adults were incapable of making responsible choices.

I agree with this from Red

We either have a situation where women are capable of understanding the law and their responsibilities or they are not competent as they are too vulnerable. At which point there are a pile of other legal implications, none of which I find remotely palatable and far worse than this.

So, she committed Fraud in order to continue to have a cocklodger in her and her children's life. For FOUR years.

FFS. Every thief, burgular, mugger and fraudster has a reason why they "have" to do their crime.

She committed the crime, he didn't. The fact that she allowed him to take advantage of her is her own fault!!

(And I have made some big mistakes in my time. No -one to blame but ME)

This women is a complete drain on taxpayers. She has four children, dont believe she is working and gets pushed to the top of the housing queue due to her being a single parent with four kids. Her claim would have been fast tracked.

Yet that wasnt enough for her. She decided to move in some waste of space and still claim she was living on her own.

The state will never get this money back. She will claim that she doesnt have the money and it will cause suffering to her children.

Her choice to do all of the above - what on earth does she expect to have happen.

Oh my. Are there really people who still believe that single parents '[get] pushed to the top of the housing queue'? Really?