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:
NeedsAsockamnesty · 28/02/2014 11:06

In the last year I worked for the DWP we had a what looked like long term fraud case involving cohabiting.

Off the top of my head it was about 9 years the claimant involved actually turned out to only have been part of a couple (by dwp definition) for about 8 months in total,the difference between this claimant and lots of the others that turned up in a file on my desk was nothing other than,she was able to produce evidence that most of the 9 years were spent with him yelling about not being a couple and him either at his mothers or on the sofa refusing to leave her house.

On the outside it looked like a long term relationship but from the inside it was not even a relationship (and I don't mean it just being a bad relationship I really mean not a relationship).it was like she had a squatter who occasionally raped her.

She did not go to court she had very minimal amounts to repay and we supported her to get help he is still in prison.

I have very little doubt in my mind that quite a few of the single claims we investigated should have had much the same result however it relies on the investigater actually investigating and the claimant being able to correctly express things.

How many times do we read the relationship board and think in our heads "Christ love,your not even in a relationship"

I've also had people with a joint claim being investigated and it turned out they were not entitled to claim as a couple.

Mignonette · 28/02/2014 11:22

To be honest, any of us who have had several children are a 'drain on taxpayaers' what with CB, tax breaks and credits and all the other demands upon the system made by parents and their kids.

We really cannot go down that route....

handcream · 28/02/2014 11:49

So, whats the alternative. Do whatever you like and the state will support you?

Someone further upthread was suggesting ways to wriggle out of this, some blamed the man, some said the women might be slow and have low self esteem. Well that's OK then...

BusinessUnusual · 28/02/2014 11:54

Hand cream

The woman was working. This was in one of the OP's posts and has been repeated by others.

The children's father was not working.

There's no comment as to whether she stayed in the same place and got HB or went onto a housing list.

Mignonette · 28/02/2014 11:56

No the alternative isn't anarchy. I haven't suggested it go unpunished.

We should be listening to the people up thread who work in benefits fraud and are able to offer useful insights into motivation and causation whilst highlighting the ugliness of some peoples attitudes through their own empathy.

It is about realising that many people have been bloody brainwashed by government spin into chasing only one type of 'ill' whilst ignoring far greater organised and embedded fraud and exploitation. They have done VERY well with their smokescreen.

KatieMeLuna · 28/02/2014 12:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RedToothBrush · 28/02/2014 12:18

It is about realising that many people have been bloody brainwashed by government spin into chasing only one type of 'ill' whilst ignoring far greater organised and embedded fraud and exploitation.

Sorry but fraud is fraud. I feel the same about individuals in power as I do about benefit fraud. Its stealing from someone else's pocket and I don't think its any more right to nick £500 than £5.

neverthebride · 28/02/2014 12:23

If we remove the benefits aspect I wonder what would happen in other types of fraud/theft?.

Say for example, someone stole a vast amount of money (and this is vast!) from an employer but their partner benefited as mortgage is paid and they may be given presents or taken on holiday etc and they're aware of the fraud/theft. Are they equally guilty (obviously morally they are but I mean legally) or has the fraud/theft been committed by the person who actually did it?.

I think it's legally just down to the person who actually committed the fraud/theft isn't it?. Genuine question!.

Mignonette · 28/02/2014 12:26

I'm not saying it should go unpunished but what I am saying is that it has been demonised at the expense of greater fraud. The costs to our society from a cultural and moral perspective has been emphasised allowing others (already in possession of wealth) to fly under the radar.

BusinessUnusual · 28/02/2014 12:51

That's interesting Katie.

Floggingmolly · 28/02/2014 12:59

That's unarguable of course, Mignonette, but the converse isn't necessarily acceptable either. It's immaterial because it's relatively minor in the grand scale of things?. Still wrong.

RedToothBrush · 28/02/2014 13:14

Sorry, but you can't go, well this is ok as its not as bad as another problem. Its still a problem that needs to be dealt with. You can not justify it by saying "well its not as bad as this therefore we shouldn't care about it". We should. We should care about both. And this thread ISN'T about other types of fraud. Or about comparing different frauds and their impact on society. Its simply about this kind of fraud.

Mintyy · 28/02/2014 13:35

No, Redtoothbrush, the thread is simply about whether it is fair that the man involved does not face punishment. That is what this thread is about.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 28/02/2014 13:50

Fwiw, whilst yes she is the only one guilty of the particular offence we are talking about,it's highly likely he is guilty of several other offences or should at least have that's tested by a court.

WooWooOwl · 28/02/2014 13:54

And it is fair that his man doesn't face punishment because as the law stands, he didn't commit a crime.

Surely you can see how much more unfair it would be if he were punished for a crime that doesn't yet exist?

Or how unfair it would be if someone were punished for a crime they didn't have the power to prevent, as this man didn't?

You can disagree with the law, but you cannot seriously believe that this man be punished when the law is the way it is just now.

it has been demonised at the expense of greater fraud.

I disagree with this completely. Greater fraud is completely irrelevant to this fraud. One does not cancel out the other.

Mintyy · 28/02/2014 14:03

No, as I said much earlier in the thread, I think the law should be changed. I am not arguing for him to be prosecuted if he hasn't broken a law, that would be a really stupid thing to do.

By the way, did you read this from the op 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.

I am not sure how that gave you the impression that the poor chap couldn't prevent the fraud taking place Confused.

clockwatching77 · 28/02/2014 14:20

The system is wrong with individual taxation but joint benefits.
I have a friend who claimed jsa whilst cohabiting. She did not say she was living alone but was prosecuted for benefit fraud as she didn't declare his savings. He was interviewed but not prosecuted. She thankfully only got community service and he paid the money back. She wasn't living the high life.
I am really saddened by the lack of compassion on this thread. She eems to md to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yes, she should not have let him move in but he should have made up her loss of benefits or not moved in at all.

clockwatching77 · 28/02/2014 14:21

Seems to have been.

WooWooOwl · 28/02/2014 14:21

Yes, I did read that in the OP, but as another poster pointed out, she didn't stop claiming as a single parent in the early stages of the relationship when he was apparently promising the world, so there's nothing to suggest that she would have stopped claiming even if he had given her money.

And if she was scared she wouldn't be able to pay the bills, she shouldn't have let him move in twice. No one forced her to claim fraudulently.

Even if he did give her money, he still wouldn't have had the power to prevent her claiming if she wanted to.

Can you imagine the abuse people would be open to if their partners did have the power to cancel their benefits claims?

Darkesteyes · 28/02/2014 14:22

if a man is living with a woman who is working as a prostitute it is assumed that he must have known and can be prosecuted for living off immoral earnings.

But if he is living with a woman who is wrongfully claiming benefit it is assumed that he didnt know Confused

And financial abuse could be taking place in both cases.

BusinessUnusual · 28/02/2014 14:23

WooWoo, from what Katie said he may have committed a crime, though one which is hard to prove.

AchyFox · 28/02/2014 14:28

I don't see why he can't be charged with conspiracy to commit benefit fraud if he actively encouraged and advised her to do so.

They both benefitted.

KatieMeLuna · 28/02/2014 14:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WooWooOwl · 28/02/2014 14:57

So if he did committ an offence for which he can be charged, wtf is the OP worrying about?

KatieMeLuna · 28/02/2014 14:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.