Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
caruthers · 27/02/2014 12:43

If she has been a victim of DV then that needs to be pursued.

But she's still solely responsible for the crime she committed.

Like others on here though (not knowing all the facts and taking it on face value) a custodial sentence will not do anyone any favours at all.

Goblinchild · 27/02/2014 12:48

So where are her children's father/s in all this?
If she's given a custodial sentence, then surely the children should go to their other parent rather than foster care, unless there are legal reasons why not.

Should all women in DV relationships be reclassified as vulnerable adults and given an advocate to speak for them, and make decisions for them?
Issues of capacity and competence?

BumpyGrindy · 27/02/2014 12:48

Saucy have you any idea how ignorant you sound? "4 years is plenty of time to get your shit together"

How stupid to say that. My Aunt was in a terribly abusive relationship for TWENTY YEARS and none of us had a clue!

Her own children didn't even know...as adults they'd left home when she met this man.

He burned her, frightened her, would not give her money to pay the bills...she had three jobs in the end.

The only reason she eventually spoke up was because he killed her dog and she couldn't stand that. She's covered in scars....she had NO self esteem and is basically traumatized.

kungfupannda · 27/02/2014 12:49

She is highly unlikely to go inside, as long as her mitigation is fairly transparent and credible, and as long as there's no suggestion she's spent the money on a "luxury" lifestyle.

Suspended sentence would be my bet.

It's only ever the person who claims who is prosecuted. He should be investigated for any assaults she's reported, but otherwise there's no fraud offence he could be said to have committed.

BumpyGrindy · 27/02/2014 12:50

Caruthers no. She's not automatically soley responsible if she's a victim of abuse. This is taken very seriously these days...thank God. And not just in murder cases either.

caruthers · 27/02/2014 12:51

BumpyGrindy

In law she's solely responsible for the fraud.

As I said if DV has taken place then that needs to be looked at.

Nicknacky · 27/02/2014 12:53

Bumpy, she is solely responsible in the eyes of the law. Morally, the guy is a leech but he has commited no crime in respect of the benefit claim.

BumpyGrindy · 27/02/2014 12:58

I would hope that they can take the DV into account...if she can prove it.

caruthers · 27/02/2014 12:59

DV would be a mitigating circumstance but wouldn't make him culpable for the fraud.

SaucyJack · 27/02/2014 13:03

BumpyGrindy

Your aunt's situation is of no relevance to the OP as she was not committing a crime and more importantly she did not have dependent children she was choosing to let grow up in an abusive home.

DV is a mitigating circumstance, but it only goes so far.

Fiveleaves · 27/02/2014 13:10

I abhor benefit fraud and would rather eke out my savings than claim even what I'm entitled to (currently eligible for contributions based JSA but not bothering). However, this is incredibly sad. There are children involved and a domestic violence issue. The reasons why women stay with abusive partners are complex and this is a non violent offence. I just don't think prison is appropriate. Not in this case. Community service and paying back the money would be less expensive yo society in the long run.

bumdiedum · 27/02/2014 13:15

I think there's something wrong in the system that expects a man to support a family of four children just because he loves their mother. But since it does, and he hasn't, could he get done for living off the proceeds of crime or something? Unless he did actually spend the amount that the state expected him to on the children and his partner while she spent the benefits on holidays, handbags, and haircuts (ahem, don't think so!) he's presumably benefited from this after all.

LegoStillSavesMyLife · 27/02/2014 13:16

Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for her, presumably when she first started to commit benefit fraud (I.e. when he first move in) he was still promising the earth? I can quite understand when he became abusive that she couldn't stop. But presumably when he moved in she said for this to work I will lose x in benefit therefore I need x from you? Before his suitcase landed in the doormat?

He should be prosecuted for the crimes he did commit but she is still responsible (however mitigating the circumstances) for her crimes.

FiscalCliffRocksThisTown · 27/02/2014 13:18

the thing that annoys me is how the law favours feckless dads.

If dads don't fancy paying any maintenance, they get away with it (why?! A mother refusing to feed and clothe her children would be guilty of neglect, but for men it is OK to have no responsibility)

Where were the fathers of these children? Why did they not contribute? Why was it all down to the state?

It is such a sick and rotten system, forcing poor and disadvantaged women with children into being financially dependent on the state whilst men have freedom.

pianodoodle · 27/02/2014 13:20

I do feel sorry for your friend in these circumstances and I hope she avoids prison :(

AchyFox · 27/02/2014 13:22

If the relationship was on-off, it could end up being somewhat less then 33k.

Yes, he should be held responsible if he coerced or bullied her.
If this was significant, she could have a defence of necessity in law.

caruthers · 27/02/2014 13:25

Where were the fathers of these children? Why did they not contribute? Why was it all down to the state?

We don't know if the father of these children didn't contribute and if he/they did and if they are on minimum wage how could the amount elevate the mother and children out of poverty?

Committing benefit fraud isn't the answer is it?

MoreBeta · 27/02/2014 13:40

Sorry but there are a lot of women on benefits who do this.

I worked for a while for a charity and we dealt with a lot of single mothers with children on benefits and it is clear what the rules are. Everyone knows the rules and everyone knows that if you live with someone you don't get the same level of benefits.

Both the men and the women in these situations know what they are doing. Single women with children on benefits are in a lot better financial position than a man who is not the carer for his children. The incentive to keep claiming is there.

Hence a lot of people pretend to be living apart when they are not. The law cannot make exceptions unless he was threatening violence unless she signed the forms - in other words she was under demonstrable duress.

The defence of 'ooh he made me do it' is not good enough unless it can be shown there was real duress. If that was the case she should have asked for help and told the relevant authority.

Babyroobs · 27/02/2014 13:43

Hopefully it might not be that much money. Won't they look at what she was getting claiming as alone parent and offset it against what they might have been getting as a couple? As a couple they may have been entitled to tax credits ( especially with 4 kids the threshold is something like £45K !), housing benefit etc.

FrysChocolateCream · 27/02/2014 13:44

Only two PPs have said what I was thinking. There is a real problem with the system because this woman was supposed to stop claiming just because she had some idiot come and live with her. Never mind that in this case he was abusive but generally why should a new partner suddenly pay for her and four children just because he wants a relationship with her? It is very strange and makes the woman horribly dependent on a new partner.

there is also the added problem of the absolute nightmare of stopping and starting claims as someone else said up thread. Truly stressful stuff.

I feel sorry for the woman and hope she gets enough help to never go near a fuckwit ever again.

Viviennemary · 27/02/2014 13:49

She claimed fraudulently. She must face the consequencies. Sorry but I fail to see why we should all have sympathy. She chose to have this complete loser living with her. Benefit fraud is theft of public money.

MinesAPintOfTea · 27/02/2014 13:50

There is a real problem with the system because this woman was supposed to stop claiming just because she had some idiot come and live with her.

Some benefits may continue, but they will be less because the person who has been invited to join the household is assumed to be contributing to the bills. He didn't happen to move in, he was invited.

Tbh, if this system discourages resident parents from moving in a partner who is not willing to take responsibility for the children of the household then I think that will be much better for the children. It gives women under pressure a reason to put off a man who they don't want moving in.

I hope she doesn't actually get a custodial sentence, and that she does get the help she needs.

CinnabarRed · 27/02/2014 13:50

generally why should a new partner suddenly pay for her and four children just because he wants a relationship with her?

But presumably the new partner's own costs have gone down dramatically as a result of combining two households into one - it's one of the advantages of living together, after all.

I would say, instead, why shouldn't the new partner contribute towards the household he has just become a part of?

CatThiefKeith · 27/02/2014 13:51

The exact same thing happened to a friend if mine last year, except the kids were his. He left her, went back, several times, bullied her into claiming and was abusive.

She got 3 months Sad

He took the kids up North, where he is from, (we are in the SE) and abandoned the house.

She came out a week before Christmas, and is living in a hostel.

She can't get the kids back as she can't provide them with a home (she is on her arse, and her possessions are all gone) but without the children is unlikely to be housed anytime soon.

It is utterly utterly wrong that this has happened, and a fucking travesty that he has just got himself a council house while she has taken all the punishment.

Makes my blood boil!

clockwatching77 · 27/02/2014 14:09

Some really sad stories on here. I wonder what would have happened to her dc op if she stopped claiming. I agree her "partner" should be held to account too and I hope she doesn't go to prison.