Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
MistressDeeCee · 27/02/2014 18:26

Similar happened to a friend a few years back. Her man was abusive, kept her and DCs very short of money, she was desperate and made fraudulent benefit claims. Less than the amount you've mentioned here, OP - first offence, arrived at court and was sent to prison. No mitigating circumstances were listened to, and she had young DCs. So your friend faces a real possibility of imprisonment, sadly.

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 18:28

Yes, you got me Flogging. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say Grin.

Mignonette · 27/02/2014 18:28

Err I suggested she had herself assessed because if she is unwell she can have this used as mitigation and it will also help her cope with the case and make clear headed arrangements for her children. Because how will it help them further to have a Mother unable to function because of anxiety and fear? This is irrespective of whether you think she should be pelted with tomatoes.

Mitigation and defence are not the same thing at all. And if she has MH problems the last thing we need is yet another mentally ill person in jail. Because I can tell you from my professional perspective that she is pretty much guaranteed to cost the tax payer far far more that way in the short, medium and long term.

HappyMummyOfOne · 27/02/2014 18:31

She had many other options than fraud. She could have simply dated him and not moved in him. She could have worked more hours so she didnt need to claim etc.

Sadly, lots of single parents move their new partner in far too quickly and its only the children will suffer.

Non resident fathers have been mentioned but we dont know he/they werent paying child support. Some don't which is wrong but given the OPs friend wasnt supporting her children either, the state was, its not just NRP that dont pay.

If on full benefits with four children, £33k for four year seems very low. Tax credits alone with HB would have been thousands.

handcream · 27/02/2014 18:31

There are many many women who choose their latest man over their children time and time again. I suspect she thought as she had 4 children (where is the father) she would be immune from prison.

When you make mistakes in life (and all of us make them!) you have to take the consequences of your decisions. No one forced her to claim she was a single parent. She wasnt forced to take him back every time. She chose to and these are the consequences.

Did he force her to claim she was a single parent. This is a serious amount of money and she clearly thought she could get away with it.

Floggingmolly · 27/02/2014 18:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

lottieandmia · 27/02/2014 18:32

Romell's posts make sense. But surely if you know someone is a loser, the best thing is not to let them move in! This poor woman does sound as though she was expecting him to change. But the guy must have had all his stuff in the house, had her doing his washing and eating and sleeping there every day. She should have kept the relationship more distant.

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 18:33

The state wouldn't have to pick up the tab for non resident parents to such an extent if child support was paid with fairness and regularity.

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 18:34

Or even if 50% residency was more commonplace.

Anonymai · 27/02/2014 18:34

The state pick up the tab, tetris? How?

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 18:34

Yes, I've seen it thanks Flogging.

handcream · 27/02/2014 18:35

Where is the children's father in all of this?

MinesAPintOfTea · 27/02/2014 18:35

Yes Mintyy but he didn't commit the fraud and unless there's evidence it would be hard to prove he knew the households weren't entitled to the money.

As I've said upthread if there was any criminal abuse or blackmail the man should be reported to the police but the victim of this would be the friend, not the dwp.

fideline · 27/02/2014 18:36

"With four young children? I have a pretty good, professional job and still find just two children in childcare eyewateringly expensive. The state would have been paying more in childcare than she would be earning, I'd imagine."

I agree, but also;

Childcare help via tax credits is paid at 70% of costs up to £180 per week for one child or for two or more children 70% of costs up to £300.

So she has four children but the most assistance she could have received for childcare was £210.

That rather limits her options for increasing her hours.

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 18:37

Parents on low incomes relying on tax credits etc because the other parent has wandered off and decided not to live up to their financial / parental responsibilities.

Mintyy · 27/02/2014 18:38

My point is that he was colluding with and sharing in the proceeds of the fraud and therefore should be held accountable. If that requires a change in the law then so be it.

Anonymai · 27/02/2014 18:39

I see. I suppose the amounts the CSA calculate at would barely make a dent in that even if it was regularly. Unless the NRPs had high incomes.

HappyMummyOfOne · 27/02/2014 18:39

"The state wouldn't have to pick up the tab for non resident parents to such an extent if child support was paid with fairness and regularity"

It doesnt make any difference to benefits, Labour changed the system so that child support is not counted. Yet if the father lives with the child it is. Sheer madness and penalises those that live together.

The state wouldnt have to pick up the tab for her being single if she worked more. Its pot kettle black to slate a NRP for not paying their share if the PWC is letting the state pick up theirs.

I do agree that on a split it should automatically be 50-50 rather then females usually getting the children by default of their sex. A child has two parents, neither is more important than the other. 50/50 care with each one paying the childs costs on those days would be far better.

fideline · 27/02/2014 18:39

" But surely if you know someone is a loser, the best thing is not to let them move in! This poor woman does sound as though she was expecting him to change. But the guy must have had all his stuff in the house, had her doing his washing and eating and sleeping there every day."

How many women make this kind of mistake? We read it on here every day.

But the better-off don't get criminalised for it.

ilikebigbutts · 27/02/2014 18:40

I have real sympathy for your friend OP in all of this but I actually think that benefit fraud is more common than a lot of people realise,

I was made redundant a few years ago and have found it very difficult to find a job to fit in around the 2 kids which actually paid enough to justify the childcare costs. Speaking of our predicament to various people I was astonished at the number of them who suggested that I say OH was no longer living with us.

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 18:40

Or unless they took their children for a few days a week, halving childcare costs, food and clothing bills etc.

TetrisBlock · 27/02/2014 18:41

Same idea Happy. X-posts.

Anonymai · 27/02/2014 18:42

happymummy, have you ever experienced being a lone parent? Or do you post from the viewpoint of a woman who is with a man who has a dreaded ex? Genuinely curious because you regularly post strong negative opinions about women on benefits and I always wonder what agenda you have.

fideline · 27/02/2014 18:43

Happymmummy how is she supposed to pay childcare to work more?

We don't know why original relationship with the father broke down. She could well have been left in the lurch through no fault of her own and just struggling to do her best.

BackOnlyBriefly · 27/02/2014 18:43

She did something wrong and should pay for it, but not prison and from the sound of it that's probably not going to happen.

Although it's no excuse, anyone can be influenced by another person into breaking rules. They don't have to even be abusive. If you're in a difficult situation and someone says "oh leave it for now, it will be ok" then any of us could be tempted.

The guy has a moral responsibility (if he knows the meaning of the word), but you can't really have a law saying if you sleep with someone you're responsible for what they claim in benefits. However was he not also breaking the law? If he pretended not to live there was he not avoiding paying council tax and so on?

One thing bugs me generally. There's always been an assumption that if a man stays over then he has to be declared as living there and the benefits have to change right away. Last I looked it was legal to sleep with who you liked and the benefits only changed if he was living there permanently and contributing.

It was always assumed that way round, but if I had a woman stay over no one assumed she was supporting me.

Don't know if that helps in this case, but from the sound of it he was only there some of the time and wasn't contributing. She didn't really know one day to the next if he'd be there.