Vale woman sentenced for housing benefit fraud

A Castle Vale woman has been given a suspended prison sentence at Birmingham Magistrates Court for benefit frauds totalling almost £6,000.
The woman has been sentenced to three months imprisonment, suspended for twelve months, with an order to carry out 200 hours unpaid community work for making false housing benefit claims on a property in Castle Vale.
She told the Council she was paying child care costs to a registered child minder and these payments were then ignored for benefit purposes. However, investigators revealed that these child minder costs had stopped in 2003 and she falsely obtained Housing and Council Tax Benefit totalling £5947.76 over a three year period.
She pleaded guilty to four offences under the Social Security Administration Act.


9 responses to “Vale woman sentenced for housing benefit fraud

  1. I’m not saying what the lady named above has done is right because it isn’t, but I think that putting her full name and address on this site is a bit much. It’s amazeing that perverts have the right NOT to be named and shamed but lesser crimes are broadcasted for all to see.

  2. I’ve got mixed feelings about this, Sammy. The name and road (not full address) are usually reported in cases like this. But I take your point, and have removed the name, and the road. The details are sent out in a press release from the City Council to all local media, and you may find that other newspapers and news websites do give the details, if they choose to report the story. It feels uncomfortable because Vale is a small community, and we have been criticised before for naming people who have been convicted. But the judicial system depends on openness for integrity. If it were done in secret, or if the names were not released to the public, we would also feel uncomfortable, I suspect. Also, by not naming her, it throws suspicion on others. I have therefore deleted the age of the person, since it would throw suspicion on all Castle Vale females with children of that age………..
    But, as I say, I have some sympathies with the point you make.

  3. I think it could have caused some quite negative reactions to the lady in question. I respect you for taking it off.x

  4. thanks

  5. Ann Froggatt

    If people who are given ASBOs are named on this site, then those who commit other types of anti-social behaviour, such as cheating the benefits system, should be treated likewise. I for one object to my taxes being misused in this way; it’s far too easy to get away with benefits fraud.
    As for not naming perverts, I’m sure that if any from the Vale were to be convicted, their names would be front-page news everywhere. It’s a pity that we can’t name the parents whose children are at risk every day, in their own homes, of violence & abuse.

  6. Everyone objects to their taxes being misused but I think what people are forgetting is this lady has children. She has had to go to court (that in it’s self I should imagine was not a pleasant experience) and faced a possible jail sentence. I do not think she needs the added pressure of being pointed at in the street as the woman who “cheated the benefit system” and she certainly doesn’t need her children to be teased at school by kids saying things like “oh your moms being living off my moms and dads taxes.” (we all know what kids are like, especially if they overhear parents talking) I respect Vale Mail and it’s reporting of local issues, it is a great local paper and a credit to Castle Vale, but we have to remember we are a small community and naming and shaming can have big consequences for the people involved. I should think the lady in question has suffered enough worry/embarrassment without the added embarrassment of her name and address being printed on this site.

  7. Ann Froggatt

    Sammy, I understand what you’re saying as far as her children are concerned, & I’m certainly not in favour of the sins of the parents being visited on innocent children. Don’t get me wrong, but your pressure on the ValeMail to remove this woman’s name is beginning to look like personal involvement! I hope it’s not, otherwise that would completely undermine your case.

  8. I have no personal involvement with the lady in question I do not know her at all. Neither have I put pressure on the Vale Mail to remove her name ect. I commented on the story as I thought the personal details of the lady being put up on the site was too much, and Vale Mail choose to remove the info. (no pressure involved) I have my opinion. She has done wrong, been caught, taken to court and prosecuted. She does not need people in the street and neighbours being judge and jury. I am a compassionate person and do not see things as black and white, I like to take peoples feelings into consideration and especially where children are concerned. I have said all I want to on this subject and I think I’ve made my feeling clear. One person I did know was Eric Shaw. He was a true gentleman and I have been reluctant to comment on the benefit story as it would take off Eric’s tributes in the yellow comments box to the right of the site. (but it was something I felt strongly about) I would ask that Vale Mail reinstate Eric’s Tributes in the Comments box as he was a lovely gentleman and will be sadly missed xxx

  9. thank you vale mail, in reply to my letter of noise ect , i have had a good respond from the local police inwhich i feel a little safe now , but on the 24th april i went out for the evening and the following day ,,,lunch time i returned home to find my door had been attempted break in , i have no idea why this happened ,so i asked one of my neibours if they knew anything of this , well i got a nasty respond back , this person was shouting at me saying if it was them theyed of done far worse , my next step was to report the attempt break in to the cvha inwhich they told me i need to report it to the police to get a crime number, as i need a new door now ,well since that day it has been quiet (touch wood) as i had the police come and visit my home .

    center8 resident