Benefits cheat wins £400k in will wrangle
THE unmarried “widow” of a millionaire buy-to-let boss has won a £400,000 share of his fortune after a court battle with his children.
But she could be stripped of hundreds of thousands of pounds – and even faces jail – after her own evidence revealed she is a benefits cheat.
Alan Shah, 64, died of a brain haemorrhage last year, leaving everything to only son Sajad Ali Shah and cutting out Cindy Jassal completely.
Ms Jasaal had been married to Mr Shah in an Islamic ceremony, but the couple were not legally wed.
The son, backed by sisters Sabrina, Sofia and Shabana, claimed their dad and Ms Jasaal were not in a marriagelike relationship after 2012. But Cindy successfully sued for a payout from his £1million estate, insisting they had lived together as spouses.
A High Court judge ruled in her favour, accepting that the couple had lived together as “husband and wife” after she produced more than 600 texts and evidence from neighbours. He handed her a £385,000 payout.
But judge Matthew Marsh ordered £200,000 be held back so authorities can claim against her to recoup any wrongly paid benefits.
He found she had committed “very serious” fraud by pretending to the council that she and Mr Shah were not co-habiting to claim housing benefit. Mr Shah, whose real name was Faiz Ali Shah but was known as “Alan”, made money through buy-to-lets and property
maintenance. He and Ms Jassal, whose real name is Srendarjit but who goes by the name “Cindy”, were wed in an Islamic ceremony in 2003. In 2006, they moved to his house in Slough, Berkshire. Six years later she moved into another property in his name, paid for with housing benefits. Ms Jasaal, inset below, said the move was a sham, that she partowned the other property and that she had returned to the first home. She had said she was single while trying to claim for jobseekers’ allowance, income support and incapacity benefits.
That meant her partner’s savings were not disclosed, despite having £427,000 in cash when he died, said the judge. She could be prosecuted after the judge ordered that a transcript of the judgment and her evidence be sent to Slough council, the DWP and HMRC for investigation.
The judge said: “She asserts that her claim to Slough council for housing benefit, resulting in payment of more than £60,000 of rent, was fraudulent.”