Benefit cheat, 60, claimed ‘five-figure’ sum

AWOMAN pocketed a ‘five-figure sum’ in benefits after failing to declare a share in a house belonging to her husband’s late mother, a court heard.

Eileen Chadwick, of Pennine Road, Bacup, pleaded guilty to failing to notify the Department for Work and Pensioners (DWP) and Rossendale Council of a change in changes which would affect her entitlement to both income support and housing benefit.

The 60-year-old also admitted making a false statement on an employment support allowance form to the DWP in August 2013.

Burnley Crown Court heard the claims took place over several years and centred on Chadwick’s failure to tell the authorities that her husband Peter Chadwick owned a half share in a property and received a rental income from it.

Prosecutors said that it was initially believed that the figure for the benefits claimed was £43,000 but that they now concede it will be significantly lower.

However, they said they believe it will still be a five-figure sum.

Mark Stuart, defending, said the property belonging to Mr Chadwick’s late mother until she passed away in December 2013.

He told the court: “The dishonesty didn’t start then...as the estate hadn’t been settled.

“Eventually when the estate was settled [Chadwick’s husband] and his brother received a half share of the mother’s house which was subsequently rented.

“The pleas are entered on the basis that she was guilty for a time after that date but not on that date.

“The Crown are aware of that and a date is going to have to be found subsequent to December 2010.

“They are in a very peculiar position in any event because even though Mr and Mrs Chadwick were both claiming benefits it was all done in her name. That’s why she’s borne the responsibility.”

Mr Stuart said the timing for when the rental income started is ‘going to have to be ascertained’ by the prosecution.

He said: “They were drawing £65 a week in rent between him and his brother and he was getting £32.50 a week. If that had been declared then what effect would that have had upon the benefits to be paid?

“The Crown’s allegation seems to be that they shouldn’t have been entitled to any benefits, but they may well have been.”

Judge Jonathan Gibson adjourned the case for sentence on July 14.

He said: “I’m going to ask for an all options report because, given the matters still to be investigated, I can’t really assess the overall seriousness of the case.

“Clearly there’s a lot of money involved on the current position.”