Benefits cheat mum, 25, claimed £15,000
Scam lasted for nearly two years until fraud sqaud moved in
A Scarborough benefits cheat conned £15,000 out of the authorities during a scam which lasted nearly two years.
Kirsty Mitchell, 25, fraudulently claimed income tax and housing benefit by claiming she lived alone.
Mitchell, of Mount Park Avenue, appeared for sentence at York Crown Court on Tuesday after admitting two counts of benefit fraud by failing to notify the authorities she was living with her then partner.
The court heard that in October 2010 Mitchell was legally receiving benefits as a single mother, but in August 2011 she resumed her relationship with her partner and they began living together.
Despite their co -habi-tati on, Mitchell continued to receive housing benefit and income support on the grounds she was a single mum living alone at a previous address in Scarborough.
Prosecutor Laurie Scott said the authorities began investigating her claims after the National Fraud Investigation Service informed the Department f or Work and Pensions that Mitchell was living with a man. The fraud team’s enquiries revealed that the utility and Sky TV bills for the property were in the name of Mitchell’s on-off partner, who was the father of her children. Fraud officers carried out surveillance on Mitchell’s home in June 2013 and saw her partner coming and going on a daily basis. Mitchell was called in for questioning and claimed she had broken up with her partner and they were not living together. But she later admitted the fraud on the basis that she was not living with him when she started claiming housing benefit and income support, although she conceded there had been a brief reconciliation between them in August 2011.
Ms Scott said the fraudulent claims amounted to about £15,000, which was currently being pursued by the authorities.
Defence barrister James Gelsthorpe said the mother-of- three was “naïve” rather than cunning, and had lived a blame-free life up until the fraud offences.
Judge Stephen Ashurst said Mitchell would pay for her crimes i n the l ong- run because she would have to repay the authorities through deductions to her benefits. But he decided not to send her to prison because she had no previous convictions and jailing her would be damaging for her children. Instead, he gave her a 12-month community order with 120 hours of unpaid work. Mitchell was also ordered to take part in a 10-day programme at the Women’s Community Project, in Scarborough.