Helston couple's £38,000 benefit fraud

7:00am Thursday 14th March 2013 in News

A couple from Bulwark Road in Helston have been found guilty of benefit fraud worth almost £38,000.

David Winwood, 62, and his wife Hilary, 57, dishonestly failed to tell Cornwall Council promptly that Mr Winwood was receiving a pension.

This resulted in them fraudulently claiming a total of £37,723.78 in housing benefit and council tax benefit.

They appeared before Truro Crown Court on Monday where each was given a 20-week prison sentence, which were then suspended for two years.

Mr and Mrs Winwood will also have to pay £1,000 towards the council’s investigation and legal costs.

The couple had earlier pleaded guilty to two charges at a hearing on February 22, when the case was adjourned for sentencing.

Their overpaid benefits are being recovered by Cornwall Council separately from the court action.

A council spokesperson said: “Benefit fraud is a serious crime with serious consequences.

“This case emphasises the importance in benefit claimants being honest when claiming benefit in the first instance, as well as ensuring they notify the council as soon as their circumstances change so we can ensure that their benefit entitlement is correct.

“Benefit fraud robs the council of valuable revenue, meaning less money is available to those who genuinely deserve and need it. It also has a knock on effect to tax payers.

“Cornwall Council would urge people to report anyone they suspect of committing benefit fraud.”

She added that Cornwall Council operated a “zero tolerance” policy to fraud and corruption.

Anyone who suspects fraud is taking place can talk to a member of staff on the free, confidential fraud hotline of 0800 7316125.

Comments(24)

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
7:21am Thu 14 Mar 13

Since my husband died I have been financially worse off, in my view these people should be grateful they at least have each other, and might benefit by getting their priorities right.

Report this post »

meerkats says...
9:32am Thu 14 Mar 13

wonder why it took so long to catch them out ,as it would surely take a while to dishonestly claim that amount.

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
12:19pm Thu 14 Mar 13

I suppose if people's circumstances change after they have made claim and then do not notify change of circumstances it is very difficult to discover unless someone reports them. I used to claim council tax benefit but when my circumstances changed I notified them within 3 days and that was only that long because the benefits department in the 'one stop shop' is only available Tuesdays and Thursdays but had I not notified them I doubt they would have found out. I suppose one safeguard the council could implement would be to ask for regular updates of ones bank account balance/details because they do not currently do this.

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
12:35pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Incidentally I think anyone caught for benefit fraud should be unable to make any legitimate claim in the future at least for x amount of time. I additionally think they should have to repay the money with interest.
Sounds harsh I know, but when you read the article, apart from having to pay legal costs and the money that was not theirs to claim anyway back again, what real punishment/deterrent is there, a suspended sentence.

Report this post »

meerkats says...
1:03pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 wrote:
Incidentally I think anyone caught for benefit fraud should be unable to make any legitimate claim in the future at least for x amount of time. I additionally think they should have to repay the money with interest.
Sounds harsh I know, but when you read the article, apart from having to pay legal costs and the money that was not theirs to claim anyway back again, what real punishment/deterrent is there, a suspended sentence.
i have been criticised on another article for agreeing with a comment, but i agree with what you say Gill, a suspended sentence is not a deterrent ,and i think people who do this should have a harsher punishment.

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
1:20pm Thu 14 Mar 13

meerkats you can agree with what ever and whoever you like, I know I do. I will now search the website for the comment you refer to as I must have missed it.

I just think benefit fraud is quite prolific and I would have thought community service would have been more useful.

Report this post »

Wave says...
2:10pm Thu 14 Mar 13

I agree.

Report this post »

telstar1962 says...
6:02pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Why a suspended sentence ?

That's ridiculous, and does not act as a deterrent.

What this sentence means is that if they break the law again,they will be imprisoned.

I am sure if I stole £38,000 and got caught, I wouldn't be at home, but in jail.

Report this post »

molesworth says...
6:18pm Thu 14 Mar 13

At the risk of being accused as harsh and 'out of touch' by lefty, christian, loony liberal softies, shouldn't anyone, and I mean anyone, who has stolen such a huge amount, £38,000, that's right, £38,000, be carted off at her majesty's pleasure forthwith? The world's gone bonkers. Yes, I said £38,000. Thirty eight thousand pounds.

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
7:12pm Thu 14 Mar 13

I am of Christian faith but it is irrelevant to how I feel about benefit fraud and how I think it should be dealt with, if I wasn't of Christian faith I would still think any theft is wrong and this particular case should have recieved more than a suspended sentence.
I have read of cases in the past where people who have had suspended sentences for things and then committed another crime within the time limit on the suspended sentence and yet still the suspended sentence was not brought into force, so what was the point in the suspended sentence.
I think this gives out the wrong message. In my view its like having an interest free loan for £38,000

Report this post »

Wave says...
10:22pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Which funnily enough Gill, is where we are at in the economy with 0% interest rates. With the government being seriously urged to make negative interest rates. Where by a bank pays you money for the privilege of letting you borrow from it.
In this sense thieving criminals are a net gain to the economy as the transfer of money is taken without the offenders sending a bill for the "risk" of taking charge of the money.

Report this post »

Wave says...
10:25pm Thu 14 Mar 13

When I say government I meant Bank of England.

Report this post »

telstar1962 says...
7:18am Fri 15 Mar 13

Of course it's a cheaper option not to put criminals in prison.

For example, Huhne and Pryce receive custodial sentence of 8 months each, but guaranteed to be out in 8 weeks lol

And I'd rather have much lower interest rates that we have now, than what we've had in the so called boom years

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
7:31am Fri 15 Mar 13

I agree it is cheaper not to put criminals in prison, I still think community service would have been the best option in this case, as they defrauded the council would it not have been appropriate to have them do something like litter picking etc on behalf of the council.

Report this post »

molesworth says...
12:41pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 wrote:
I am of Christian faith but it is irrelevant to how I feel about benefit fraud and how I think it should be dealt with, if I wasn't of Christian faith I would still think any theft is wrong and this particular case should have recieved more than a suspended sentence.
I have read of cases in the past where people who have had suspended sentences for things and then committed another crime within the time limit on the suspended sentence and yet still the suspended sentence was not brought into force, so what was the point in the suspended sentence.
I think this gives out the wrong message. In my view its like having an interest free loan for £38,000
I would never wish to cause you personal offence Gill, even if you are a believer. You are obviously a mostly sane and rational person, at least your comments are, and we could all learn from you at how to be more reasonable.
I too have noticed how suspended sentences are not brought into force...

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
1:07pm Fri 15 Mar 13

You have never caused me any offence molesworth only two contributors to this site have ever managed to do that. I do not offend very easily.

Actually I think one thing that would be a good deterrent in cases like this would be to actually picture the offenders in the paper.

Report this post »

molesworth says...
1:16pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Humiliation is certainly a strong deterrent. They use it in Switzerland quite a bit (I know, that sounds like a contradiction but you know what I mean). Fare dodgers' passport pictures are posted in every bus and train, those banned from pubs/bars are pictured within and on the doors, shoplifters, muggers etc. they are all exposed for all to see. Nowadays we could do it online too. www.Falmouth's least desirables.com - let's do it!

Report this post »

meerkats says...
1:39pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 wrote:
I agree it is cheaper not to put criminals in prison, I still think community service would have been the best option in this case, as they defrauded the council would it not have been appropriate to have them do something like litter picking etc on behalf of the council.
Good idea re litter picking ,they would certainly be kept busy in Helston !!

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
1:48pm Fri 15 Mar 13

molesworth wrote:
Humiliation is certainly a strong deterrent. They use it in Switzerland quite a bit (I know, that sounds like a contradiction but you know what I mean). Fare dodgers' passport pictures are posted in every bus and train, those banned from pubs/bars are pictured within and on the doors, shoplifters, muggers etc. they are all exposed for all to see. Nowadays we could do it online too. www.Falmouth's least desirables.com - let's do it!
Lol, having said that, I always seem to be mistaken for someone I'm not, knowing my luck I would be mistaken for some bank robber or something.

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
1:51pm Fri 15 Mar 13

She says, whilst busy writing this post from her prison cell lol

Report this post »

telstar1962 says...
2:19pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Fraud of £37,723.78

paid back at a rate of £6.19 per hour (minimum wage rates)

= 6094 total hours

That's 3047 hours each

At 40 hours a week

My solution,based on the above,would be to insist that the guilty people should commit 18 months each to some sort of Community Service, road sweeping, litter picking etc and with their bright orange fluorescent jackets on, so that the public are aware these people are repaying a rather large debt to the society it was stolen from

Report this post »

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...
2:47pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Sounds good to me telstar, just as long as the high visibility jackets actually have 'community service offender' or such like printed on the back, so that good voluntary workers are not mistaken for offenders.

Report this post »

victoriameldrew says...
6:49pm Fri 15 Mar 13

telstar1962 wrote:
Fraud of £37,723.78

paid back at a rate of £6.19 per hour (minimum wage rates)

= 6094 total hours

That's 3047 hours each

At 40 hours a week

My solution,based on the above,would be to insist that the guilty people should commit 18 months each to some sort of Community Service, road sweeping, litter picking etc and with their bright orange fluorescent jackets on, so that the public are aware these people are repaying a rather large debt to the society it was stolen from
that sounds good to me - have to agree with you. Gill and all who think people should not get away lightly with benefit or any sort of fraud. Even if I were on my last coppers I would not sink so low as to commit any fraud or anything illigal - we have all had to tighten our belts, most of us have had to live frugally, if not now, some time in our lives.

Report this post »

Jo Kernow says...
9:28pm Sat 16 Mar 13

If they were claiming housing benefit i assume they are in a rented house, how many bedrooms 2 or 3 ? how many of them in the houshold two? if so, make them change to a one bedroomed property, two problems sorted in one, a house freed up for a family and less housing benefit needed to be paid for by the tax payer.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree