Forum Topic

I just read, on the actonw3 website, the following

Woman failed to declare she was a student Akinola pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to fraudulently claiming around £10,000 in housing benefits between June 2008 and February 2010.  She was given a Community Order requiring her to carry out 100 hours of unpaid community work within the next 12-months and ordered to pay £200 towards the council’s costs.IF SHE'S ORDERED TO PAY ONLY £200 COUNCIL COSTS AND TO DO 100 HOURS COMUNITY WORK FOR £10,000 THEN WHERE IS THE JUSTICE. I REPEAT WHERE IS THE JUSTICE. OR LET ME PUT IT IN PLAIN ENGLISH £100 PER HOUR TO DO COMMUNITY WORK     100 X £100 = £10,000    LOVELY HEY

Victor Bell ● 5890d8 Comments

My sentiments exactly. See my similar posting - "Crime doesn't pay. Errrrr, except when it does, at £98 per day ..... Tax Free!"Who ARE these idiots on the benches??!!!

Rosco White ● 5890d

Eerrrr, There is normally an order for repayment of the wrongly paid benefit in such cases. I suspect this was not mentioned for some reason in the report........

Iain Muir ● 5890d

Good point Ian - we live in hope!

Rosco White ● 5890d

Comments from the Editor are invited, please. I would expect Iain with 2 I's to be correct.

George Knox ● 5890d

probably the error was made to wind up the hang em and flog ems on here.It had its effect.

Colin Carroll ● 5890d

Even this soggy liberal was a little surprised as the the lack of required restitution. I'll run it past a lay magistrate I know and see if he can shed any light

Roy Gillett ● 5890d

My friend the Mag has clarified. Current practice is that the loacal authority, also acting on behalf of the benefit agency, pursues the matter of reimbursement separately from the criminal prosecution. The magistrate's court is not usually asked to make any order for repayment and concerns itself only with the appropriate penalty for the offence.I don't know why that is and I'm not clear what other means might be employed although it might well start with a simple agreement with the subjectWhen I looked this case up I found  a report in the Ealing Gazette of a similar case in which it was stated that the accused had already  agreed to pay the money back monthly. Perhaps that would affect the sentence.So it seems highly likely that this woman won't be profiting from the fraud. We just don't happen to know the details

Roy Gillett ● 5890d

It may well be that the culprit has authorised the Council to make deductions from the culprit's bank account on a monthly basis, or from any benefits which she legitimately might be receiving.It would be extraordinary if the Council had written off the debt.The first post in this thread was a bit of a knee jerk Daily Express response. The much more interesting question is how many millions of pounds are being paid back to Councils by way of deductions, which is the normal process with people who cannot repay the whole debt. If repayments are pitched at between £2 to £5 per week, just think how long it takes to settle a debt.

George Knox ● 5889d