Cases – Benefit Fraud
From CrimeLine from Andrew Keogh
London Borough of Croydon v Shanahan (05 February 2010)
London Borough of Croydon v Shanahan [2010] EWCA Crim 98 (05 February 2010) Important ruling re: issue whether a claimant for housing and council tax benefits is obliged under s.111A(1A) to disclose all sources of income when any one or more of them would have been sufficient under the regulations to extinguish the entitlement to receive the benefit.
- “The issue joined in count 1 was whether the respondent, as she said in interview, may have telephoned Croydon to notify them of her income from employment. If the jury concluded that she had or may have done, then in respect of counts 2 and 3, there would have been no obligation to notify Croydon of the receipt of tax credits since, under the construction of section 111A(1A)(a) approved and confirmed in Passmore, they would, on further computation, have had no effect upon the entitlement to benefit; the entitlement would already have been extinguished by the notification of earned income. If, on the other hand, the jury were to convict of count 1, it would add nothing to the respondent's culpability that she had also failed to notify Croydon of her tax credits because the count 1 failure alone would have been enough to extinguish the entitlement to benefit. As the judge observed, there were good practical case management reasons for confining the jury's consideration to count 1. He could have achieved the same result by discharging the jury from reaching verdicts on counts 2 and 3. We have no criticism of the judge for his pragmatic approach to those counts.”
Child Poverty Action Group, R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (14 October 2009)
Child Poverty Action Group, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] EWCA Civ 1058 (14 October 2009) This was an application for judicial review for a failed application for declaratory relief before Michael Supperstone QC sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division in Child Poverty Action Group, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Appeal allowed
Lord Justice Sedley said that from time to time, inevitably, accidental overpayments are made to individuals entitled to social security benefits. Until recently the Department enforced recovery either under section 71 Social Security Administration Act 1992 or not at all. For overpayments not covered by that section it would ask claimants for repayment but would take no further steps. What has prompted these proceedings is the adoption of a new practice, illustrated in the documentation, of asserting a right to take legal action outside section 71 Social Security Administration Act 1992. Times Law Report Where the cause of an overpayment of social security benefits was neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was not entitled to resort to common law to recover the money paid.
Tilley, R. v (20 July 2009)
Times Law Report R v Tilley If a third party knew of a change that affected the benefit of a person claiming income support, he would be guilty of an offence only if he dishonestly allowed the beneficiary to fail to report the change provided that he had been active in some way in the failure.
Tilley, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1426 (20 July 2009) This was a prosecution to appeal against a terminating ruling under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appeal arose in this way. The defendants CT and NT faced trial in the Crown Court. The indictment contained seven counts relating to fraudulent claims for social security benefits. Five of the counts were against NT and alleged false representations to obtain benefit or failing to notify a change of circumstances that she knew would affect her entitlement to benefit. These were not the subject of this appeal. Counts two and four, which are the subject of this appeal, are against the CT and alleged offences under S.111A(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as amended.
The statement of offence in each case is "causing or allowing another to fail to give a prompt notification of a change of circumstances." The particulars of offence in count two read:
- "Christopher Tilley, between 1st January 2002 and 2nd March 2007, dishonestly caused or allowed Nicola Tilley to fail to give a prompt notification to the Department for Work and Pensions in the prescribed manner of a change of circumstances that he knew would affect Nicola Tilley's entitlement to Income Support, namely that he and Nicola Tilley were maintaining a common household."
The issue was the meaning of the word "allows" in s.111A(1B) and whether it requires in this case any positive act on the part of the defendant for the offence to be committed.
Held: The change of circumstances relied on in the present case is that the defendant and Nicola Tilley were maintaining a common household. The primary obligation to report this was on Nicola Tilley as the recipient of the benefit (see s.111A(1A)). It is not suggested that the respondent did anything that "caused" her not to report this and if he had done any such thing he would probably be guilty of aiding and abetting an offence by her. In a case, as here, where Nicola Tilley was as aware as the defendant of the circumstances that needed to be reported in our view for the defendant to be liable under s.111A(1B) there had to be some action that he could have taken that would have resulted in Nicola Tilley discharging her obligation to report. As the agreed facts do not disclose anything that he could appropriately have done we think the judge was correct in the conclusions that he reached. This is not one of those cases in which the defendant unbeknown to the recipient of benefit is aware of circumstances that he knows affects the recipient's entitlement. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the terminating ruling stands. We direct the defendant's acquittal under s.61(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Laku, R v (16 July 2008)
Laku, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1745 (16 July 2008) L made false representations to claim benefits and was prosecuted under Section 111A and section 111A(1A) Social Security Administration Act 1992. Held: Convictions under section 111A(1A) quashed, he had not failed to notify a change in circumstances as the same false circumstances that founded the convictions under Section 111A continued.
Passmore, R. v (18 June 2007)
Passmore, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 2053 (18 June 2007) D in receipt of housing and council tax benefits, failed to notify a change of circumstances to the Department for Work and Pensions. He was successfully convicted (Section 111A Social Security Administration Act 1992). It was argued by Passmore that since the material change of circumstances did not in fact alter the level of benefits paid to him, he had no duty to notify. Held: The defendant's argument was correct and the Statute should be construed on the basis of a natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, particularly given the fact that it was a penal provision.
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 creates various offences to do with obtaining or retaining benefits under social security legislation to which the recipient is not entitled. This appeal involves a question about the meaning of the phrase "a change of circumstances affecting" a person's "entitlement to any benefit" in paragraph (a) of (1)A of Section 111A of the Act. The subsection reads as follows: "A person shall be guilty of an offence if --
- (a) there has been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to any benefit or other payment or advantage under any provision of the relevant social security legislation;
- (b) the change is not a change that is excluded by regulations from the changes that are required to be notified;
- (c) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of his to such a benefit or other payment or advantage; and
- (d) he dishonestly fails to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person."
Social Security Administration Act 1992 OPSI original text of act
Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987
Duty to notify changes of circumstances
Section 75(1) Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 Subject to paragraph (2), if at any time between the making of a claim and its determination, or during the benefit period, there is a change of circumstances which the claimant, or any person by whom or on whose behalf sums payable by way of housing benefit are receivable, might reasonably be expected to know might affect the claimant's right to, the amount of or the receipt of housing benefit, that person shall be under a duty to notify that change of circumstances by giving notice in writing to the designated office. [It] is interesting to compare and contrast the express language of Regulation 75 with the interpretation which the prosecution asks this court to put on section 111(1)(a) by way of reading into the section words which are not there. The prosecution's argument requires the court to read the words "change of circumstances affecting any benefit" as not limited to a change of circumstance which would make a difference to the amount of the benefit, nor even limited to a change of circumstance which a person in the claimant's position ought to realise might make a difference to the computation of their benefit. It extends to disclosure of anything which might cause a benefits officer to make enquiries in order to satisfy himself or herself as to the claimant's entitlement to benefit. So we are asked as a process of interpretation to read in a duty enforced by criminal sanctions more extensive than the express duty imposed by Regulation 75 which carries only a civil sanction. This would go beyond any ordinary process of statutory construction.
King v Kerrier District Council (27 February 2006)
King v Kerrier District Council [2006] EWHC 500 (Admin) (27 February 2006)
This was an appeal by way of case stated from a decision the Magistrates' Court which, convicted the appellant of two offences of failing to give proper notification of a change of circumstances affecting her entitlement to both housing benefit and council tax benefit, contrary to section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Section 112(1A) was inserted into the 1992 Act by section 16 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. Section 112 is headed "False Representations for Obtaining Benefit et cetera".
Section 112(1) creates an offence of obtaining "any benefit or other payment under relevant legislation" by a person who "a) makes a statement or representation which he knows to be false; or b) produces or furnishes or knowingly causes or knowingly allows to be produced or furnished any document or information which he knows to be false in a material particular". Section 112 (1A) provides as follows: Those subsections are—
- (1A) A person shall be guilty of an offence if—
- (a) there has been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to any benefit or other payment or advantage under any provision of the relevant social security legislation;
- (b) the change is not a change that is excluded by regulations from the changes that are required to be notified;
- (c) he knows that the change affects an entitlement of his to such a benefit or other payment or advantage; and
- (d) he dishonestly fails to give a prompt notification of that change in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.
Held: In my judgment, each of the ingredients of the offence (a) to (d) in that subsection must be established to the criminal standard of proof. It follows that, for the purposes of the subsection there must have: "... been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement... to any benefit or other payment or advantage under any provision of the relevant social security legislation,"
save only where it is excluded by any regulation from the ambit of this subsection. More than that, according to subsection (c), it must be established to the criminal standard of proof that the defendant knew that the change affects an entitlement.
Appeal allowed
Mote v R (21 December 2007)
Mote v R [2007] EWCA Crim 3131 (21 December 2007) The appellant was convicted of 21 counts of offences that can broadly be described as benefit fraud. He was acquitted of a further 4 such counts. He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. He applied for permission to appeal against his conviction on all these counts. His application was referred to this court by the Registrar. We granted permission to appeal at the outset of the hearing.
The appellant attacks his convictions on a number of grounds. The first is that it is impossible to reconcile the jury's decision to convict him on 21 counts with their decision to acquit him on the other four and that this inconsistency renders the former verdicts unsafe. The second is that his trial was an abuse of process; it should never have taken place as he had advanced a claim to immunity as a Member of the European Parliament ('MEP') which has yet to be finally resolved by the European Court. The third is that permission should not have been granted to amend the indictment to add additional counts because these did not fall within a waiver of privilege or immunity granted by the European Parliament. The fourth is that the amendments in question should not have been permitted because there was no jurisdiction to allow them. Finally it is alleged that his conviction on Count 8 was unsafe because any failure to notify occurred before the commencement of the section under which the charge was brought.
Parry v Halton Magistrates' Court & Anor (20 June 2005)
Parry v Halton Magistrates' Court & Anor [2005] EWHC 1486 (Admin) (20 June 2005) This was an appeal by case stated against his conviction by the justices of dishonestly failing to give prompt notification of the change of circumstances affecting his entitlement to social security benefit in the period 8th December 2001 to 5th November 2003. The questions stated by the justices for the opinion of this court are:
- "(a) Were we right to find that the use of the word 'prompt' in Section 111A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 was to prevent abuse by a person giving notification of a change in circumstances an unreasonable length of time after the change occurred with the result that, in a situation where no notification was ever given, the issue of promptness was irrelevant?
- (b) Were we right to find that the appellant's obligation to notify the respondent Department, which began on 22nd August 2000, did not cease purely due to passage of time or his ceasing to work on 8th January 2001 but continued beyond the commencement date of Section 111A and until his claim for benefits was stopped in 2003?
- (c) Were we right to find that the period during which the appellant was working, namely 22nd August 2000 to 8th January 2001, was itself not relevant to the issue of whether the appellant had committed a criminal offence between 8th December 2001 and 5th November 2003 and that the relevant consideration was the appellant's behaviour between 8th December 2001 and 5th November 2003, namely his dishonest failure to notify the respondent Department of the fact he had worked?"
The court answered "yes" to each of the questions posed by the justices and would dismissed the appeal.
Eyeson v Milton Keynes Council (Admin) (08 March 2005)
Eyeson v Milton Keynes Council [2005] EWHC 1160 (Admin) (08 March 2005) This was an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Justices. The appellant was convicted of two offences of failing to give a prompt notification of a change of circumstances with a view to obtaining Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit contrary to section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The obligation on the appellant to notify the change of circumstances arose as a result of the increase in the level of Working Families' Tax Credit being paid to her with a view to obtaining Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Appeal allowed.
Where would we be without bailii please DONATE to BAILII
CrimeLine is sponsored by Keogh Solicitors. CrimeLine is published by CrimeLine Training Limited (Company No. 06748394)
Categories: Offences | Cases | Fraud
