A benefit cheat swindled more than £29,000 in handouts – unaware that she was legally entitled to even more.
Erika Hasler, 44, claimed she was a jobless single mum as she pocketed £29,581 in income support, housing and council tax benefits for seven years.
But she could have legally claimed more in working tax credits.
Hasler tried to hoodwink officials by using different names as she got work as an auxiliary nurse and a parcel courier. She was caught because she used the same national insurance number.
Twice-divorced Hasler, of Kempton Road, Burnage, admitted dishonestly failing to notify the Department of Works and Pensions of changes in her circumstances.
Handing her a suspended 24-week jail sentence and an order to do 100 hours unpaid work, the Recorder of Manchester, Judge Andrew Gilbart, told her: “It’s been accepted that had you applied properly for tax credits you would actually have received over £30,000, above the amount you were getting to which you were not entitled.”
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is disappointing that she has been let off so lightly. She should have been given a custodial sentence and her assets used to repay taxpayers as soon as possible.
“The real absurdity of the case is that the benefits system is in such a mess that she could have made more money by claiming benefits that she was legally entitled to.”
Hasler worked as an auxiliary nurse for East Cheshire NHS Trust at Macclesfield District General Hospital on and off for a total of six years. She earned up to £1,181 each month as a nurse and also £373-a-month as a parcel courier for nine months.
But she failed to declare her jobs to the DPW. She married in May, 2000 and investigators believe they lived together for five years. The relationship ended and another man moved in, said prosecutor Will Beardmore .
She failed to inform the DWP of either relationship or of savings of up to £8,000 she had in the bank, he said. She also enjoyed trips to Greece and Hungary - the latter to visit relatives. Hasler applied for her jobs in the names Erika Petra, Erika Keenan and Petra Keenan. She also applied for benefits under the name Erika Yoksha.
Mr Beardmore said: “It was a crude attempt to disguise the fact she was working and claiming benefits.”
When she was interviewed, Hasler at first denied wrongdoing. Mr Beardmore said: “She did admit offences but only after evidence was put to her. It wasn’t a full and frank confession of her guilt.”
Mr Elliott added: “It is shocking that someone could get away with such a serious offence for so long without being detected
“Time and again we have been assured by the government that they are cracking down on benefit fraud, but it seems that plenty of fraudsters have been able to sail along for years without any trouble.”
The DWP will now mount a civil case against Hasler to recover £46,380 in benefit paid to her between 1998 and 2008.
Because the law of dishonestly failing to notify the DWP of changes in circumstances was only introduced in 2001, Hasler could only be prosecuted over the £29,581 she claimed since that year.
A spokesman for the DWP said: “We know that the vast majority of our customers are honest, and we’re out to catch the small minority who aren’t.”
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (04/02/2010 at 08:59)
thoughtful, East of Manchester (04/02/2010 at 09:03)
In this instance although she was silly enough to make a false claim the net loss to the state was negative and the state should actually have paid her considerably more.
I feel that this fault in this case partially lies with the benefits agency and the Inland revenue, because if she had been made properly aware of what benefits she was entitled to then she wouldn't have needed to make a desperate and illegal claim.
As for the taxpayers alliance, they are little more than a bunch of miserable whingers who love an easy target. I don't see them complaining about the hundreds of millions wasted on interpreters for people who want to live & work in Britain, but don't want to speak the language. After all that wouldn't be PC would it?
petan, openshaw (04/02/2010 at 09:04)
Terry Mahon, Ex Mancunian (04/02/2010 at 09:09)
We then could get rid of half the tax officers and overpaid bosses.
That in turn would leave more money to pay off the debts.
Perhaps if some of these lazy sods had an incentive to go to work they just might?
Can you imagine it, you get money for working than you do on the dole?
I think I will turn over and go back to sleep and try and dream about something realistic.
Rammylad (04/02/2010 at 09:12)
It just shows again how being hard working and honest doesn't pay in this country. Let's wait for Gordons Knee to Jerk and see him insist on lie detector tests for every worker in the uk courtesy of a friend he has who makes lie detectors.
Is it possible to find out which MP's had shares in the pee pee scanners, or indeed which of their friends?
Hamish Macbeth, Whitefield (04/02/2010 at 09:16)
I'll have to look in to this "little earner" - if only the tax credit and benefit system wasn't so complicated.
It is only HMRC and the well versed criminals that can understand it !!
Like Mr Mahon says - the system needs reforming - and redesigning to encourage working. A simpler system would mean less staff to administer it.
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 09:23)
If you were working on just that piece of evidence, it seems to show exactly the opposite.
Moorlok, London (04/02/2010 at 09:40)
Penalise those who want to work, and reward the idle work-shy who don't want to work! The benefits system needs root and branch overhaul, but this would only make it more of a bureaucratic nightmare than it already is and cannot be trusted to the socialist morons who screw-up and defraud everything they touch.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (04/02/2010 at 09:46)
"It is only HMRC and the well versed criminals that can understand it"
Criminals yes, HMRC I'm not too sure.
Rob Wilson (04/02/2010 at 10:07)
thoughtful, East of Manchester (04/02/2010 at 10:08)
The figure isn't £30K, it's £30K over and above the £30K she actually claimed so it's actually £60K but spread over 7 years. The actual figure per anum is about £8500.
She earned £1200 although that was augmented by the parcel job for only 9 months to £400.
The taxpayers alliance say her assets should be sold to reclaim the amount, but that is only fair if the government pay her what she was legally entitled to i.e. £60K. She has actually saved the taxpayer £30K.
Here is an example of someone who did get off their backside, and took not one but two jobs. Because she couldn't make ends meet and was obviously ill informed by the benefits agency about her entitlements.
Reading some of the comments posted, it seems that some people can't actually think! they moan about people who don't work and claim benefits, then they moan about people who do, and claim the wrong kind of benefit! By doing this, this woman has saved the tax payer around £4.5K a year for goodness sake! Do you honestly believe she would have done this if she was aware that she could have claimed double the amount? (if you do you really are mad!)
There is no doubt in my mind that the finger should be pointed at the benefits agency, for failing to properly inform people of their entitlements. Not for the first time either, look how many pensioners go without for the same reason.
Almighty God, Salford - vote Green (04/02/2010 at 10:18)
dessie, manchester (04/02/2010 at 10:27)
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 10:29)
Absolutely. It's cheaper to administer, it's less intrusive, it reduces the disincentive to work, it's easier to understand and it reduces the number of potential avenues for fraud.
Unfortunately, they're all reasons why the state wouldn't want it!
Rob Wilson (04/02/2010 at 10:40)
Blue Dude, Manchester. (04/02/2010 at 10:49)
Instead its a "fishing net" to be exploited by all and sundry.
EG: If you earn more than £30k pa then you should not need child benefit at £16 pw (or whatever it is).
If you are under 30 and healthy (signed off by a doc) there should be NO Dole unless you do two days per week working at an old folks home or hospice or road sweeping and then two days a week at a job centre learning CV skills / interview skills / job search / phoning up etc.
Common sense or Nazi ideals - I'm sure you'll let me know.
Just Wondering?, North Manchester (04/02/2010 at 10:50)
Leo.Lady (04/02/2010 at 10:54)
big and blue, prestwich (04/02/2010 at 11:07)
Justified True Belief , - ... (04/02/2010 at 11:07)
I am sure that if this woman had put in as much effort investigating what she was entitled to, rather than ways to scam the system, then she would have been come out better off. It shows a prevailing mentality to me.
The system does needs a drastic reform, it costs too much, it produces so little.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (04/02/2010 at 11:10)
hjk (04/02/2010 at 11:11)
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 11:12)
I would certainly say it isn't common sense.
Given a choice between a non-means tested benefit, such as child benefit, or a means tested alternative, I'd go for the non-means tested every time, for several reasons:
-It's cheaper to administer.
-It gives the state less excuse to pry into our circumstances.
-It negates the poverty trap, because it doesn't suddenly disappear when you start earning more. That means it also doesn't create a disincentive to work.
-There's less scope for fraud, as people can't get more by lying about their financial circumstances.
-It's easier to understand.
-It creates less ill feeling, as it reduces the sense that one group is subsidising another and getting nothing back in return.
The argument that people on high incomes don't need it is a red herring. If they pay more in tax at the same time, it ends up balancing out anyway.
citycentre, manchester (04/02/2010 at 11:12)
Common sense possibly, alhtough its a good example of why common sense is sometimes wrong. In this case the immediate effect would be to lead to people already doing the jobs you describe, and probably trying to do them well since they went to the effort of applying for and getting them, losing their jobs to be replaced by a mob of forced labour, doing jobs they ghave no interest in, just turing up to get thier time sheets signed and doing a much worde job than before.
Almighty God, Salford - vote Green (04/02/2010 at 11:14)
Unfortunately, they're all reasons why the state wouldn't want it! "
You better watch out mate, talking sense like that will get you in some serious trouble with the "educated masses"