A former Salford council worker who cheated the taxpayer out of more than £44,000 in benefit payments to which she was not entitled, has been jailed for eight months.
Mum-of-four Mary Tombling, lied in order to get income support, housing benefit and council tax benefits over a five-year period.
Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court was told that the 36-year old, had been legitimately entitled to the benefit payments for a period of two years, but when she set up home with her former partner's brother, she claimed to be a single mum, living on her own.
Mrs Tombling, from Northallerton Road, Salford, was told by Judge Jonathan Foster: "Benefit fraud is rife, and few offenders are caught. When the amount is significant over a period of time, both offenders and the public must expect there to be an immediate custodial sentence,"
He said a key factor in his decision to send her to prison, was the fact that during the period in question, she had already faced a similar charge of failing to notify the Department for Work and Pensions of a change in her circumstances, when she claimed to be unemployed, but was in fact working as a general assistant for Salford Council.
She was given a conditional discharge for two years after admitting the offence.
Natalie Cornwall prosecuting told the court that Tombling had received overpayments of more than £25,000 in income support, more than £15,000 in housing benefit, and almost £4,000 in council tax benefit between April 2003 and September 2008.
Who else has been locked up in April? Sentences and photo gallery
In June 2005 she then made a false representation to Salford Council, affirming that no other adult was living with her.
When caught out in September 2008, she claimed her partner, Paul Tombling, only stayed at her home for one or two nights, but she later admitted they had been living together since 2003.
Gareth Jones, defending, said that Mrs Tombling's claims had not been fraudulent from the outset.
She had been entitled to the benefit payments after she separated from her ex husband John Tombling in 2002.
The court was told she was left in the position of caring for two young children and having to deal with thousands of pounds in rent arrears.
He said it was not a case where she was living a life of luxury on benefits to which she was not entitled.
The family lived in a modest rented property, and her partner had been made redundant last year.
Mr Jones said: "She fully accepts that her conviction in 2006 should have alerted her to the importance of making full declarations to the DWP.”
He added: “She is sincerely sorry for what she has done, and is repaying the money she has been overpaid.”
Tombling who pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to notify authorities of a change in her circumstances and one charge of making a false representation, was told by Judge Foster: “Your offences over a period of some five years involved sums totalling more than £44,000.
“The aggravating feature of this case is that in the middle of this period, you were charged with, and pleaded guilty, to a similar offence of failing to notify the relevant authorities of a change in your circumstances, namely that you were at that point working.
“It was a warning to you, and I regret to say that it was one that went unheeded.”
Who else has been locked up in April? Sentences and photo gallery
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 19 and replies | View All
mr chips, manchester (23/04/2010 at 07:36)
11k = 1 month
£367 per day......
good rate, well worth it. where do i get the forms
Mike S, Manchester (23/04/2010 at 09:22)
themanc (23/04/2010 at 09:28)
BillyJ (23/04/2010 at 09:38)
themanc
If you read the article fully there is a statement from her solicitor that states 4 paragraphs from the end
He added: “She is sincerely sorry for what she has done, and is repaying the money she has been overpaid.”
BillyJ (23/04/2010 at 09:41)
mr chips, manchester
She is paying it back, therefore 4 months for a debt of 44k. What is stopping you from doing the same?
J smith (23/04/2010 at 09:51)
Moorlok, London (23/04/2010 at 10:50)
8 months in prison,
+ 3 months off for good behaviour = 5 months to do
+ time already served for inconvenience to her social life = 4 months to do
+ the mandatory "i was abused as a child and was called names so that led to my thieving" = 3 months to do
+ mandatory appeal to court of human rights because she was labeled a 'benefit scrounger' = 2 months to do plus awarded damges of £100,000 for 'hurt feelings'
+ a month further reduction as Slack Jaw feels sorry for her because the Tories under Margaret Thatcher removed her daily bottle of milk as an infant.
....and a further reduction because the judge felt sorry for her having to work for a bunch of socialists. Immediate release and straight back to the benefit office!!
Paul Bobs (23/04/2010 at 11:21)
Me from over there >>., MANCHESTER (23/04/2010 at 11:33)
Jay B, oldham (23/04/2010 at 11:44)
if you work hard, pay tax and are fed up of the way the scroungers keep robbing you of your hard earned cash and public services you're entitled to then theres only one choice.
Laura Norder, Didsbury (23/04/2010 at 11:51)
8 months in prison, + 3 months off for good behaviour = 5 months to do + time already served for inconvenience to her social life = 4 months to do + the mandatory "i was abused as a child and was called names so that led to my thieving" = 3 months to do + mandatory appeal to court of human rights because she was labeled a 'benefit scrounger' = 2 months to do plus awarded damges of £100,000 for 'hurt feelings' + a month further reduction as Slack Jaw feels sorry for her because the Tories under Margaret Thatcher removed her daily bottle of milk as an infant.
....and a further reduction because the judge felt sorry for her having to work for a bunch of socialists. Immediate release and straight back to the benefit office!!" - Moorlok, London
You get madder by the day, it's a good job the GE is imminent, and you can then be put back in your bin.
Still, you do give us ordinary mortals a laugh.
Moorlok, London (23/04/2010 at 11:51)
Yes it is!!
"I would beg to differ because this woman, although deserving of a customdial sentence, will soon realise that being away from her children for 8 months (or in reality released after 4) is still a long time."
Something she should have realised before her greed set in! Nobodys fault but her own, and why should the taxpayer have to foot the bill because her greed overrode her thought of her children. Tough luck I say, it should have been a longer sentence!
"This record will lie with her for the rest of her life."
Aww! my heart bleeds like so many other bleeding heart liberals!!
"As well as the monetary issues it is worth thinking of the emotional trauma she will have caused her family.
You know how the saying goes 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime'!!.....and yes her kids will grow up knowing their mummy is a common thief!
"So, before commenting about this so called short sentence, for those of you who have children, think carefully as to whether you could spend 4 months away from your children. I would have thought they will also take steps to recover the monies through the proceeds of crime act if she fails to pay it back anyway."
It's this ultra far-left liberal criminal apologising that makes this country the social wreck it is! Go and bleed your tears outside the court if yoiu're so broken up about this! I for one don't care of her welfare, and object to having to pay for this thieving scum out of my taxes.
Sarah Bellam, Woodhouse Park, Wytheshawe (23/04/2010 at 16:10)
Jetstar, Manchest`oh ! (23/04/2010 at 22:27)
so many dogooders on this story for my liking.
this thief deserves what she got although i`d like her to do 12 months minimum with no parole.
smile its free (23/04/2010 at 22:41)
adee durr, stockport (24/04/2010 at 08:47)
Me from over there >>., MANCHESTER
23/04/2010 at 11:33
yeah... because falsly claiming 44k isn't a real crime, its not really stealing if its only from the council, it only counts as stealing if you go into a bank with tights over your head and a strippy t shirt on!
Moorlok, London (26/04/2010 at 10:27)
....and we all know which party!!!! Perfect qualifications for Liebour, they have been robbing from the taxpayer for 13 years and none of them will go to jail for it!
lovinthebanter, Manchester (26/04/2010 at 10:42)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (26/04/2010 at 10:42)
J Smith
What priorities, there both crimes and one should not take priority over the other they are delt with at seperate times, so I don't understand are you saying we should ignore the smaller crimes and focus on the larger crimes, alough the guy you talker about stole a car she stole £44K probably actually more and continued the crime for 5 years, so it is actually debateable which is worst.