Express & Star

Mother falsely claimed £100,000 in benefits

A mother of three claimed more than £100,000 in benefits over a period of nine years after failing to tell the authorities her partner was living at the same address, a court heard.

Published

A mother of three claimed more than £100,000 in benefits over a period of nine years after failing to tell the authorities her partner was living at the same address, a court heard.

Alice Gough received a total of £101,198 in income support, housing and council tax benefit, Wolverhampton Crown Court was told yesterday. The 39-year-old, who is expecting another child next year, did not inform the authorities she was living with her partner during the period. She claimed income support between March 28, 2002 and June 23, 2011.

There were claims for housing and council tax benefit between April, 2004 and June, 2011, the court was told.

Gough, of Marigold Crescent, Dudley, was given a 12-month jail term suspended for 24 months and ordered to carry out 100 hours unpaid work. She was also placed under supervision.

Judge Helen Hughes said there "may be criticism for being lenient" but she had taken into account Gough was the primary carer of her three children with another one on the way.

Gough, who works as a part-time carer, pleaded guilty to two counts of dishonestly failing to notify a change in circumstances at a hearing on August 9 – when she had been due to stand trial.

Miss Laura Culley, prosecuting, said investigations had revealed she and her partner had put down the same address when registering the children.

"He had also put down the same address as Gough to his employers," she said.

"In interview she originally said they had only lived at the same address of a short time."

Mr Andrew Wallace, defending, said over the period in question his client had been entitled to some benefit – although not the amount she received.

He told the court she had already started to pay back some of the money. "She is of previous good character and is the primary carer for her children," he said.

Judge Hughes said: "A custodial sentence is the only option and although there may be some criticism for being lenient I have been convinced, just, it can be suspended in this matter."

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.