Browse Sections

Interactive

Popular Sections

Weather

Showers around early

Personal Finance

Balance Transfer

Card	Typical APR

Barclaycard Platinum	15.9%
NatWest Platinum	16.9%
Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum	16.9%
Virgin Credit Card	16.6%
Egg Card	16.9%

Customers with a 'good' credit profile

Company

Typical APR

Platinum Exclusive	7.8%
Sainsbury's Personal Loan	7.9%
Alliance & Leicester	7.9%

Fees may apply

News

| Submit Comments | Comments (55) | « Previous Story | Next Story »

Erika Hasler

Benefit cheat stole less than she could have claimed

John Scheerhout

February 04, 2010

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.”

| Submit Comments | Comments (55) | « Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 25 of 55

1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page Show 25 | 50 per page

Black Flag "it just doesn't seem to be a logical idea really any grounds."

I think that maybe you just need to consider it a little more thoroughly."

Just have, I see now, o wait yeh still highly illogical.

lovinthebanter, Manchester
9/02/2010 at 18:57

Yes- That is the point. She may have intended to dupe us as taxpayers, but that did not succeed. She needs a lesson from people who are her age and older and have NEVER worked in their lives. They would have known how to work the system and avoided her being the wrong side of the law

Litigator, Manchester
8/02/2010 at 18:29

steve durham: Erikas consience did not trouble her while she thought that she was cheating the system, so I doubt that it is troubling her now. Remember she used aliases, and declaired neither of her live in relationships,fully intending to defraud the system.

I do agree that the penalty is harsh considering other benefit fraudsters did actually profit and get less of a sentence.

Andanotherthing, Mcr
8/02/2010 at 09:27

This is a ridiculous situation. A suspended sentence- yes. 100 hours unpaid work, a bridge too far. Erika took nothing and owes nothing. A civil Court will not entertain this spurious claim from the Government. She owes us nothing as taxpayers. This young lady has a work ethic. That is something others should aspire to.

Erika, I hope that you can now get the help you need to obtain the tax credits to which you are entitled and will be able to sleep nights with a clear conscience.

Lawman, Manchester

steve durham
8/02/2010 at 00:03

Justified True Belief: "Same is required on the paying out side of the transaction."

I should have pointed out that there is a way of doing it without any cash payments, using non-wastable personal tax allowances.

For example, you could give everybody a £9000 personal tax-free allowance and increase income tax to, say, 33%. So, each month, employers would deduct a third from each employee's wages and then add £250, so those who earning less than £9,000 would get more from their allowance than they pay in tax, whereas those earning over £9,000 would be net tax payers.

Get rid of unemployment benefits, scrap the minimum wage and you're away.

Black Flag,
5/02/2010 at 14:59

The tip of a very grubby iceberg that will eventually sink this country.

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary
5/02/2010 at 12:14

Justified True Belief : "That’s OK but there needs to be mechanism to take the money. (A holdong bank account, transaction meachansim, database of people, people to operate the system, people to audit the system, management, plus infrastructure support (admin, EHS, training, estates etc). It would be unusual to keep this down to 10% cost of tranaction"

We already pay tax, so all those mechanisms are already in place. If we lived in a situation where the state didn’t tax us, then we would have to build those systems and your point would be valid, but we do pay tax and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

"Same is required on the paying out side of the transaction."

Again, they already exist. We pay out mean-tested benefits using such a system, so any switch wouldn’t significantly increase costs in that area.

"So although they may have taken it and then given it you back, it certainly DOES NOT cost nothing."

But it would cost significantly less than the current system. The fundamental infrastructure would be the same, but the administration would be massively reduced – less monitoring, fewer people needed to explain the system and so on.

Black Flag,
5/02/2010 at 10:15

lovinthebanter: "These two points are contradictory when wrote like this. If there is less 'prying into our circumstances' then there is definately more, not less of a chance to commit fraud."

Sorry, but that's nonsense. It wouldn't need to pry precisely because the thing it might have pried into is no longer an avenue for fraud.

"Probably not, as the group not claiming know they are the ones subsidising."

But with a universal benefit, they would be able to claim. That's the point.

"Most of those costs will still exist in a non means tested benefits like prosecution, other self serving dross and possible advertising"

Not to anything like the same extent. You can already verify that by looking at existing non-means tested benefits such as Child Benefit.

"however the money saved on non means testing will more than likely pale in significance to the significant increase in the total amount being payed out to the people from the government"

Ok, apply the same reasoning to personal tax allowances. By allowing everybody to use them, rather than means testing them, it costs the government a huge amount of tax revenue, so that would lead you to conclude that personal tax allowances should be abolished for all but the poorest.

It's not quite that straight forward a conclusion, because the issue is the shape of the tax system, not just how much tax it takes. If I've got a choice between the government taking £10 off me, spending £2 on administration and giving me £8 back, or taking £5 off me, spending £3 on administration and giving me £2 back, I'd rather take the former, even though it involves me paying more tax at the outset.

"it just doesn't seem to be a logical idea really any grounds."

I think that maybe you just need to consider it a little more thoroughly.

Black Flag,
5/02/2010 at 10:05

Hello,how can they convict her of claiming less than she was entitled to? what a miss-carriage of justice,and the man that said she should have been given a custodial sentence Matthew Elliott she receive one himself for his stupidity, Iam 80 years old & severely disabled and in spite of this I have worked all my life and never claimed until I was 65 but the DWP have been cheating me out of my Pension Credits for the last 6 years I have been up before 2 DWP Tribunals (kangaroo courts) where the elderley chair woman keeps telling me that I have savings of £200,000 but she cannot show me where the money is, I have also been threatened by the COUNCIL FROM HELL Bury Council over 6 years Council Tax £9000 as they clawed back my Council TAX Benefit over 6 years, But I cannot expect anything else as I live in the biggest police state in the European Union,

regards oddlegs from Bury

oddlegs, bury
5/02/2010 at 04:14

Thats so unfair! I work full time and I only got paid £11 thousand!! She does nothing & is better of than me!?!?!???? What am I doing wrong? Oh yes, working!

JIMMY SPICES, WEST MIDLANDS
4/02/2010 at 22:13

This just goes to show that some people are better off claiming!! If you get in the culture of claiming and get to know all the little scams you could easily earn the same as sombody working hard ,paying to get to work ,dinners etc etc on £25k. what a joke this country needs a good shake

Mr Average, North West
4/02/2010 at 21:25

"Knowing how inefficient the government is - I would be surprised if I got 75 pence in the pound back due to administration costs."

And what do you get now? You pay in, you might well get nothing back and the administration costs will be far more once you add in the enforcement, means testing, advertising, prosecution and other self-serving dross that the state surrounds means tested benefits with."

Most of those costs will still exist in a non means tested benefits like prosecution, other self serving dross and possible advertising however the money saved on non means testing will more than likely pale in significance to the significant increase in the total amount being payed out to the people from the government, it just doesn't seem to be a logical idea really any grounds.

However considerable cost cuts can be made from the system already, a lot of them administrative, but a few would be ideal but at the same probably cause contaversy from the lefty (we have to help them out at any cost loony group).

lovinthebanter, Manchester
4/02/2010 at 18:24

Black Flag – I was going to do a calculation for you to illustrate my point but I gave up.

So I will keep it somewhat anecdotal to respond to your point – “Do you see where you've gone wrong there? If it takes it and then gives it you back, it's not cost you anything”.

That’s OK but there needs to be mechanism to take the money. (A holdong bank account, transaction meachansim, database of people, people to operate the system, people to audit the system, management, plus infrastructure support (admin, EHS, training, estates etc). It would be unusual to keep this down to 10% cost of tranaction

Same is required on the paying out side of the transaction. .

So although they may have taken it and then given it you back, it certainly DOES NOT cost nothing.

Justified True Belief , - ...
4/02/2010 at 18:23

-It creates less ill feeling, as it reduces the sense that one group is subsidising another and getting nothing back in return.

Probably not, as the group not claiming know they are the ones subsidising.

lovinthebanter, Manchester
4/02/2010 at 18:00

"It gives the state less excuse to pry into our circumstances"

"There's less scope for fraud, as people can't get more by lying about their financial circumstances."

These two points are contradictory when wrote like this. If there is less 'prying into our circumstances' then there is definately more, not less of a chance to commit fraud.

lovinthebanter, Manchester
4/02/2010 at 17:59

Just goes to show that crime really doesn't pay.

Mrs Jammy, Sitting on the settee
4/02/2010 at 14:49

minnie royle: "Give people back some dignity. abolish these tax credits and raise the personal allowances"

A personal allowance is a tax credit. The only difference it has is that it is wastable tax credit. Neither of them are an effective or sensible way of achieving the desired objective, but a switch to purely wastable tax credits, such as personal allowances, would leave the lowest paid workers immediately worse off.

Black Flag,
4/02/2010 at 14:39

tax credits are income support for those in work.Labour wants the whole electorate to be dependent on the government for some handout or other.Give people back some dignity. abolish these tax credits and raise the personal allowances

minnie royle,
4/02/2010 at 14:21

Justified True Belief: "but you miss one fundamental point. It would cost me more!! Because at the end of the day, I will give money to the government, which they will then give me back."

Do you see where you've gone wrong there? If it takes it and then gives it you back, it's not cost you anything.

"Knowing how inefficient the government is - I would be surprised if I got 75 pence in the pound back due to administration costs."

And what do you get now? You pay in, you might well get nothing back and the administration costs will be far more once you add in the enforcement, means testing, advertising, prosecution and other self-serving dross that the state surrounds means tested benefits with.

Think about it, do you really think the administration costs of Child Benefit aren't significantly lower than for means tested benefits?

Don't be dupped by the received wisdom. Think.

Black Flag,
4/02/2010 at 13:03

Black Flag – We have discussed your idea before about a non-means tested benefit paid to everyone. I must admit I thought you were pulling my leg.

It may - be cheaper to administer, give the state less excuse to pry into our circumstances etc, but you miss one fundamental point – It would cost me more!! Because at the end of the day, I will give money to the government, which they will then give me back. Knowing how inefficient the government is - I would be surprised if I got 75 pence in the pound back due to administration costs.

Justified True Belief , - ...
4/02/2010 at 12:41

Pandora gold star to you, more of those that know and whine about benefit cheats should follow your lead. I hope the benefits agency acts upon your information, it did not always. Can not agree with your defence of this cheat though, as I don't think her intention was solely to support her kids, it looks like her lifestyle had priority. Also, I brought a child up on extremely low income, not on benefits but one wage, as did many, many more lone parents who did not, and would not consider thieving from other taxpayers to fund offspring that one brought into the world. I have no problem with folk nicking food from supermarkets to feed kids, but blatant greed, which is what these cases are, should be dealt with as the crime it is, fraud. Her trips back to Hungary....signing on back home to?.

lizard,
4/02/2010 at 12:40

My mate was made redundant recently and had to sign on. He did not have a clue as to what he was entitled to. It was a minefield of paperwork and systems to get what he was entitled to and even now he isn't sure. However your Scrote who has no intention of working and never has, has been in the benefits system from day one and knows it inside out.

stalyvegasblue,
4/02/2010 at 12:38

Rammylad 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. thoughtful, East of Manchester

What he said!

salfordrat
4/02/2010 at 12:30

I live in Spain. Most of the brits around here are fiddling benefits back in the UK, and living it up in the sun on taxpayers money, it´s outrageous and they are blatant. Flying back to the UK now and again to top up and sign on. They are working here as labourers and in bars, some have their own businesses but claim to be disabled. That´s a bigger problem I´d say than a woman feeding and clothing her children. If anyone from the benefits agency wants to email me, feel free, I´ll give you the leads.

pandorasbox@rock.com

Pandora ,
4/02/2010 at 12:08

Rammylad

I've done a quick search on t'internet and if your mum is earning £12k a year, she IS entitled to tax credits. Type in HM Revenue Customs tax credit into a search engine and it should lead you to a page on the direct.gov site with a quick questionnaire. I've based this on your mum having no dependants, being over 50 and living on her own - even if your mum's circumstances are slightly different, it's worth doing the questionnaire to check if she is entitled.

Hope this helps!