Benefits cheat swindled £30,000

7:25pm Tuesday 29th April 2008

A BENEFITS cheat has been jailed for seven months after swindling £30,000 from the state.

Mum-of-two Julie Mellor, aged 42, of Trafford Street, Farnworth, claimed up to £5,000 a year in housing benefit, saying she needed it to pay rent.

But Bolton Crown Court heard today that she actually siphoned off the cash over eight years to pay her mortgage.

Prosecutor Sophie Cartwright said the defendant made her first claim in June 1998 - the same month that she and husband Alan got a mortgage for the house.

In the subsequent years Mellor made nine false claims, with the last one taking place in June 2004, the court heard.

Miss Cartwright said Mellor's claims had been "false from the outset", resulting in a total of £30,784 in housing benefit being paid to her.

Mellor's lies were discovered in November 2006 after housing officials asked for a check on her entitlements and began an investigation.

"Housing benefit is means-tested and is meant to go to people on low incomes. Property owners are not eligible for housing benefit," said Miss Cartwright.

During the years of her fraud she also re-mortgaged her house three times, claiming extra money each time, the court heard.

Mellor pleaded guilty to nine offences of benefit fraud.

The court heard Mellor, who has two teenage children, made three of the false claims after having been given a conditional discharge for a separate benefit fraud.

She had been sentenced in October 2000, after pleading guilty to illegally claiming benefits while working as a cleaning lady.

Mellor had claimed to be unemployed and received £628 she was not entitled to, the court heard.

Mark Friend, defending, said: "Mrs Mellor is unequivocally contrite and accepts culpability wholeheartedly."

"She was always a lady who had a family and was living on the breadline. The money she fraudulently obtained was used to keep their heads above water, not to fund a life of luxury."

But Judge Robert Warnock said: "You knew from the beginning that the property was not being rented, it was being purchased.

"It was fraudulent and dishonest from the outset. A custodial sentence is clearly necessary."

Our Top Stories