Labour Councillor's Benefit Fraud Catches up with Him

We have all been so busy concentrating on the corruption involving News International and the Metropolitan Police, happening in far off London town that a case of corruption far closer to home, whilst not as life changing, is certainly serious, and needs a good deal of further investigation.

John Holden, a Labour councillor on Highland Council, awaits sentencing having been found guilty of stealing £43,000 of Income Support from the London government and nearly £10,000 from his own council in council tax rebates (council tax benefit of £6,925 and single occupancy of more than £2,309).

Mr Holden had claimed that he lived alone, that he had no savings and that he had no job, whereas the truth was that he was living with his wife, had (and you’ll love this) savings of £200,000...which he claims to have saved in the period 2002 to 2008... and had his council salary of £16,000 pa which he had been drawing since his election in 2007.

It amazes me, but apparently it is true, that he may keep his position on Highland Council unless he is sent to prison. It seems that you can only be removed as a councillor if you are unable to do the job for some reason: in this case because you have been incarcerated.

The thing that I found most strange was that he had managed to save £200,000 in a period of 6 years. Given that his income during that period amounted to £53k in stolen benefits plus his salary as a councillor, unless his wife is a merchant banker, a lord, or a member of the royal family, I suspect that we might want to ask how exactly he managed to amass this substantial sum.

But as Granny would say “Everything’s mixed with mercy. It is indeed fortunately for the taxpayers that he did manage to make savings, because he will find it easy to make good the ‘proceeds of crime order’ that has been placed on him confiscating the cash he has stolen. And I’d be surprised if there were not substantial costs to pay.

THIS WEEK'S FIDDLING PEER IS AN HEREDITARY CROOK

Lord Falkland's wife's aunt's home

It wouldn’t be the weekend if there wasn’t a nice wee story about another upper class fraudster with a housing benefit story to tell. This one is, at least in some ways, slightly different from the rest.

So far we have covered the stories of Life Peers, little men and women who have managed, by hook or by crook, to get themselves a seat in the Lords and pinch a pot of money from us. There are those who have blamed it all on letting little oinks into the Upper House. Real aristos wouldn’t do that sort of thing, they said .

Well, just to prove that little theory wrong, meet The Fifteenth Viscount Falkland, one of 90 hereditary peers still sitting in the Lords. And this time not a Labour or Conservative, but Liberal Democrat peer. He’s had a fine little number going on for a good while now.

It seems that despite living in Clapham, he has registered as his main home, a two bedroom oast house in Kent which, wait for it, he doesn’t even own! By doing this, he has neatly managed to avail himself of an estimated £200,000 of our tax pounds.

Lucius Edward William Plantagenet Cary (nice name) has been claiming this money for at least a decade. He and his wife bought their London House in 1990 with no mortgage and both are on the electoral role there, and use it as an address for their company directorships. Neighbours say they are rarely away.

Neighbours at the oast house, which is actually owned by the Viscountess’s aunt, have never heard of them, or seen them.

It refreshing that the not terribly Noble Lord says quite openly that he doesn’t live there, but that it was in the rules that he could do it. “I didn’t do it to make the money”, he says. “I did it to meet the expenses of my life. I don’t have any other income.”

Awwwwwwwwwwwww! Poor wee scone. Has he forgotten about the directorships?

Here’s my advice to Your Lordship. Go to the Department of Work and Pensions, tell them that you are now 74 years old and that you want your state pension. They will arrange a payment of around £100 a week for you to say thank you for working all these years. If you're lucky and budget carefully you may be able to feed yourself and keep warm, although the odds are against it. But it’s good enough for other people, so why would it not be good enough for you?

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN BROWN'S BRITAIN

This is Amanda Hyett. She is accused of defrauding the Dept of Work and Pensions and her local council of £35,885.27 in Income Support, Council Tax and Housing Benefit.

Before I go any further it is probably right to mention that Ms Hyett is the sister of the Karen Matthew’s ex-lover. (You may remember that Karen Matthews hatched a plot to raise money by arranging for her daughter to be kidnapped.) However Ms Hyett was not involved in, or certainly was not charged with, any part in that crime.

Right, so I’m pretty certain we could all agree that the whole lot of them are thoroughly unpleasant people, but what the rest of her family has been up to has, or should have, no connection to her own crimes.

Simply, she has stolen the sum of £35,885.27 from us. She has been released on bail while pre-sentence reports are prepared but the Recorder of Leeds, Judge Peter Collier, warned her that the fact that she is on bail should not be considered to be any indication that she will not receive a custodial sentence.

Now compare her situation with that of Jacqui Smith, ex Home Secretary, who, by her own admission should not have claimed her housing benefit to the tune of £116,000. Hyatt’s theft is rather small beer in comparison. However Smith got away with standing up in parliament and apologising to her fellow MPs, many of them in the same situation as she is. Consider also the case of the ex-Minister in the Department of Work and Pensions who claimed, albeit a lesser sum, for his parents’ house. He, too, only had to make a grovelling apology and repay the sum of £13,837.

Can anyone suggest a reason for the difference in the treatment of these people?