A man in Carlisle, UK has been ordered to repay £4,563 in benefit payments after failing to notify the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about changes in his circumstances that affected his entitlement. Stuart Ankers, 32, pleaded guilty to the offense, admitting that he knew he should have informed the DWP about starting work and earning above the permitted amount for carer’s allowance.
Ankers claimed the benefit between June 15, 2020, and June 19, 2020, stating that he was caring for someone for more than 35 hours per week. However, he did not disclose his employment status or his earnings. The prosecutor revealed that the overpayment amounted to £5,877, but Ankers has already repaid £1,313, leaving a remaining balance of £4,563. Despite this offense, Ankers, described as a man of previous good character, has now been ordered to undertake unpaid work under a 12-month community order.
During the court proceedings, a probation officer explained that Ankers’ partner had developed severe neck problems, requiring hospital admission. Ankers became the primary caregiver after his partner was discharged from the hospital in March 2020. Initially, he believed that by claiming the carer’s allowance, he could supplement his wages, as his partner was unable to look after herself or their children due to her illness.
Ankers currently works as a delivery driver and claimed that the money he received from the benefit was spent on essential everyday items. However, his defense lawyer pointed out an issue with the online claim form, suggesting that it was ambiguous and did not prompt Ankers to disclose his job. Ankers claimed he did not believe that his application was dishonest and assumed the benefit would be added to his earnings.
The magistrates took into consideration Ankers’ responsibilities as a caregiver to his wife and children, viewing the offense as more of an oversight than a deliberate act of deception. Presiding magistrate Keith Southward stated, We think it’s been one of those things where it has been an oversight. As part of his sentence, Ankers was ordered to complete 80 hours of unpaid work and pay £85 in costs and a £95 victim surcharge.
While Ankers’ failure to inform the DWP about changes in his circumstances is undoubtedly an offense, the court’s decision to focus on the oversight aspect and his previous good character provides a balanced perspective on the case. The order for unpaid work and the repayment of the outstanding balance aims to rectify the situation and serve as a deterrent against similar actions in the future.
