Brierley Hill benefits cheat guilty of £21,000 fraud
A man who claimed he could barely walk has been convicted of more than £21,000 benefits fraud.
Stephen Mountford, from Milton Street, Brierley Hill, was caught by investigators from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) walking his grandchildren to and from school.
Footage emerged of the 53-year-old strolling along roads in the area without his walking aids. The court heard how he had been claiming Disability Living Allowance between October 16, 2010 and May 3, 2016. However, in 2015 he underwent medical treatment at Dudley Guest Hospital, allowing him to exercise more and walk unaided, without informing the DWP.
He racked up an overpayment of £21,900.80 pence.
Mountford had originally been in receipt of the benefits for severe mobility issues including osteoarthritis. He pleaded guilty to dishonestly failing to inform the DWP about his change in circumstances.
Mrs Kelly Crow, prosecuting, said: “He had claimed Disability Living Allowance that he was not entitled to claim between a set period. He failed to declare that his physical ability had improved and that he could walk after all.”
Dudley Magistrates heard how Mountford had been taking his grandchildren to school over a distance of 1.2 miles twice a day, when his car was out of action.
He had no previous convictions and also suffered from depression and spondylitis.
Mr Adil Khan, defending, said: “This was a legible claim in the first instance. Because he was seen walking his grandchildren to school did not mean that he did not have a disability.
“There was no evidence that suggested he had been seen walking unaided since 2010, it was only for a short period in 2015 when he was getting better.
“His wife is now working and he is no longer claiming any benefits. They are paying around £50 a month back to the DWP since February this year.”
Mountford was given a 24-week suspended sentence alongside a rehabilitation order. He was told to pay £100 in court costs and a victim surcharge of £115. Jackie Hughes, chair of the bench, said: “The seriousness of this offence does cross the custody threshold due to the amount of money and length of time involved.”
