A FOUR Marks woman has received a suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty to falsely claiming income support and housing and council tax benefits. Laurie Louise Sprake (aka Knott) of Penrose Way, Four Marks, was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court on Monday for two offences contrary to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to which she had pleaded guilty on October 8. The cases were brought against Sprake following a joint investigation by East Hampshire District Council and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). While living in Penrose Way, Laurie Sprake, 38, had claimed Income Support from the DWP and Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit from East Hampshire District Council as a lone parent. She had deliberately failed to promptly notify that she was living with her partner, who was in full- time work. Sprake had failed to declare to EHDC and to the DWP her partner's presence in the household and the income received from his work, knowing that both would have an impact on the amount of benefit she was entitled to. Sprake had deceived the DWP into paying Income Support from July 2005 to March 2006 and in doing so had dishonestly obtained £1,385.58 to which she was not entitled. For that same period she had also dishonestly obtained from East Hampshire District Council the sum of £3,031.44 in Housing Benefit and £514.02 in Council Tax Benefit, to which she was not entitled. Sprake was given a three-month custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months, and a residency order to live at her home address for six months. The case resulted from an anonymous tip-off to the National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN) on their fraud website. The NAFN passed information to the council as the allegation concerned an address in the East Hants area. EHDC senior investigator, Sue Hall, felt the case represented a good example of the joint working that between EHDC and the DWP. She said: "It proves that a thorough investigation with the use of surveillance can obtain sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to who is living in a household. By joint working, the workload is shared and the offender is held to account for all the types of benefit they have dishonestly obtained, irrespective of who administers it."
