Benefits cheat jailed for four months after claiming £47k

thisisoxfordshire: Carol Quainton Carol Quainton

A BENEFIT fraudster has been jailed for four months after claiming more than £47,000 he was not entitled to.

Antar Sabbah, of York Avenue, Headington, was given a prison sentence after appearing at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on Monday last week.

The 61-year-old admitted dishonestly claiming council tax benefit, jobseekers’ allowance and employment and support allowance.

His offences took place between December 2008 and April last year when a spokesman for Oxford City Council said he was in work.

As a result he was charged with dishonestly failing to declare his employment to the city council and the Department for Work and Pensions Carol Quainton, fraud investigations manager at the council, said: “During the summing up, the magistrate commented that it was one of the worse cases of benefit fraud they had dealt with in recent times.

“If you are aware of people committing this type of fraud, it is important to contact the council as we will take action against those who commit it as this case proves.”

Sabbah will also have to pay back the money to the council and the Department for Work and Pensions.

Anyone with concerns that a person they know is claiming benefits when they should not be can contact the city council’s Benefit Fraud line on 01865 252222, email enefitfraudline@oxford.gov.uk or complete the benefit fraud ‘Report it’ form at oxford.gov.uk

  • Our top stories:

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:07pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"If you are aware of people committing this type of fraud, it is important to contact the council as we will take action against those who commit it as this case proves.”
For a fiver you can find out who owns a house, how much they paid and whether they have a mortgage, that is information about what they have done with their own money. No such freedom of information applies in respect of the man doing your neighbour's garden for cash in hand. Yet the welfare cash is ours, not his. Strange. Thank you Mr Blair.
"If you are aware of people committing this type of fraud, it is important to contact the council as we will take action against those who commit it as this case proves.” For a fiver you can find out who owns a house, how much they paid and whether they have a mortgage, that is information about what they have done with their own money. No such freedom of information applies in respect of the man doing your neighbour's garden for cash in hand. Yet the welfare cash is ours, not his. Strange. Thank you Mr Blair. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -6

12:18pm Mon 14 Jul 14

natox78 says...

Lord Palmerstone, I've read your comment five or six times and I can't quite work out what your point is.
Lord Palmerstone, I've read your comment five or six times and I can't quite work out what your point is. natox78
  • Score: 16

2:00pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

natox78 wrote:
Lord Palmerstone, I've read your comment five or six times and I can't quite work out what your point is.
If it's right that A should know how much B paid for his house and whether B has a mortgage, when these are purely personal matters then it is surely right that B should know if A is receiving a means-tested benefit because that's not a private matter. It involves the spending of B's tax pounds on A.
If I know someone is working, and it was possible to look it up and find he's on ESA or JSA then it is possible for me to comply with Ms Quainton's exhortation. Otherwise she's only talking to jilted partners . Currently 99.9% of benefit fraud is detected because people are really stupid. They are on JSA. They get a job as a hospital porter for example, so give their NI number. The payroll is cross-referenced to the welfare roll and they're caught. D'oh. Clearly this does not apply to the hordes of cash in hand merchants because no one (except their families who aren't going to grass them up) knows they're working and drawing.
Hope that helps
[quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: Lord Palmerstone, I've read your comment five or six times and I can't quite work out what your point is.[/p][/quote]If it's right that A should know how much B paid for his house and whether B has a mortgage, when these are purely personal matters then it is surely right that B should know if A is receiving a means-tested benefit because that's not a private matter. It involves the spending of B's tax pounds on A. If I know someone is working, and it was possible to look it up and find he's on ESA or JSA then it is possible for me to comply with Ms Quainton's exhortation. Otherwise she's only talking to jilted partners . Currently 99.9% of benefit fraud is detected because people are really stupid. They are on JSA. They get a job as a hospital porter for example, so give their NI number. The payroll is cross-referenced to the welfare roll and they're caught. D'oh. Clearly this does not apply to the hordes of cash in hand merchants because no one (except their families who aren't going to grass them up) knows they're working and drawing. Hope that helps Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Mon 14 Jul 14

natox78 says...

Ah right, I get it now. I couldn't quite understand what you were getting at, but that is probably my fault rather than your wording. I get it now.
Ah right, I get it now. I couldn't quite understand what you were getting at, but that is probably my fault rather than your wording. I get it now. natox78
  • Score: 1

8:42pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

4 feckin' months! Hardly a deterrent is it?
4 feckin' months! Hardly a deterrent is it? Dilligaf2010
  • Score: -2

9:59pm Mon 14 Jul 14

JanetJ says...

Dilligaf2010 wrote:
4 feckin' months! Hardly a deterrent is it?
So he will do 2 months then?
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: 4 feckin' months! Hardly a deterrent is it?[/p][/quote]So he will do 2 months then? JanetJ
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

JanetJ wrote:
Dilligaf2010 wrote:
4 feckin' months! Hardly a deterrent is it?
So he will do 2 months then?
I think that's how it works
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: 4 feckin' months! Hardly a deterrent is it?[/p][/quote]So he will do 2 months then?[/p][/quote]I think that's how it works Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree