A MOTHER-OF-FOUR claimed more than £40,000 in benefits she was not entitled to, a court has heard.
Gail Kelly continued claiming benefits while being financially supported by her partner, who worked full-time on construction sites.
The overpayments came from income support, plus small amounts of Council Tax and housing benefit, over a four-year period.
Durham Crown Court heard that when claiming benefit she failed to notify that she was supported by her partner, who worked away from home for a construction company.
The court was told he earned around £44,000-per-annum and it was agreed he provided financial support for Kelly and the family.
Kelly, 33, of Laurel Road, Ferryhill, County Durham, admitted failure to notify a change in her circumstances, affecting her entitlement to income support, while being supported by her now former partner, between October 1, 2001, and November 2, 2005.
She admitted two similar offences relating to the other benefits.
Euan Duff, prosecuting, said: "It's a somewhat unusual case as her partner worked away from home throughout that period.
"But, he was home for periods on a regular basis, and she received financial support from him throughout that time."
Mr Duff said she has started making repayments for both the Council Tax and housing benefit she received.
Scott Smith, mitigating, who told the court the couple are no longer together, requested preparation of probation reports on Kelly prior to sentence.
Agreeing, Judge Guy Whitburn QC adjourned sentence for three weeks.
But he told Kelly: "The sums here are substantial. It's clearly a level where custodial sentences are called for.
"Whether or not that's immediate on a 'guilty' plea is something that will need to be addressed.
"You have taken in excess of £40,000 of public money over the course of three or more years.
"Despite your hitherto good character and the fact you have pleaded 'guilty', a custodial sentence may be seen as appropriate in this case."
Bailing Kelly, Judge Whitburn also agreed to Proceeds of Crime proceedings being taken against her, with a hearing date set for January 22.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article