Uncovering fraud
Most residents in Kensington and Chelsea are financially independent. There are, however, many who depend on the Council to support them with their housing and transport needs.
Around 17,000 residents claim housing benefit and more than 2,800 people are entitled to use disabled parking spaces. The majority are deserving cases but unfortunately there are some people who take unfair advantage of these services by making false claims.
The Council does have ways of dealing with this – a dedicated team works to uncover and prosecute fraudulent claims. The Corporate Investigations Group uses a variety of tools to help them do this, from analysing basic evidence to mounting undercover surveillance operations. One of the tools which allows them to do this is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) of 2000. Here we look at how the Council uses the act.
Safer neighbourhoods
In many fraud cases that the Council has investigated and prosecuted, the amount of money involved has run to thousands of pounds. These are not trivial offences, but often serious, even organised, criminal acts.
To make matters worse, some services, like disabled parking are in limited supply so a fraudster is often taking a valuable resource away from someone in genuine need.
The Corporate Investigations Group has conducted a wide-range of investigations. In one recent example the team successfully prosecuted a woman who had used false passports to claim £63,000 in housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and disability living allowance from addresses in Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow and Bexley.
Elizabeth de Villiers, 47, of Castletown Road, West Kensington, pleaded guilty to 15 charges of benefit fraud at Blackfriars Crown Court on Monday 28 January 2008. She was caught following an undercover surveillance operation by officers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Department for Work and Pensions and the police.
A search of her house uncovered five Canadian passports and five British driving licences, all in different names. Documents also showed she had used these identities to make false claims across London. In January 2008 she was jailed for 18 months.
In a separate case a man admitted falsely claiming more than £33,000 in benefits after a surveillance operation carried out by Council officers. James Nicholson, 51, of Edith Grove, Chelsea, had falsely claimed he was severely disabled in order to receive them. He had falsely claimed incapacity benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefits and disability living allowance for eight years.
He had changed his name by deed-poll when he had left Syria and had claimed that he had been tortured. He said the suffering he had endured left him confined to a wheelchair, and consequently he needed round-the-clock care and attention. But anonymous telephone calls to the Council’s fraud hotline alerted investigators to the fact that he and his wife were running a laundrette business and that he did not appear to be incapacitated.
Benefit investigators filmed Mr Nicholson lifting a child onto his shoulders and striding along the pavement. He was also filmed carrying heavy bags of clothes and cleaning materials back and forth from his flat to his van while running the laundrette business.
Tools of the trade
Quite often the Council uncovers a fraud because an offence is obvious – perhaps the perpetrator has been careless and duplicated application forms. Occasionally a potential fraud is only highlighted when a member of the public tips us off. On some occasions there may be a need to investigate these claims without alerting the perpetrator.
The RIPA act allows Councils to mount undercover surveillance operations using film cameras. Carrying out surveillance on individuals is a very serious matter and is only used in extreme circumstances.
Prior to launching an investigation the Corporate Investigations Group will make an assessment to establish whether surveillance is the most appropriate course of action. The team will look at whether it is justified, proportionate and necessary. It will also consider whether there will be any improper collateral intrusion – whether other, innocent people are likely to be subjected to surveillance. If the surveillance is deemed to be inappropriate for any of these reasons the team seeks other ways of investigating the case
Do you think the Council’s use of RIPA is justified? What other measures, if any, do you think should be taken against benefit fraudsters?
Email your comments on this story to
rbkcdirect@rbkc.gov.uk.
top of page
top of page
RBKC Direct Home 
