Curfew for benefits cheat who swindled £130k of taxpayers' money

Busted: Kylie Jenner had been living with her husband while claiming

Busted: Kylie Jenner had been living with her husband while claiming

First published in News This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A benefit fraudster who wrongly claimed more than £130,000 has been given a suspended sentence and ordered to comply with a curfew order.

Kylie Porter, also know as Kylie Hamilton-Smith, 35, from Walton pleaded guilty to five counts of benefit fraud on July 17.

She was sentenced to a year in prison, suspended for 24 months, on August 18.

In addition to this, she was also ordered to do 240 hours of unpaid community work within 18 months and must comply with a curfew order between 7pm and 6am, monitored by electronic tagging, for 90 days.

Porter failed to inform the Department for Work and Pensions and Elmbridge Council that she had been living with her partner as husband and wife since 2006.

The combined amount of £130,744.73 had been wrongly obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions and Elmbridge Council between July 2006 and October 2012.

Miss Porter had gained £49,852.40 of income support, £69,642.37 of housing benefit, £8,437.26 of council tax benefit and a single person discount in respect of council tax of £2,812.70.

She was ordered to pay £5,136.08 costs within two years.

Councillor James Browne said: "This sentence send a clear message to those who choose to commit benefit fraud: we will catch you, we will prosecute you and you will receive a criminal record and quite possibly a custodial sentence."

Report suspected benefit fraud by contacting the council's confidential hotline on 01372 474291.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:37am Thu 28 Aug 14

Typo77 says...

Councillor James Browne said: "This sentence send a clear message to those who choose to commit benefit fraud: we will catch you, we will prosecute you and you will receive a criminal record and quite possibly a custodial sentence."

He should have added "and then we will send you home with a slap on the wrist, but you can keep the money you stole".
Councillor James Browne said: "This sentence send a clear message to those who choose to commit benefit fraud: we will catch you, we will prosecute you and you will receive a criminal record and quite possibly a custodial sentence." He should have added "and then we will send you home with a slap on the wrist, but you can keep the money you stole". Typo77
  • Score: 9

10:36am Thu 28 Aug 14

DB says...

Typo77 wrote:
Councillor James Browne said: "This sentence send a clear message to those who choose to commit benefit fraud: we will catch you, we will prosecute you and you will receive a criminal record and quite possibly a custodial sentence." He should have added "and then we will send you home with a slap on the wrist, but you can keep the money you stole".
Absolutely. It is almost as if the judge has been listening to a completely different case when handing down the sentence. Why is she subject to a curfew order when she is a benefits cheat?

The only clear message that this sends out to people potentially looking to commit benefit fraud is that this person only has to pay back £5k of the £130k she stole and probably won't even be forced to do that.

The chances are people doing this won't get caught anyway, but if they only have to pay back 4% of what the steal in the first place even if they are caught where is the disincentive for not doing it?

It is just not worth bringing these cases to court if the judiciary are not going to take the seriously.
[quote][p][bold]Typo77[/bold] wrote: Councillor James Browne said: "This sentence send a clear message to those who choose to commit benefit fraud: we will catch you, we will prosecute you and you will receive a criminal record and quite possibly a custodial sentence." He should have added "and then we will send you home with a slap on the wrist, but you can keep the money you stole".[/p][/quote]Absolutely. It is almost as if the judge has been listening to a completely different case when handing down the sentence. Why is she subject to a curfew order when she is a benefits cheat? The only clear message that this sends out to people potentially looking to commit benefit fraud is that this person only has to pay back £5k of the £130k she stole and probably won't even be forced to do that. The chances are people doing this won't get caught anyway, but if they only have to pay back 4% of what the steal in the first place even if they are caught where is the disincentive for not doing it? It is just not worth bringing these cases to court if the judiciary are not going to take the seriously. DB
  • Score: 6

12:50pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Red_Rock says...

So 125 grand for 240 hours work? Sounds a good deal. Can we all get that?
So 125 grand for 240 hours work? Sounds a good deal. Can we all get that? Red_Rock
  • Score: 6

11:12am Fri 29 Aug 14

DTEJ says...

Agreed, the sentence is a joke and she will skive off community service claiming chilcare difficulties.
So is she living with her husband or a boyfriend? The article suggests both.
Agreed, the sentence is a joke and she will skive off community service claiming chilcare difficulties. So is she living with her husband or a boyfriend? The article suggests both. DTEJ
  • Score: 1

11:56am Fri 29 Aug 14

as46me says...

I think people need to read through the lines on these cases, it says 'wrongly claimed' not 'fraudulently claimed' and there is a clear difference between these offences as you would need a fraud conviction to have to pay back any monies. The chances are she pleaded guilty to fraud as the likely hood of her being able to financially fight local government would be slim but in court she was found to be 'non-fraudulent' by the judge and handed a community order plus fine or court costs plus the suspended sentence to be seen as doing something about it. The council would then begin a smear campaign against you as they effectively lost their case and are unable to recover monies because a court decided all was above board. So i would doubt she is a fraudster at all just a legitimate claimer gone sour as most of them are in these situations currently.
I think people need to read through the lines on these cases, it says 'wrongly claimed' not 'fraudulently claimed' and there is a clear difference between these offences as you would need a fraud conviction to have to pay back any monies. The chances are she pleaded guilty to fraud as the likely hood of her being able to financially fight local government would be slim but in court she was found to be 'non-fraudulent' by the judge and handed a community order plus fine or court costs plus the suspended sentence to be seen as doing something about it. The council would then begin a smear campaign against you as they effectively lost their case and are unable to recover monies because a court decided all was above board. So i would doubt she is a fraudster at all just a legitimate claimer gone sour as most of them are in these situations currently. as46me
  • Score: -5

7:02pm Fri 29 Aug 14

BlackRocker says...

It would appear that she is cleverer than the judiciary.
It would appear that she is cleverer than the judiciary. BlackRocker
  • Score: 1

8:04pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Surreydon says...

as46me wrote:
I think people need to read through the lines on these cases, it says 'wrongly claimed' not 'fraudulently claimed' and there is a clear difference between these offences as you would need a fraud conviction to have to pay back any monies. The chances are she pleaded guilty to fraud as the likely hood of her being able to financially fight local government would be slim but in court she was found to be 'non-fraudulent' by the judge and handed a community order plus fine or court costs plus the suspended sentence to be seen as doing something about it. The council would then begin a smear campaign against you as they effectively lost their case and are unable to recover monies because a court decided all was above board. So i would doubt she is a fraudster at all just a legitimate claimer gone sour as most of them are in these situations currently.
Really! Personally I think she's just another lying, cheating, fraudster who got away with it....
[quote][p][bold]as46me[/bold] wrote: I think people need to read through the lines on these cases, it says 'wrongly claimed' not 'fraudulently claimed' and there is a clear difference between these offences as you would need a fraud conviction to have to pay back any monies. The chances are she pleaded guilty to fraud as the likely hood of her being able to financially fight local government would be slim but in court she was found to be 'non-fraudulent' by the judge and handed a community order plus fine or court costs plus the suspended sentence to be seen as doing something about it. The council would then begin a smear campaign against you as they effectively lost their case and are unable to recover monies because a court decided all was above board. So i would doubt she is a fraudster at all just a legitimate claimer gone sour as most of them are in these situations currently.[/p][/quote]Really! Personally I think she's just another lying, cheating, fraudster who got away with it.... Surreydon
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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