Cheat ordered to repay benefits after false pain claim

Monday 16 December 2019

A hairdresser who was exaggerating her disability to get more benefits money - and got caught out because she was unwittingly cutting the hair of two Social Security officers - has lost a bid to get her reduced allowance put back up.

The woman, referred to only as ‘H’, took her appeal to a Tribunal designed to resolve disputes regarding Social Security matters; but it was decided that she had been correctly assessed after her clients and co-worker gave evidence that she was exaggerating her health issues.

The judgment explains that the woman was assessed as being entitled to 85% of the full incapacity allowance for several years following a car accident due to back, leg and shoulder pain, as well as “cerebral impairment”.

In 2017, the Department received “new evidence” in relation to her case suggesting that she “was significantly less disabled than she was indicating” during her assessments at Social Security. 

These statements came from two of her clients at the hairdressing salon she runs, and a former colleague who claimed that she only used her walking aids when going to the Social Security Department, and that she worked a full working week seemingly without any pain.

Pictured: One of the woman's former colleague claimed that she only used her walking aids when going to the Social Security Department.

This prompted proceedings to adjust the rate of disability allowance the woman was entitled to – firstly it was scaled down to zero and then, after she asked for a redetermination, it was settled at 15% of the available benefit. 

The Department also ruled that the ‘surplus’ benefit she received between 2015 and 2017 would have to be repaid to them. 

The Tribunal heard how two staff members from Social Security who happened to be clients at the woman’s hairdressing salon gave evidence suggesting that the woman was more 'able-bodied' than she told the department.

One of these employees, an enforcement officer, was tasked with visiting the woman’s salon and house “to see what further aids she might need around her home.” 

During this visit, she and her colleague “noted [the woman] walked with a limp and used one crutch. She managed to climb a staircase at her home which they found to be cluttered. She did so with the crutch and limping. 

“In her bathroom they noted a shelf across the bath which the Appellant said she used to sit on as she could not get in the bath. They noted this shelf was covered in shampoos and toiletries which the Appellant stated had been placed there by her son.” 

Pictured: The case was heard by the Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunal.

The officer also disclosed that she was a customer at the salon owned by the woman and, whilst there, she never saw her “using a crutch or having any difficulties walking or working.” 

On other occasions when the officer was walking past the salon, she saw the woman through the window “cleaning and bending to get into drawers” or “washing instruments in the sink” and neither time did she observe any “sign of a crutch or discomfort.”

Another Social Security Department employee also happened to get his hair cut at the woman’s salon. 

“He described the Appellant as always standing, reaching for things as needed and walking around. He never noticed anything wrong with her physically. He never saw her with crutches or any mobility aids. She would move around without any difficulty.”

This, he said, contrasted greatly with when he saw her at the Social Security Department. “He said he could not believe what he saw as she was limping and looked very unwell. She was using two crutches, moving very slowly and looked in a great deal of pain.” 

Pictured: Statements from clients of the hairdressing salon prompted proceedings to adjust the woman's disability rate

A former co-worker with the woman at the salon also gave evidence that “she did not use any crutches at work or when she went out into town […] On one occasion the witness saw walking sticks in the salon. She asked the Appellant what had happened and was told it was her back. The Apellant then took hold of the sticks and said she had to go to the Social Security Department. 

“A few months later she saw the sticks again and again the Appellant went to the Social Security department. The day after such a visit she would be back to normal. [The witness] thought at the time that the Appellant must be making her illness up.” 

In response to these statement, the woman contested the witnesses’ evidence and “suggested that her co-worker was telling lies about her due to the circumstances in which she had been asked to leave. 

In relation to the Social Security employee, she said he “was lying in order to further his career. She described him as a 'fly-by-night' who would go to other salons as well as her own.” 

Pictured: The Tribunal ordered the woman to repay the ‘overpaid’ benefits to the Department.

Of the Enforcement Officer, the woman said “she did not know why the Enforcement officer would lie but was sure that the witness would not have been able to see her at the salon due to the layout and that she did not enter the female section as suggested. She thought the officer may have been lying because she was a friend of another individual who worked at the salon.” 

A friend of the woman also testified in her defence. 

Ultimately the Tribunal “found the witnesses for the department entirely convincing. It did not accept that each was lying for their own reasons as suggested. Two were employees of the Department and one was a former co-worker. It was inconceivable that each would separately give a very similar false account or would conspire to do so.”

It therefore ordered that her rate remain at 15% and maintained that the ‘overpaid’ benefits should be repaid to the Department.