A Pulrose woman has been handed a suspended sentence after admitting six counts of benefit fraud.

Victoria Louise Marks, aged 34, of Heather Crescent, was overpaid £29,005 as a result of failing to declare she was working at Currys PC World and that her partner was living with her.

However, advocate Paul Rodgers said that, as Marks was not working full-time, she would have been entitled to some of the benefits as employed persons’ allowance (EPA) so the amount of £29,005 would need to be clarified.

Magistrates sentenced Marks to 18 weeks’ custody, suspended for two years.

Prosecuting advocate Roger Kane told the court that Marks was receiving EPA from September 2014 as a result of being a lone parent.

From June 2015 she declared that her partner had moved in with her and was assessed jointly for EPA.

However, she then put in a new EPA claim in November 2016 saying that her partner had moved out.

In March 2018 information was received that Marks was again living with her partner.

Records also showed that she had done some work for Currys PC World.

Checks also found that the couple had a joint bank account with both their earnings paid into.

A tenancy agreement for Marks’ Heather Crescent address also declared her partner as a resident.

Surveillance showed Marks’ partner would leave the property early in the morning and return in the evening after work.

Marks was invited for an interview with the DHSC but told officers she was unable to attend because she was starting a job at Currys.

She then failed to attend two more appointments and was told the matter could progress without her input.

The total overpayment was calculated at £29,005.51 between February 2017 and December 2018.

Defence advocate Paul Rodgers handed in references for his client.

Mr Rodgers said Marks had completed a change of circumstances form in relation to her working at Currys but had given it to her partner and he had not delivered it.

The advocate said the department had not yet set up a repayment plan as the calculation was complicated.

’It was a low income job so it is my submission she would have qualified for some benefit which the £29,005 hasn’t taken into account,’ he said.

’Ms Marks was in a toxic relationship at the time and is deeply remorseful for what occurred.’

Magistrates ruled that any repayment should be calculated and dealt with by the DHSC.

Marks was also ordered to pay £125 costs which she will pay at a rate of £10 per week deducted from benefits.