A conman who hid a 20-year relationship to dupe taxpayers out of nearly £30,000 has been sent to prison for eight months. Graeme Dewar pretended he was living alone for years despite having a common law wife he operated joint bank accounts with.
Sheriff William Wood told Dewar he was lucky that the benefits agency had not been able to provide paperwork for any earlier than 2014. He said it was "perhaps fortunate" for Dewar that he could only be found guilty of fraud covering the period between 1 June 2014 and 3 May 2018.
"Overall, it is a fraud of almost £30,000," Sheriff Wood said, "and therefore it is a considerable sum of money. This was a lengthy deception of both the council and the Department of Work and Pensions and in the circumstances I need to send you to prison."
Dewar, 68, spent years duping a local authority and the Department of Work and Pensions into paying him thousands in benefits. An investigation was launched when an eagle-eyed agency worker eventually noticed payments were being made into a joint bank account.
Dewar was found guilty of conning the DWP out of £11,647.80 between 1 June 2014 and 3 May 2018 at West Culmalundie Farm Cottages in Tibbermore, Perthshire. He was found guilty of knowingly failing to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances while he was living in a common household with Sally Hamilton. He obtained £11,647.80 in Employment Support Allowance.
Dewar was also found guilty of fraudulently obtaining £16,418.95 housing benefit from Perth and Kinross Council between 1 June 2014 and 6 May 2018. Fiscal depute Rebecca Kynaston told Perth Sheriff Court that the same situation had persisted since 2001, when the couple had started living together.
However, she said that due to the limited availability of financial paperwork prior to 2014, the charges had to be limited to the period between then and 2018. Sheriff William Wood said: "I have heard quite a lot of evidence designed to illicit whether or not the romantic relationship between Mr Dewar and Ms Hamilton was ongoing throughout the period.
"However, that does not appear to be a requirement, as the requirement is for people to live together in a common household. The only question is what constitutes living together. It simply means shared expenses, and regardless of whether there was a romantic relationship, they would appear to have continued to maintain a common household.
"They shared a bank account. She retained the address for all purposes, including her employers and for post. She continued to contribute to the upkeep of the household. You should have told the DWP and Perth and Kinross Council that she was living there and helping with the bills. I find you were maintaining a common household."
The couple had claimed they had stopped living together during the period of the con, and Ms Hamilton - who worked for Perth and Kinross Council - claimed she had moved out. She claimed to be living with another family member - but the relative denied she ever lived with them - and told the court they had not spoken since she made the claim.
Mrs Kynaston said: "It was quite clear they were maintaining a common household. She was contributing to household bills and rent. The accused made it known to the agency worker that he was the sole occupant of the property which was clearly not true."
Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond - sign up to our daily newsletter here .
