Pauline Urana Lowen, 70, faces a $347,408 bill after 20 years of benefit fraud. She pleaded guilty to five charges - including two of representative charges covering dozens of individual benefit fraud offences - in the Christchurch District Court on Thursday.

A 70-year-old retired hospital worker faces a $347,408 bill after 20 years of benefit fraud.

The Christchurch District Court was told the woman was struggling to arrange any reparation payments because the police have an order freezing her assets so they can seize them.

Pauline Urana Lowen pleaded guilty to five charges – two of them are representative charges covering dozens of individual offences – in court on Thursday.

Judge David Saunders remanded her on bail for sentencing on December 19, and asked for a pre-sentence report which will consider her suitability for home detention.

Judge Saunders said he would grant bail pending sentencing because of her age, and because she still may be allowed an electronically monitored sentence.

Lowen also goes by the surnames Mundy and Williams.

Defence counsel Richard Maze said the Commissioner of Police had sought a restraining order in civil forfeiture proceedings to freeze all of her assets.

He asked for the sentencing to be delayed until December so that forfeiture action could be decided. He said she should be allowed to dispose of the property so that she could offer a substantial reparation payment at the sentencing.

Questioned by the judge, Maze said "domestic disharmony" had severely impaired her decision making.

"But it is not enough to amount to a defence," he said.

Ministry of Social Development prosecutor Jennifer North said that in 1984, Lowen was granted a domestic purposes benefit after the birth of her son. She received this until July 2003 when she applied for an invalid's benefit, citing a lower back injury as the reason she was unable to work.

In February 2013, she became eligible for superannuation and applied for this as a single person living alone.

She was required to tell the Ministry of Social Development of any change in her circumstances that might affect her entitlement, or the rate of benefit. This included a change in her work situation, or financial circumstances, or her relationship situation.

Inquiries started as a result of information MSD received.

That established she began living in a marriage-type relationship in August 1997, and married her partner on December 26, 1997. The couple had lived together continuously since this time.

Lowen did not tell MSD of the relationship. Her partner was employed and she was not entitled to a single rate of benefit.

She began work for the Canterbury District Health Board in 2008. She was not detected by data matching by the Inland Revenue Department because she was working under a different IRD number that she used for benefit purposes. She also used a different birthdate.

Lowen submitted forms to MSD stating that she was not working and unable to work, and continued to receive a single rate of invalid's benefit.

She submitted 49 forms to MSD over 20 years that contained false details about her relationship status, her work, and her income and assets.

She also sent two letters about rental property arrangements which enabled her to receive supplementary assistance.

The main overpayments over the 20-year period were $113,524 for the invalid's benefit, $68,454 for the accommodation supplement, and $61,207 for the domestic purposes benefit.

North said Lowen made seven repayments from her superannuation of $100 a fortnight.

"At this current rate of repayment, she would have paid this debt off by 2150."

Lowen later sought a review of the repayment arrangement and it was suspended until the review was heard.