A benefits cheat mother-of-four who illegally pocketed more than £140,000 has avoided jail after getting a job as a beautician to try to pay it back.

But it will take Zoe Phoenix, from Wythenshawe , 27 YEARS to clear her debt.

Phoenix, 41, claimed government handouts for nine years based on the fact that she was an unemployed single mum. But she failed to tell the authorities that her partner Peter Sims, 50, moved in with her.

Manchester Crown Court heard that Phoenix, who has four children aged 10, 16, 20 and 23, was fraudulently claiming housing benefit and income support as well housing tax support.

The total amount she fraudulently claimed between 2005 and 2014 was £144,364.69. She walked free from court with a 12 month suspended sentence and is required to do 200 hours unpaid work

Judge Andrew Jefferies QC slammed her behaviour and said: “It’s people that do this that give the people that need benefits a bad name”.

Phoenix, of Amberley Drive, pleaded guilty to three counts of dishonestly failing to notify of a change in circumstance. But she told the court that she was no working as a beautician and was paying back around £100 a week.

(Image: Cavendish)

Read:

She was overpaid so much that it will take her more than 27 years to pay the cash back at her current rate - without counting any interest she may have incurred.

It was heard that an investigation into her circumstances found that Mr Sims had been seen taking the children to school, carrying groceries into the house and a car registered in his name was outside regularly.

Her social media accounts contained dozens of photographs of her enjoying the high life on nights out and posing in revealing dresses.

Richard Littler, prosecuting, said: “Zoe Phoenix who claimed benefits as a single parent from March 16, 2000 to 2014. She claimed for four, three and two dependent children and made the claim on the basis that she was single and had no other income apart from child benefits and tax credits.

“The money was transferred into a bank account. She was sent letters reminding her to notify of any change of circumstances. She had lived with her partner, Peter Sims, from at least July 2005 until the case was closed in July 2014.

“On 14 January 2008 and 23 January 2009 visits were made to her address to check her circumstances were unchanged and she remained an unemployed single parent. By her own admissions she was already living with her partner but didn’t declare this at the time.

“In July 2014 she was asked whether she understood the roles and factors that might affect them (benefits) and she demonstrated a clear understanding.

“She admitted that Peter Sims had lived with her since July 2005, the date shown on Mr Sims’ bank details. Her son was born later that year, the second child of a relationship with Peter Sims.

(Image: Cavendish)

Read:

“A period of surveillance was carried out in 2013 and during that period he was seen to enter and leave on at least 49 occasions, driving the children to school and carrying groceries into the house so it would appear that he was clearly a resident at that address.

“Two vehicles were also routinely parked outside, one which was registered to Mr Sims.”

It was heard that Phoenix was not fraudulently receiving the money from the outset of her claiming history because when she first begun receiving state handouts, she was doing so legitimately.

In mitigation, Alex Langhorn, said that whilst Mr Sims was living at the house, he was not financially contributing.

He said: “I will mitigate particularly in reference to the very clear remorse shown by Miss Phoenix.

“The reality of the situation is that this is a woman who, having claimed benefits, buried her head in the sand and thought this was the way to deal with things.

“She has four children who are 10, 16, 20 and 23. They were far younger when this started.

“When Mr Sims would come and go he would not provide anything for them. He was present in the physical sense. He occasionally helped out with the utilities but that was the extent.

“This is a lack of consequential thinking rather than an attempt to defraud the state. It was out of desperation.

“She expects immediate custody and has put in place support mechanisms for her family. Three children are living with her. Her mother, father and eldest daughter will support the children.

(Image: Cavendish)

Read:

“An immediate custodial sentence would punish not only her but her family who in this are blameless.

“She’s working, paying back what little she can. It’s only a little amount of £70 a month in council tax, £26 a month to housing benefits and also income support.

“It’s evidence of her trying to put this right. There is no risk of this woman appearing before the court ever again. Let her show she can pay society back and punishment can be done without destroying her family.”

Passing sentence, Judge Andrew Jefferies QC, said: “You’re now 41 years of age and a woman of good character who for the last 10 years has been receiving income support, council tax and housing benefits.

“Your circumstances changed and you didn’t notify the relevant authorities. It’s the people that do this that give the people that need benefits a bad name.

“The amount of the claim is a little short of £150,000 over a ten year period but recently you have started to pay back those benefits and I’m impressed that’s something you have done before coming here today.

“You have four children, three of which you are still responsible for. I’m persuaded that this is a case I can suspend. I hope that the arrangements made today (in respect of her children) can be made by your family for the unpaid work requirement.”