Donegal woman falsely claimed Carer’s Allowance while working full-time in North

A Buncrana woman who falsely claimed Carer’s Allowance in this jurisdiction while she was working full-time in Northern Ireland has been convicted of social welfare fraud and fined €600.

Shannon Clarke, of 32 Earlsfort, Buncrana, pleaded guilty to the offence, which resulted in an overpayment of almost €7,500, when she appeared before Buncrana District Court.

The court heard how the 32-year-old continued to claim Carer’s Allowance even though she had two jobs in the North, while the offence was discovered following a further application for social welfare assistance with funeral expenses after her father passed away.

Judge Emile Daly said it was “simply an insult” to everyone in genuine need when someone claimed payments that they weren’t entitled to.

Mr Morgan Mooney, an inspector with the special investigation unit at the Department of Social Protection, outlined the evidence in the matter, including how Ms Clarke had failed to notify the Department of a change in her circumstances.

He explained that Ms Clarke first made an application for Carer’s Allowance in November 2016, when she wasn’t working, and the form signed on that day said she would notify the Department of any changes in her circumstances, which might affect payments.

Mr Mooney continued: “Then in March 2024, there was a further claim made to help with the funeral expenses of her late dad. When that came in, we were obliged to check with our counterparts in the North – and they were able to tell me that Ms Clarke had been working on a full-time basis for two different companies.”

Mr Mooney wrote to both companies, but only one company responded. He then obtained a contract of employment, attendance records, and payslips, which showed how the hours being worked were in excess of those hours permitted for carers’ payments.

Ms Clarke was entitled to work 18-and-a-half hours per week, but she had been working full-time.

Mr Mooney said the evidence related to a period from June 14, 2021, until February 1, 2022, during which time Ms Clarke had been working approximately 34 hours per week.

He said the overpayment in Carer’s Allowance amounted to €7,466.

“The Department was not made aware of any employment – as far as we were concerned, she was caring for her father full-time,” Mr Mooney testified.

State solicitor Kieran Dillon then revealed how Ms Clarke, who has no previous convictions, is addressing repayments of “other related matters” in the case.

Mr Mooney further explained: “The Respite Care Grant is one of the other payments that was disallowed as a result of her employment, and that is being addressed. It is an add-on payment that comes along with Carer’s Allowance.”

The judge was told that Ms Clarke received an additional overpayment of €5,400 via the Respite Care Grant, but almost €4,000 of this sum has since been paid back, at an ongoing rate of approximately €30 per week.

Mr Mooney said Ms Clarke was “very cooperative” after the matter came to light.

Defending the case, solicitor Frank Dorrian said his client wasn’t the one who made the application to the Department for funeral expenses.

“This all came to light in 2024, when there was a claim for funeral expenses for her late father. My client indicates that an application was made, yes, but it was not by her – it was made by her mum – but one way or another, it has triggered this reaction.”

Mr Dorrian said his client “hadn’t really set out to defraud anyone”.

“This is not a case of someone setting out to defraud the State. She was caring for her parent. She made an application for a part-time job with a company and managed to secure that job. It was during the Covid period, when she was doing a lot of the work from home.”

“The hours she initially worked were under 18 hours, but she was then offered an enhanced contract, while she continued to receive Carer’s Allowance. She was making around £200 per week, and all the while she was looking after her father.”

“There is a period in 2021 when she was given enhanced hours, and that’s what put her in breach,” he said.

Mr Dorrian said Ms Clarke is a “young lady of limited means” but is doing her best to regularise matters.

“The total period of overpayment here is quite modest, and the amounts involved are quite modest too. She’s dealing with it as best she can.”

“She now works in a local supermarket two or three days per week; and she has a modest income of about €300 per week,” he added.

Judge Daly queried whether the outstanding amounts can be recovered, and she was told that the Department of Social Protection has its own “devices and remedies” to recover the money owed.

“Should she not [repay], the Department has an open goal in relation to bringing enforcement proceedings for any outstanding amount,” Mr Dorrian said. “But there’s no concern about that.”

Having heard the evidence, Judge Daly convicted Ms Clarke of social welfare fraud and imposed a fine of €600, with four months to pay. She pointed out how “civil remedy remains” open to the Department in the case.

The judge concluded: “There are people in this country who need social welfare, and if it’s the case that someone’s benefitting from payments that they shouldn’t be in receipt of, then that is simply an insult to everybody who is in need.”

Legal Aid was granted to Mr Dorrian in the matter.