A married couple from Blackpool have been found guilty of defrauding the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) out of more than £50,000 after their online holiday photos revealed the truth behind their claims. Alan Forsythe, 37, and his wife Jemma, 36, both falsely claimed they were single parents in order to access benefit payments over a period spanning several years.
The couple’s wrongdoing came to light after DWP officials spotted social media posts that showed Alan and Jemma not only together, but clearly living as husband and wife — a direct contradiction to the information they had supplied to authorities. Between 2019 and 2023, the pair lived as a family, along with their two children and Jemma’s two older children from a previous relationship, at their Blackpool home. However, when approaching the DWP, both Alan and Jemma insisted they were living separately and raising their children on their own.
Alan Forsythe made his first claim for Universal Credit in February 2019, stating he was living alone in a flat. This claim was discontinued later that year. Undeterred, in January 2022 he made a fresh application, this time maintaining he was a single father with a dependent child. He sustained this deception until July 2023, ultimately securing £3,182.27 he was not entitled to. Meanwhile, Jemma (now known by her maiden name O’Malley) began her claim in June 2020, also telling the DWP she was a single parent, omitting entirely the fact that Alan was not only present in the household but also working full time. Over three years, her fraudulent claim amounted to £49,007.91.
Each of the claims required explicit declarations, with both Alan and Jemma affirming the information they provided was true and promising to notify the DWP of any changes to their circumstances. The court learned that Jemma had a previous conviction connected to failing to inform the DWP of a change in her situation back in 2014, a detail which highlights the persistent nature of such offences.
Investigators, alerted by social media evidence, delved deeper by examining financial records and credit checks before calling the couple for interviews in June 2023. During these interviews, Alan claimed he was “sofa surfing” after having separated from Jemma, while Jemma herself admitted that while they were separated, divorce proceedings hadn’t officially begun. Eventually, confronted by mounting evidence, both parties admitted their guilt.
Alan Forsythe’s court appearance was made via video link, as he is already serving a four-year sentence in connection with a separate and exceptionally serious assault case. His barrister, Anthony Parkinson, recognised that a further custodial sentence was “inevitable” but asked the court to consider the impact of a possible prison term on the couple’s children, given the severity of their father’s current incarceration.
Jemma’s representative, Kira Unsworth, pointed to her client’s ongoing employment as a care assistant and her efforts to tackle her debts, emphasising that Jemma had now separated from Alan and filed for divorce. The presiding judge, Recorder Ayesha Siddiqi, criticised both for knowingly providing untruthful information, describing their activity as “fraudulent behaviour sustained over 36 months”.
Emphasising the seriousness of defrauding public funds, Recorder Siddiqi told Jemma: “Taking money is not the solution. Your children deserve better than this — this is no example to set them.” However, mindful of the fact the couple’s children were facing the possibility of having both parents imprisoned, the judge opted to suspend Jemma’s sentence. Jemma was sentenced to 21 months, suspended for two years, along with a curfew and a requirement to attend rehabilitation activities, whereas Alan’s punishment was a further 15 weeks in jail, to be served consecutively to his current sentence.
Cases such as this highlight the increasing role of social media in uncovering benefit fraud, as online activity often undermines official claims. Authorities continue to warn that the misuse of public funds not only deprives those genuinely in need but also carries significant legal consequences for those who are caught.
This incident also underscores the impact such actions can have on entire families, particularly children, as noted by the court’s decision to suspend one parent’s sentence in the hopes of mitigating further harm. It stands as a stark reminder of the importance of honesty in welfare claims and the far-reaching repercussions of fraudulent activity.