FRAUDSTERS FOUND OUT
CUMBRIA CABBIE AMASSED £85,000 DURING DISHONEST UNIVERSAL CREDIT CLAIM
A cabbie who pocketed thousands of pounds in Universal Credit while sitting on a secret £85,000 “nest egg” has been sentenced. Gergely Tomasovszky, 43, appeared at South Cumbria Magistrates’ Court where he pleaded guilty to dishonestly making a false state- ment to obtain benefit payments. The court heard how the Burton- in-Kendal resident failed to declare a massive influx of capital while continuing to receive government support for over three years. Tomasovszky originally made a legitimate joint claim for UC in April 2020, declaring savings of
£6,000. However, his financial circumstances shifted dramatically. Prosecutor Lee Dacre explained: “Over a period of months, the defendant amassed savings of £85,000 which was above the legal threshold limit of £16,000. But the defendant failed to contact DWP about his change in circumstances.” Between April 2020 and July 2023, Tomasovszky wrongly claimed a total of £7,203.79. The DWP is currently working with the driver to recover the full amount. The defence solicitor told the court that the money came from family members in Hungary and Poland
noting that Tomasovszky was “fully ashamed of himself” and had no prior convictions. The court heard that Tomasovszky has since been working gruelling 70 to 80-hour weeks as a taxi driver to pay back the debt. While Magistrates accepted that the driver was “not dishonest from the outset,” his future in the taxi trade now hangs in the balance. Tomasovszky was handed a 12- month community order and ordered to complete 130 hours of unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay £85 in court costs and a £114 victim surcharge.
‘MIRACLE’ £50K DEPOSIT: BRADFORD UBER DRIVER LOSES APPEAL AFTER MYSTERY MONEY CLAIM
An Uber driver who claimed a total stranger “miraculously” transferred £50,000 into his bank account has failed to win back his PH licence. Amar Rangzab, 33, appeared at Bradford Magistrates’ Court on 16 January,
to appeal the council’s
decision to revoke his licence following fraud charges brought by The Insolvency Service. While Rangzab maintains the money was a gift from a stranger in a car park, authorities allege the funds were
actually a Covid
bounce-back loan that was subsequently gambled away. The court heard an extraordinary account of how Rangzab was having tea in a car park while discussing financial woes when a man in another vehicle offered to help. “He told me he only needed my sort code, account number and
16
address. I gave it to him and thought ‘what’s the worst that could happen?’” Rangzab told the court under oath. “A few days later I was surprised to see £50,000 in my account. I didn’t realise it was a bounce back loan.” When Waseem Raja, representing Bradford Council, asked if he expected the court to believe such a tale, Rangzab said: “That’s exactly what happened.” The decision to strip Rangzab of his licence was triggered by charges involving a bounce-back loan intended to support businesses during Covid. Mr Raja stated: “These loans were on the condition the money should be paid back in full... but this money was not used it was spent on gambling, which made him unable to repay.” Evidence also emerged about a
separate loan application for a £3,000 watch, where Rangzab allegedly claimed to
own a
property that actually belonged to his mother - an act he dismissed in court as an “innocent mistake.” Mr Raja added: “I submit Mr Rangzab’s honesty falls below the standard required of a PH driver.” Despite Rangzab’s insistence that he is a “fit and proper person” who has driven for 10 years without fraud complaints, Magistrates sided with the council. Describing Rangzab’s evidence as “inconsist- ent” and the council’s case as “credible,” the appeal was dismissed. Rangzab, who has pleaded not guilty
to the criminal fraud
charges, is expected to stand trial in 2027. His PH licence remains revoked, and he was ordered to pay the council legal costs of £420.
FEBRUARY 2026 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
