Carer Dawn Riddell admitted fraud at Bournemouth Crown Court

Carer defrauded thousands from elderly women by forging cheques

Carer defrauded thousands from elderly women by forging cheques

First published in News
Last updated

A CARER has admitted defrauding thousands of pounds from elderly women by forging cheques.

Dawn Riddell, 58, admitted three counts of fraud at Bournemouth Crown Court, in which she presented three separate cheques for £2,000 to her bank claiming they were genuine.

The cheques were made out in the names of three elderly women - one 92 years old - two of whom suffered from dementia, for whom Riddell was a carer.

The offences took place in Bournemouth between November 14 last year and March 26 this year.

Prosecutor Ellie Fargin said: “It is obviously a breach of a position of trust, but it is clear the defendant was not acting as a financial advisor to the victims.

“If this were a case of theft, that would refer to the theft of the cheques themselves. Fraud was the most suitable way to identify the crime.”

The court heard that Riddell, of Perth Close, Christchurch, was of previous good character and understood the seriousness of the charges.

Judge Peter Johnson adjourned the case for a pre-sentence report to be prepared.

“You have pleaded guilty to three very serious matters, I am warning you that there may be a custodial sentence,” he said.

Riddell was released on conditional bail to return to court for sentencing on September 5.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:46am Mon 4 Aug 14

bosco1 says...

Yet another case, we have seen several in recent months.Sadly it makes you feel not to put your elderly parents into a care home but sometimes you have to. A possible prevention would be anyone going into care passes there bank running to 2 people a family member and care home manager that requires 2 signatures on cheques and to not be able to use a cash machine card. Many carers do a good and honest job, this person should be made to repay double the stolen amount and a spell in prison.
Yet another case, we have seen several in recent months.Sadly it makes you feel not to put your elderly parents into a care home but sometimes you have to. A possible prevention would be anyone going into care passes there bank running to 2 people a family member and care home manager that requires 2 signatures on cheques and to not be able to use a cash machine card. Many carers do a good and honest job, this person should be made to repay double the stolen amount and a spell in prison. bosco1
  • Score: 39

7:02am Mon 4 Aug 14

cheeriedriteup says...

bosco1 wrote:
Yet another case, we have seen several in recent months.Sadly it makes you feel not to put your elderly parents into a care home but sometimes you have to. A possible prevention would be anyone going into care passes there bank running to 2 people a family member and care home manager that requires 2 signatures on cheques and to not be able to use a cash machine card. Many carers do a good and honest job, this person should be made to repay double the stolen amount and a spell in prison.
Is this down to the wage that careers are earning, each and every time I see someone in a care workers uniform they are over weight, chain smoking stern looking beasts .
[quote][p][bold]bosco1[/bold] wrote: Yet another case, we have seen several in recent months.Sadly it makes you feel not to put your elderly parents into a care home but sometimes you have to. A possible prevention would be anyone going into care passes there bank running to 2 people a family member and care home manager that requires 2 signatures on cheques and to not be able to use a cash machine card. Many carers do a good and honest job, this person should be made to repay double the stolen amount and a spell in prison.[/p][/quote]Is this down to the wage that careers are earning, each and every time I see someone in a care workers uniform they are over weight, chain smoking stern looking beasts . cheeriedriteup
  • Score: -23

7:30am Mon 4 Aug 14

Mejulie1967 says...

Ihope she gets a custodial sentence...despicabl
e woman.
Ihope she gets a custodial sentence...despicabl e woman. Mejulie1967
  • Score: 38

7:50am Mon 4 Aug 14

brungo says...

who did she work for?
who did she work for? brungo
  • Score: 24

7:59am Mon 4 Aug 14

Chief-Wiggum says...

'Dawn Riddell, 58, admitted three counts of fraud at Bournemouth Crown Court yesterday'
'Dawn Riddell, 58, admitted three counts of fraud at Bournemouth Crown Court yesterday' Chief-Wiggum
  • Score: 16

8:38am Mon 4 Aug 14

skydriver says...

Another piece of low life in the streets of Christchurch.she should be put away for at least 4 years.
Previous good character , my foot, some defence that is. She is a thief .Fact.
Another piece of low life in the streets of Christchurch.she should be put away for at least 4 years. Previous good character , my foot, some defence that is. She is a thief .Fact. skydriver
  • Score: 33

9:17am Mon 4 Aug 14

echor23 says...

What a sick individual. Hope she goes down!
What a sick individual. Hope she goes down! echor23
  • Score: 19

9:37am Mon 4 Aug 14

BIGTONE says...

A custodial sentence is being considered by the judge,yet you will be free to walk if you fiddle £100.000 in benefits.

Am I missing something comparing the two?

There's justice at its best for you.
A custodial sentence is being considered by the judge,yet you will be free to walk if you fiddle £100.000 in benefits. Am I missing something comparing the two? There's justice at its best for you. BIGTONE
  • Score: 11

10:05am Mon 4 Aug 14

steve518 says...

skydriver wrote:
Another piece of low life in the streets of Christchurch.she should be put away for at least 4 years.
Previous good character , my foot, some defence that is. She is a thief .Fact.
Previous goo character, in other words has never been caught before.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: Another piece of low life in the streets of Christchurch.she should be put away for at least 4 years. Previous good character , my foot, some defence that is. She is a thief .Fact.[/p][/quote]Previous goo character, in other words has never been caught before. steve518
  • Score: 20

10:35am Mon 4 Aug 14

BournemouthMum says...

I don't understand this - how can you present cheques at your bank if they're in someone else's name? Most cheques are written to 'account payee only' so she's obviously not very bright is she?

I know carers get very low wages (as someone has pointed out) but to get to an age and position to find that you need someone to look after you is bad enough without finding out that the person you trusted to care for you is stealing from you.

I think she deserves a few months in jail to be honest, and hope she gets that.
I don't understand this - how can you present cheques at your bank if they're in someone else's name? Most cheques are written to 'account payee only' so she's obviously not very bright is she? I know carers get very low wages (as someone has pointed out) but to get to an age and position to find that you need someone to look after you is bad enough without finding out that the person you trusted to care for you is stealing from you. I think she deserves a few months in jail to be honest, and hope she gets that. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 6

10:37am Mon 4 Aug 14

John T says...

Chief-Wiggum wrote:
'Dawn Riddell, 58, admitted three counts of fraud at Bournemouth Crown Court yesterday'
Don't you realise these Courts work harder on Sundays than the OHEC proof reader does every other day?!?
The Courts have to stay open on Sunday in case our local Councils want to take urgent action to remove travellers!
[quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: 'Dawn Riddell, 58, admitted three counts of fraud at Bournemouth Crown Court yesterday'[/p][/quote]Don't you realise these Courts work harder on Sundays than the OHEC proof reader does every other day?!? The Courts have to stay open on Sunday in case our local Councils want to take urgent action to remove travellers! John T
  • Score: 8

12:06pm Mon 4 Aug 14

pete woodley says...

Far too much of this going on,longer sentences are needed.Most of us will agree the offense is a really evil one.I wonder how many other "carers" are getting away with it,about 15 years ago the old lady opposite us was cheated out of over £6.000,by a despicable "carer".
Far too much of this going on,longer sentences are needed.Most of us will agree the offense is a really evil one.I wonder how many other "carers" are getting away with it,about 15 years ago the old lady opposite us was cheated out of over £6.000,by a despicable "carer". pete woodley
  • Score: 6

12:14pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Lord Parkstone says...

"Previous good character" court term for not been caught red handed before. How many more vulnerable elderly people has she ripped off before that have gone un noticed.
Lowest of the low. Makes me so angry that people do this. Hope she does get locked up not that it will be long enough if at all because shes a woman.
She should never be allowed to work within the care industry ever again. Some carer she only cared about herself.selfish vile coward.
"Previous good character" court term for not been caught red handed before. How many more vulnerable elderly people has she ripped off before that have gone un noticed. Lowest of the low. Makes me so angry that people do this. Hope she does get locked up not that it will be long enough if at all because shes a woman. She should never be allowed to work within the care industry ever again. Some carer she only cared about herself.selfish vile coward. Lord Parkstone
  • Score: 17

12:16pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Lord Parkstone says...

echor23 wrote:
What a sick individual. Hope she goes down!
I am sure she will do if she gets a custodial sentence.
[quote][p][bold]echor23[/bold] wrote: What a sick individual. Hope she goes down![/p][/quote]I am sure she will do if she gets a custodial sentence. Lord Parkstone
  • Score: 14

12:47pm Mon 4 Aug 14

BoscombeWarLord says...

Send her to the clink for a bit of rest and relaxation.
Send her to the clink for a bit of rest and relaxation. BoscombeWarLord
  • Score: 7

1:04pm Mon 4 Aug 14

pete woodley says...

She must have some friends as i had a thumbs down !.
She must have some friends as i had a thumbs down !. pete woodley
  • Score: -3

2:19pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Matthew_Y says...

Register your Lasting Powers of Attorney with the Office of the Public Guardian whilst you still have your marbles to ensure your affairs are handled by someone you trust if/when the time comes. It makes things much easier for your family too. Search on Google.
Register your Lasting Powers of Attorney with the Office of the Public Guardian whilst you still have your marbles to ensure your affairs are handled by someone you trust if/when the time comes. It makes things much easier for your family too. Search on Google. Matthew_Y
  • Score: 9

4:54pm Mon 4 Aug 14

JamesBond0070 says...

Rather then sending people to prison, which costing the taxpayers a lot of money for every day in detention. I have been thinking if another means of deterrent punishment could not be devised for the more minor offences, and avoid sentencing those miscreants to prison terms. Back in the middle ages in England, it used to be a common practice to tattoo on a convicted person's forehead of which they had been convicted. That would be too barbaric a practice for nowadays. However if a piece of headwear made from leather with steel cabling inside, consisting of a wide headband covering the forehead and with the person's offence clearly displayed along with other straps so it could not be taken off except one time a week at a police establishment for the purpose of washing and/or cutting of the hair, could be done. Time to be served wearing such a headgear could be equal or longer than the prison sentences given out today, and those found not wearing the headgear during the time that they have been sentanced too, could be then imprisoned until the expiry of their lives.
I think such measures would possibly cut the prison population and the expenditure of taxpayers money by at least a third.
Rather then sending people to prison, which costing the taxpayers a lot of money for every day in detention. I have been thinking if another means of deterrent punishment could not be devised for the more minor offences, and avoid sentencing those miscreants to prison terms. Back in the middle ages in England, it used to be a common practice to tattoo on a convicted person's forehead of which they had been convicted. That would be too barbaric a practice for nowadays. However if a piece of headwear made from leather with steel cabling inside, consisting of a wide headband covering the forehead and with the person's offence clearly displayed along with other straps so it could not be taken off except one time a week at a police establishment for the purpose of washing and/or cutting of the hair, could be done. Time to be served wearing such a headgear could be equal or longer than the prison sentences given out today, and those found not wearing the headgear during the time that they have been sentanced too, could be then imprisoned until the expiry of their lives. I think such measures would possibly cut the prison population and the expenditure of taxpayers money by at least a third. JamesBond0070
  • Score: -3

6:03pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Rotterdam says...

JamesBond0070 wrote:
Rather then sending people to prison, which costing the taxpayers a lot of money for every day in detention. I have been thinking if another means of deterrent punishment could not be devised for the more minor offences, and avoid sentencing those miscreants to prison terms. Back in the middle ages in England, it used to be a common practice to tattoo on a convicted person's forehead of which they had been convicted. That would be too barbaric a practice for nowadays. However if a piece of headwear made from leather with steel cabling inside, consisting of a wide headband covering the forehead and with the person's offence clearly displayed along with other straps so it could not be taken off except one time a week at a police establishment for the purpose of washing and/or cutting of the hair, could be done. Time to be served wearing such a headgear could be equal or longer than the prison sentences given out today, and those found not wearing the headgear during the time that they have been sentanced too, could be then imprisoned until the expiry of their lives.
I think such measures would possibly cut the prison population and the expenditure of taxpayers money by at least a third.
You're wasted mate. We need minds likle yours in the Home Office!
[quote][p][bold]JamesBond0070[/bold] wrote: Rather then sending people to prison, which costing the taxpayers a lot of money for every day in detention. I have been thinking if another means of deterrent punishment could not be devised for the more minor offences, and avoid sentencing those miscreants to prison terms. Back in the middle ages in England, it used to be a common practice to tattoo on a convicted person's forehead of which they had been convicted. That would be too barbaric a practice for nowadays. However if a piece of headwear made from leather with steel cabling inside, consisting of a wide headband covering the forehead and with the person's offence clearly displayed along with other straps so it could not be taken off except one time a week at a police establishment for the purpose of washing and/or cutting of the hair, could be done. Time to be served wearing such a headgear could be equal or longer than the prison sentences given out today, and those found not wearing the headgear during the time that they have been sentanced too, could be then imprisoned until the expiry of their lives. I think such measures would possibly cut the prison population and the expenditure of taxpayers money by at least a third.[/p][/quote]You're wasted mate. We need minds likle yours in the Home Office! Rotterdam
  • Score: 6

9:06pm Mon 4 Aug 14

O'Reilly says...

BIGTONE wrote:
A custodial sentence is being considered by the judge,yet you will be free to walk if you fiddle £100.000 in benefits.

Am I missing something comparing the two?

There's justice at its best for you.
'Considered' being the optimum word...
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: A custodial sentence is being considered by the judge,yet you will be free to walk if you fiddle £100.000 in benefits. Am I missing something comparing the two? There's justice at its best for you.[/p][/quote]'Considered' being the optimum word... O'Reilly
  • Score: -1

9:18pm Mon 4 Aug 14

BIGTONE says...

O'Reilly wrote:
BIGTONE wrote:
A custodial sentence is being considered by the judge,yet you will be free to walk if you fiddle £100.000 in benefits.

Am I missing something comparing the two?

There's justice at its best for you.
'Considered' being the optimum word...
It depends if the judge is in a bad mood.
Normally,when a judge tells an accused who has been convicted that a custodial sentence is being considered,that's the unofficial cue to pack your PJ's.
[quote][p][bold]O'Reilly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: A custodial sentence is being considered by the judge,yet you will be free to walk if you fiddle £100.000 in benefits. Am I missing something comparing the two? There's justice at its best for you.[/p][/quote]'Considered' being the optimum word...[/p][/quote]It depends if the judge is in a bad mood. Normally,when a judge tells an accused who has been convicted that a custodial sentence is being considered,that's the unofficial cue to pack your PJ's. BIGTONE
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Miss Appropriate says...

I am not condoning this woman's behaviour but people employ these carers as a cheap option for care for their elderly parents and relatives as an alternative to a care home. Which is ok due to the astronomical costs of care home fees but they entrust these carers to come into the home of the elderly relative but fail to make sure that important documents and papers/ bank account details/ wills etc are all locked away. They put too much faith and trust into carers, your boss at work wouldn't trust you in his house alone ! Why do people assume that carers are trusting people, if you pay them peanuts and leave them the ability to gain access to bank accounts then you only have yourselves to blame. Why do you think companies and care services have so many rules and regulations?
I am not condoning this woman's behaviour but people employ these carers as a cheap option for care for their elderly parents and relatives as an alternative to a care home. Which is ok due to the astronomical costs of care home fees but they entrust these carers to come into the home of the elderly relative but fail to make sure that important documents and papers/ bank account details/ wills etc are all locked away. They put too much faith and trust into carers, your boss at work wouldn't trust you in his house alone ! Why do people assume that carers are trusting people, if you pay them peanuts and leave them the ability to gain access to bank accounts then you only have yourselves to blame. Why do you think companies and care services have so many rules and regulations? Miss Appropriate
  • Score: -5

9:33am Tue 5 Aug 14

bosco1 says...

Miss Appropriate wrote:
I am not condoning this woman's behaviour but people employ these carers as a cheap option for care for their elderly parents and relatives as an alternative to a care home. Which is ok due to the astronomical costs of care home fees but they entrust these carers to come into the home of the elderly relative but fail to make sure that important documents and papers/ bank account details/ wills etc are all locked away. They put too much faith and trust into carers, your boss at work wouldn't trust you in his house alone ! Why do people assume that carers are trusting people, if you pay them peanuts and leave them the ability to gain access to bank accounts then you only have yourselves to blame. Why do you think companies and care services have so many rules and regulations?
1.no they are not cheap option, some earn at least £10 per hour and more. 2. Yes my boss when I worked would trust me in his home left alone,and whilst working was trusted by my boss to handle uncounted takings.etc. 3. When you assume a carer is trustworthy why should the elderly have to lock everything away. This woman has given a bad name to the honest carers out there, alot of them enjoy there work and love the help they give. In return many carers would receive gifts etc. When you invite someone into your home the thought of that person stealing from you is and should not even be a thought.!!
[quote][p][bold]Miss Appropriate[/bold] wrote: I am not condoning this woman's behaviour but people employ these carers as a cheap option for care for their elderly parents and relatives as an alternative to a care home. Which is ok due to the astronomical costs of care home fees but they entrust these carers to come into the home of the elderly relative but fail to make sure that important documents and papers/ bank account details/ wills etc are all locked away. They put too much faith and trust into carers, your boss at work wouldn't trust you in his house alone ! Why do people assume that carers are trusting people, if you pay them peanuts and leave them the ability to gain access to bank accounts then you only have yourselves to blame. Why do you think companies and care services have so many rules and regulations?[/p][/quote]1.no they are not cheap option, some earn at least £10 per hour and more. 2. Yes my boss when I worked would trust me in his home left alone,and whilst working was trusted by my boss to handle uncounted takings.etc. 3. When you assume a carer is trustworthy why should the elderly have to lock everything away. This woman has given a bad name to the honest carers out there, alot of them enjoy there work and love the help they give. In return many carers would receive gifts etc. When you invite someone into your home the thought of that person stealing from you is and should not even be a thought.!! bosco1
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree