A judge has berated social security inspectors who turned up at a woman’s house to investigate an anonymous tip-off about benefits fraud and rummaged through her personal belongings in what he called a “fishing expedition”.

“Rather than following a structured system, the Department of Social Security chooses to rely on anonymous reports without knowing the intention of the person who made them,” Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff said.

The department relied on “an investigation by two inspectors who roamed around the person’s home, rummaging through personal clothes during a fishing expedition for evidence against the beneficiary”.

He was handing down judgment in an appeal filed by a woman, Miriam Attard, who the department was chasing to reimburse nearly €12,000 in social security payments covering December 2017 to January 2020.

The court heard that the decision against the woman was taken after an inspection was carried out at her house following two anonymous reports saying she was not living at home and a claim that she was not unemployed but was manufacturing Playmobil figurines.

The inspectors testified they found a man’s clothing at her house but only in a small amount, causing them to suspect that she was not using the house permanently. The fridge only contained bottles of water while the freezer was completely empty.

When confronted, she told them the clothes were her son’s.

When they asked her about the Playmobil figurines, she said she was helping her sister because she could not make ends meet with social benefits alone.

However, she subsequently told the court that it was not a paid job, although her sister sometimes bought her groceries.

Following the inspection, the department asked her to refund some €11,400, which she said would “ruin her financially”.

In considering her appeal, Mr Justice Mintoff noted that the inspectors did not inform her of the real reason they were inspecting her house and it was only after she opened every drawer and wardrobe that they told her about the reports they had.

He also lambasted the department for failing to inform the woman of the reason why she was being asked to refund the money, saying this was in breach of the most basic principles of natural justice.

He said it was evident that the case was taken lightly, without any consideration for the woman’s situation.

As he revoked the order, the judge said the court expected the department to bring more tangible evidence of employment than an admission that the woman was simply helping her sister manufacture Playmobil figurines.