Mother-of-nine on £38,000 a year in handouts says benefits slobs give her family a 'bad name'... then demands council moves her and children into a bigger house

  • Cheryl and Robert Prudham say they deserve a bigger house because they both work part-time to support their huge brood
  • The couple rake in a total tax free income of £53,000 a year - the equivalent of an £80,000 gross annual salary - of which 70 per cent comes from benefits
  • Mother says it is 'cruel' to keep such a large family in a three-bedroom home

By Anna Edwards

Published: 10:10 EST, 16 October 2013 | Updated: 06:40 EST, 8 December 2013

A mother-of-nine who claims £38,000 a year in handouts who has slammed benefit slobs for giving large families like hers a 'bad name' wants a bigger house for her family.

Cheryl Prudham says she and her husband Robert both work part-time, so they should be entitled to a larger property for them and their children.

She admits her huge brood were not especially planned because she and her husband do not like using contraception.

The couple rake in a total tax free income of £53,000-a-year - the equivalent of an £80,000 gross annual salary - of which 70 per cent comes from benefits.

Cheryl and Robert Prudham pictured with their nine children. The mother says her family are need a bigger home because their current one is too cramped

Cheryl and Robert Prudham pictured with their nine children. The mother says her family are need a bigger home because their current one is too cramped

But the couple claim they are entitled to a bigger council house - because they both work part-time.

Cheryl, of Sittingbourne, Kent, yesterday said: 'I see other people in the paper and it makes me sick. They shouldn't just get a new home handed to them on a plate.

'It gives people with big families a bad name. I don't want people to judge us because we have so many children.

'If I sat on my a*** I would understand people would have something to say. We would probably earn more on benefits.

'You see stories about people getting bigger houses and never working a day in their life and it makes people with big families look bad.

Cheryl Prudham, pictured with her daughters Caitlin, eight and Masie, seven, says her family can't scrape together the £1,000-a-month rent on a larger private property

Cheryl Prudham, pictured with her daughters Caitlin, eight and Masie, seven, says her family can't scrape together the £1,000-a-month rent on a larger private property, but she has since booked a family trip to Menorca

'You wouldn't keep animals in the confined space we live in. It's cruel and I don't think we're getting the help we're entitled to.'

She added: 'In the past I have been on contraception but I got pregnant with the coil and the pill just doesn't settle well with me.

'We don't use condoms and me and Rob have never talked about it.

'I did rely on benefits before but I am motivated to be more than a mother.'

And she admitted: 'I was surprised by the cost of our kids in the end.'

Cheryl had her first son George, 13, when she was just 17 and was living in a homeless hostel in Kent in the summer of 2000.

She soon moved into a flat with her ex-boyfriend and had second son, Jack, 12, and her eldest daughter Caitlin, eight.

But the unemployed mum then had three unplanned pregnancies Maisie, seven, Lillie, five, and Madison, four.

Mrs Prudham's children, who are aged between nine months and 13, sit on the floor to eat at meal times because there is not enough space for a dining table.

According to Mrs Prudham, her children, who are aged between nine months and 13, are too cramped in their current house, above

In March 2009 she met current husband Rob and they had Leon, now three.

They then had Lenny, now two, before completing the family with daughter Lainey in January this year.

Cheryl says her husband has always worked doing temporary jobs in a bid to provide for her family.

She has now started working 20 hours per week a week as a carer and says this should entitle her to a bigger house. Neither pays any income tax because their earnings fall below the minimum threshold.

Cheryl admits her family live 'comfortably' but can't scrape together the £1,000-a-month rent on a larger private property.

The family currently live in a three-bed terraced home, which means their four girls are left to sleep in two bunk beds in the property's largest room.

The family currently live in a three-bed terraced home, which means their four girls are left to sleep in two bunk beds in the property's largest

The family currently live in a three-bed terraced home, which means their four girls are left to sleep in two bunk beds in the property's largest room

Two-year-old Lenny sleeps in a cot in the middle while the three eldest boys are crammed into a box room.

That leaves Cheryl and Rob sleeping in the only other bedroom with their infant daughter Lainey.

A tight kitchen means there is no room for a dinner table and the youngest children are made to eat their food on the floor.

Cheryl said: 'I know it's possible to have two houses knocked through into one big house because I've read they do that for people.

'I know by having nine children I've put myself in this situation, but I can't live like it anymore. I thought I could, but I can't.

'Realistically, we're not going to find anything bigger than four bedrooms.

'But even an extra bedroom would make the world of difference. It's depressing for me, and the kids argue all the time because there's no space to play.'

Families in the county can bid for council homes through Kent Homechoice which works alongside Kent County Council.  

A spokesman for the housing association has now said they were 'working with the resident' in a bid to resolve the situation.

He said: 'We're working with the resident to assist with her situation. We've very few four bedroom homes, so they rarely become available.

'It's also rare for adjacent properties to become empty, allowing us to create "super-size" homes.'

 

Comments (600)

Share what you think

 View all

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

 View all

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now