THREE sisters have all escaped being jailed for their parts in a near £20,000 benefits scam -- even though a judge said he could have sent each of them to prison.

Burnley Crown Court heard how Shanaz Akhtar, 28, Sajda Parveen, 32 and Ghazala Hayat, 33, all lied about their circumstances to social security and Recorder Terence Rigby said he was far from convinced with their explanations and excuses.

He said the trio had no doubt had difficult times and had had to contend with looking after their children as their husbands were 'coming and going.'

Mother-of-one Akhtar, of Halifax Road, Brierfield, admitted one charge of false accounting involving £2,315.

Mother-of-four Hayat, of Percy Street, Nelson, pleaded guilty to false accounting and 10 counts of obtaining property by deception to the tune of £11, 825.85.

Mother-of-five Parveen, of Stanley Street, Brierfield, admitted 10 counts of obtaining property by deception and asked for 29 offences to be considered, involving £5,916.89. All were given a 12 months community rehabilitation order, but the judge made no order for costs.

Teresa Loftus, prosecuting for the Department of Social Security, said investigations began in June last year after Nelson Jobcentre received allegations regarding the defendants' benefit claims.

Akhtar made a false claim from the start and was not entitled to benefits because of her husband's earnings. She told the department she was a lone parent, her husband had left and was working away in Pakistan. A search warrant was later executed at her home and it was found that in addition to living with her husband, Akhtar had another property. Her husband had been working for a computer firm, earning about £1,000 a month.

The court was told Hayat's claim for benefits was entirely valid at the start. She failed to declare the existence of any bank accounts, savings or property, but had bank accounts and investments to the tune of about £4,000 and a house which her parents lived in. She also said she was a lone parent and her husband was in Pakistan, but he was later spotted entering and leaving her home.

Miss Loftus said Parveen's claim was legitimate at the beginning. She said she was a lone parent and later claimed although her husband had returned to the home, they were not living together as man and wife. The defendant would have been entitled to benefits if she had told the truth.

For Akhtar, Andrew Smith said the defendant was pregnant, her husband, who had now left, was disputing paternity and wanted a divorce whatever the results of DNA tests.

Defending Hayat, Mark Stuart said she was claiming benefits and caring for her epileptic son.

Anthony Cross, defending Parveen said her husband had gone to Pakistan without any consideration for the defendant and the five children.

If she had made a genuine claim she would almost certainly have received a similar amount to that which she received now. In fact, she now got more money.