When an iPhone was delivered to the wrong house a Flintshire woman used it as her own.
Carol Nijak, 53, was washing dishes with the window open when a delivery driver asked if she was Mrs Pugh because he had a parcel for her.
She took it and signed the slip in the name of Pugh even though it was addressed to her neighbour.
When the real owner made enquiries and found that it had been delivered to the wrong address, she went to the defendant’s home and confronted her.
But the defendant repeatedly lied and at one stage denied the phone was the complainant’s.
She handed the phone over, the SIM had been put in, and the box was also handed over.
She recovered the packaging which clearly had the complainant’s name and address on it from her bin.
Nijak, of Gosmore Road in new Brighton near Mold, admitted fraud by false representation by assuming ownership of the parcel incorrectly delivered to her address by UK Mail, intending to make a gain for herself.
She also admitted a second fraud charge by opening an incorrectly delivered postal packet intending to act to the detriment of complainant Susan Pugh.
Nijak, who had no previous convictions, was given a 12 month conditional discharge with £85 costs and a £20 surcharge.
The court heard how the £190 phone was due to be delivered in May, but when it did not arrive Mrs Pugh made enquiries.
It turned out that the packet had been signed for in her name and the phone left at the neighbour’s address.
The delivery driver returned and pointed out the house where he had delivered it.
When spoken to, Nijak said she did not know where the phone was. She said that she had a lot of parcels and thought it was hers.
Interviewed, she said she was washing up at the open kitchen window and the delivery man gave her the phone.
She denied in interview signing in a false name and said she was not sure if she had bought it online.
Brian Cross, defending, said that his client was a woman who had lost her good name and who had pleaded guilty at the first occasion.
“She does accept full responsibility and accepts what she has done,” he said.
The defendant suffered from severe health problems, was been seen by a psychiatrist and also attended a pain clinic.
Her memory was not what it was.
When the parcel arrived, she accepted it through the window, did not take much notice of it and did not check the address.
“But she accepts that she utilised the item,” he said.
See full story in the Leader