We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Renting property to husband when separated?
Comments
-
helping_hand2014 wrote: »"And in reply, most if not all men wouldn't care what they would get out of a divorce settlement" eerr says who? from a woman's point i dont agree with that statement at all
Why? I know of many men that would prefer their wife to get the majority of the marriage assets in a divorce. Maybe as recompense for everything she gave him throughout their life together. I saw it that way with my first wife. Although, she as a school teacher had her own income, it didn't cross my mind to expect her to leave the home. I viewed it that I could start again somewhere else and be happy. I signed over the two properties to her and left my car on the drive. I came out of the 7 year marriage with nothing but it didn't take me long to get back up there again. There were no children involved and I never saw her again from when I got in the taxi to take me to the railway station.
However in this case the guy is a kept man, he owns nowt, and doesn't have an income. the OP said "He has never worked and is not in a position to do so" and also "My husband has mental health problems, and I am trying to assure him of a safe and secure environment to keep him safe " just because he cannot work due to his illnesses/disabilities does not make him a kept man . he cant work due to his mental health issues .
Maybe, but at the end of the day for whatever reason, the poster indicates that she has kept both of them financially as well as providing a home for them both to live in. Whether he can work or not is not material. She has maintained, to a greater extent, both of them.
the OP is buying the property from her inheritance only as there will be no mortgage on the property im sure if the husband had inheritance with the help of his wife or family he might do the same . but someone who is married to another person who claims benefit due to having mental health problems is not a kept person im sure his benefits contributed to the relationship bills ect ect
What if's and maybe's are involved doesn't matter.
I am only concerned with the position as it now exists. She was the breadwinner, he lived on welfare benefits.
Why are so many people trying to suggest that what the OP is hoping to do is so wrong?0 -
Which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a 'trial' separation. A 'trial' is a test to assess suitability, ie. testing if they should indeed separate for good. They are therefore not yet separated, let alone divorced.
Actually I do when people try to benefit from what has been set up not intended to support their own circumstances.
Well then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The OP sees it as a trial, she will inform the DWP that they are separated - fact. The DWP & LA don't care if it is likely to be permanent or not. It will be permanent until they make a decision to get back together.
As the law stands, that if you arrange your affairs in such a way that you benefit from that decision AND it is legal to do so, who says that it is wrong?0 -
If everyone else on this thread was in support of the OP... Our resident troll would be arguing against it......0
-
4 points
The Op has her own home.
The flat is being bought outright so there is no mortgage to worry about.
The OP cares for her husband.
There are no plans at the moment for divorce.
So why can the couple not just live separately in the 2 homes they have? Why the need for him to rent if not for the wife to gain from the benefits system. Having the money to buy a property outright then having her husband claim benefits to live in it is pure greed.0 -
benniebert wrote: »Well then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The OP sees it as a trial, she will inform the DWP that they are separated - fact. The DWP & LA don't care if it is likely to be permanent or not. It will be permanent until they make a decision to get back together.
As the law stands, that if you arrange your affairs in such a way that you benefit from that decision AND it is legal to do so, who says that it is wrong?
I think you're being a little hypocritical, I have seen a few post by yourself where you have offered your own moral opinion.
But to get back to the op the only way you will get a definitive answer is either contact housing benefit and ask them or go ahead and put in a claim and see if it's accepted or declined.0 -
As the law stands, that if you arrange your affairs in such a way that you benefit from that decision AND it is legal to do so, who says that it is wrong?
Only those with morals I expect. When my ex and I separated (for good, not a trial), we remained in the same house for 9 months. We had nothing to do together, I made my room in the living room and were in the house mainly at different times. I could have claimed tax credits as a single person then, legally, I was entitled, but the reality is that my outgoings didn't increase because we were separated. He continued to paid half the mortgage of our joint house and the share of the bills. I would have felt sullen trying to get more money that ultimately would have just gone on luxuries since we could afford to pay our bills.
From my perspective, it is sad outcome of our entitled culture to see that more and more people trying to claim what they see as freebie just because they can find loops in the system, knowing there will always be such loops because there are so much easier to find when you benefit from them then when you trying to tighten them.0 -
benniebert wrote: »They ARE married but for the purposes of benefits they are separated. She will live in the family home paid for by her and he in the new flat also paid for by her. They will lead totally independent lives apart from the wife will be looking after him as she probably would just the same as a friend. You can be married but under the right circumstances you can be treated as two single people - that is what she is trying to do and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
However if you want to talk about divorce settlements that is entirely a different subject. One that isn't being discussed.
The benefits system doesn't agree with you. He could claim HB if he rented from someone else but not from his wife.4 points
The Op has her own home.
The flat is being bought outright so there is no mortgage to worry about.
The OP cares for her husband.
There are no plans at the moment for divorce.
So why can the couple not just live separately in the 2 homes they have? Why the need for him to rent if not for the wife to gain from the benefits system. Having the money to buy a property outright then having her husband claim benefits to live in it is pure greed.
This is what they should do until they decide whether the separation is going to be permanent. If it is, then the divorce proceedings can start and the financial split of their assets sorted out and then he will know whether he needs to claim benefits or not.0 -
benniebert wrote: »Is it material to the question in hand?
Oh, begging your pardon Sir, ...:o I most 'umbly ask for your forgiveness, I intended no harm Sir for taking the topic ...off topic. 0 -
benniebert wrote: »I have no objection to my taxes being used to help they guy pay his rent.
I agree.benniebert wrote: »I don't care who the landlord is and it doesn't really matter.
On this we differ, as I do object to my taxes being used as a source of income AND a cozy arrangement which benefits BOTH parties in such a way as described. If she wants to exploit her estranged husband, that's his look-out. But if she wants to use her ex husband to exploit the public purse, that's MY look-out.0 -
benniebert wrote: »Well then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The OP sees it as a trial, she will inform the DWP that they are separated - fact. The DWP & LA don't care if it is likely to be permanent or not. It will be permanent until they make a decision to get back together.
As the law stands, that if you arrange your affairs in such a way that you benefit from that decision AND it is legal to do so, who says that it is wrong?
Well you, depending on which way the wind is blowing Andy.
Similar fairy stories :beer:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/52227219#Comment_52227219
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63646325#Comment_63646325
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67952986&postcount=42Its not that we have more patience as we grow older, its just that we're too tired to care about all the pointless drama
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.7K Life & Family
- 256.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards