We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
HELP! Partner moving in..
Comments
-
Household is not defined in legislation. It should be given its normal everyday
meaning. It is a domestic establishment containing the essentials of home life.
Household and home are not the same1. Household may refer to people held
together by a particular kind of tie, even if temporarily separated2.
The above sugests to me that the DWP look at each case on its own merits. Like it says no two households are the same and the ties that hold them together even if they are living in seperate households have already been discussed. I have never said that the op would be classed as a couple, I said maybe. She should check with the DWP and get them to confirm it in writing.
edit. I never said the CPAG wrote the legislation either!!0 -
I think this arguement is going nowhere.
You can live in seperate houses and be classed as a couple but for that to happen they have to be considered as part of the same household. Is that the scenario the OP is currently in?
I dont think so.0 -
DMG - the guidance DM's must use. I am not arguing, simply trying to set the OP's mind at ease and also anyone else in the same situation who may panic uneccessarily.11015 Two people who are neither married to each other nor a civil partner of each other
must be members of the same household if they are to be treated as LTAHAW or
LTACP and thus a couple.
11016 Household is not defined in legislation. It should be given its normal everyday
meaning. It is a domestic establishment containing the essentials of home life.
Household and home are not the same1. Household may refer to people held
together by a particular kind of tie, even if temporarily separated2.
1 R(SB) 4/83; 2 Santos v Santos [1972] All ER 246
11017 To be members of the same household means that
1. they live in the same flat, apartment, caravan or other dwelling place and
neither normally lives in another household and
2. they both live there regularly, apart from absences necessary for employment,
to visit relatives, etc.
Neither am I going to argue, but I am going to be facetious, just as I was being when I pointed out the DMG alwaysonthego posted related to Northern Ireland only:
Posted by you, alwaysonthego:I have never said that the op would be classed as a couple, I said maybe.
Earlier posted by you:For benefit purposes you would be classed as a couple anyway even if you did not live together.
Notice the use of the word "would" in there. I don't see a "might", or a "maybe" I see a "would"
Posted by you:
Neither did I. I clearly pointed out that they don't, in response to this post by you:I never said the CPAG wrote the legislation either!!
Which you wrote in response to my post here:As I have said before try the CPAG benefits and tax credits manual or see the link that I previously posted.I'd like to see the legislation on that. I've looked all through the law volumes and I can't find anything other than partner working away from home.0 -
AsknAnswer wrote: »DMG - the guidance DM's must use. I am not arguing, simply trying to set the OP's mind at ease and also anyone else in the same situation who may panic uneccessarily.This is why I stated that the op should confirm it with the DWP and get it in writing to protect herself.
Neither am I going to argue, but I am going to be facetious, just as I was being when I pointed out the DMG alwaysonthego posted related to Northern Ireland only:
Posted by you, alwaysonthego:
Earlier posted by you:
Notice the use of the word "would" in there. I don't see a "might", or a "maybe" I see a "would"
I meant to write could, obviously it is not my decision to make whether they would it would be classed as a couple it would be down to the DM
Posted by you:
Neither did I. I clearly pointed out that they don't, in response to this post by you:
Which you wrote in response to my post here:
Why are you being defensive?
Edit: Do you know what facetious means as I would say you were being cantankerous, not facetious!!
P.s I am not going to argue with you anymore as you clearly have unresolved issues. I suggest to people to check with the DWP but ask them to put it in writing so if you are questioned in the future you have proof.0 -
AsknAnswer wrote: »DMG - the guidance DM's must use. I am not arguing, simply trying to set the OP's mind at ease and also anyone else in the same situation who may panic uneccessarily.
Neither am I going to argue, but I am going to be facetious, just as I was being when I pointed out the DMG alwaysonthego posted related to Northern Ireland only:
Posted by you, alwaysonthego:
Earlier posted by you:
Notice the use of the word "would" in there. I don't see a "might", or a "maybe" I see a "would"
Posted by you:
Neither did I. I clearly pointed out that they don't, in response to this post by you:
Which you wrote in response to my post here:
Am I missing something? I cannot see anything facetious in your comments, did you mean pedantic?
fa⋅ce⋅tious Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuh-see-shuhs] Show IPA
–adjective 1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.0 -
People are questioning whether they are a couple?
Er.... they are having a baby together and are considering living together. Surely that makes them a couple?(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
A couple for the purposes of benefit?seven-day-weekend wrote: »People are questioning whether they are a couple?
Er.... they are having a baby together and are considering living together. Surely that makes them a couple?0 -
-
It would be terrible for a person to declare having a partner upon applying because they took the wrong advice and lost out on entitlement because of that.
As stated before, upon applying the DWP define to the customer "By partner we mean a person you are married to or a person you are living with as if you are married to them"0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
