HELP! Partner moving in..

AsknAnswer

And? So she may be suspected as LTAHAW. But they have to PROVE that beyond all reasonable doubt before securing a conviction for it as is the case with all criminal law, which fraud falls under the jurasdiction of. To cease her benefits without obtaining a conviction, yes they would look at all aspects of the relationship. However unless they can substantiate their belief it won't go anywhere.

The fact remains that unless someone is LTAHAW the DWP only require a single claim to be submitted. It is the DM who ultimately decides if the claimant is LTAHAW, based upon the information provided within the claim. If the claimant states that they are not LTAHAW but the DM has reason to believe they are, it is up to the DWP to investigate the matter.

Having sex with someone and being in a long term relationship whether or not that relationship results in a pregnancy does not constitute LTAHAW. All factors must be considered if considering fraud. It is amazing how many cases fraud refuse to follow up because it would get nowhere and wastes resources. The case in the link is obviously subject to a fraud investigation, because they have reason to believe that the claimant is defrauding the system. An interview under caution is simply a manner of gathering evidence and attempting to extract a confession of fraudulent activity when a claimant is suspected of fraud, in the same manner that an interview under caution with the police is when a person is suspected of a crime. Suspicion does not mean that said person has commited a crime. Quite often all an interview under caution does is prove innocence.

However, the link appears to be about Council Tax Fraud, not DWP fraud. A different kettle of fish, not dealt with by the same government department. I don't know much about Council Tax Benefit, perhaps their rules for claims are different, I genuinely don't know so it wouldn't be right for me to give an opinion on that.

chinxstar

Hi there!

I just looked over this old message and as the OP wanted to say the final outcome....

We moved in together on the day after my son was born and became financially co-dependent, I was not entitled to SMP so we recieved income support for a couple of months (new out of work couples are eligible for up to 3 months after the baby is born) before he found a job and I returned to work when my DS was 6m old. Happy ever after.:T

P.S. personally I feel it is fair the way it was worked out as we didn't share any bills until he moved in but from that day on we split everything 50/50 i.e. utility bills, food shopping, joint account etc