Need Help! Council had a "tip off" i am living at my girlfriends

Batchy

I had a relationship where the "single mom" was living a nice life, money coming in from benefits, which gave her independance.

I lived at home with my folks in a huge pub, and regularly would go direct from work to hers as home was the opposite direction and a significant distance away.

I didn't live with her, I stayed over a lot. Had no bills there, I paid for nothing, other than entertaining... sometimes brought gifts as you would.

When we went to my house for weekends or even week nights, we both stopped at the pub and had good times for 2 sometimes 3 nights a week.

I offered to move in to hers, pay everything, she flatley refused wanted her independance own money, and wouldn't want me moving in , so could only do it if we brought a house, I suggested me moving in and paying the low cost rent etc, would be a good way for us both to save... she still refused.

It was a flat/stale going nowhere situation, glad im out of it now. She used the situation to be controlling, she cheated on me numerous times as I have now found out, and this is why she had the insecurity about me moving in.

Fortunately things have changed I have a lovely loving partner now (someone new), who means the world to me.

But what can a bloke do when the woman wants it all her own way...?
Independance (supported by government), Vs being supported by your bf/ partner?

I personally think the government make it too easy for single moms to do this, which is why there are so many children who don't even know who there dad is, if they made young moms more responsible and never gave them the life of reily, then we wouldn't have the above problems.

Im sorry if this offends, its not intended to, but im just explaining the situation as I was living at the time.

FoxtonsRIP

I reckon the OP is being economical with the truth. Reading between the lines I reckon he's staying with his girlfriend alot more than 3 nights per week.

amazelucy

benjo wrote: »

What is the source of this information? As far as I know this is a bit of an urban myth and is misleading, you can spend 24/7 in the same house as another person and not be living together as man and wife (two elderly people living together for company yet having seperate finances/meal arrangements), you can spend a year apart and still be living together as man and wife (husband in the forces/working on an oil rig)for the purposes of the benefits agencies.

The Government guidlines published for their own decision makers regarding this sort of situation, either for married people, civil partnerships, people living together as man and wife or those in same sex couples simply says....

that you will be considered a 'couple' if you are living in the 'same household' (note there is no mention of how many nights a week this refers to at this stage).

...
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 live in another household and
2. they both live there regularly, apart from absences necessary for employment, to visit relatives, etc

There is no definition of the word 'regularly', but it could be argued that every saturday night is regular and that the original poster only visits/stays at his parents address due to its proximity to work ie 'apart from abscences necessary for employment'.

Having previously worked in compliance for the inland revenue I do actually have some knowledge thanks! And although this information may not be actually published (for obviously reasons) - the more than 3 nights a week is actually one of the guidelines used to determine whether a person is deemed to be living with someone claiming as a single person.

And we are not talking about elderley people/forces/oil rigs we are talking about a single parent claiming for benefits and whether their partner is living with them or not.

bendix

Awwwwwww .. isnt modern British society a wonderful thing. Hands out for benefits, no acceptance of personal responsibility, living with 'me mam and dad while knocking up me chick.'

We should be proud of ourselves. We really should.

Meanwhile I'll keep working hard and paying so that people can choose to live like this.

Perfect, just bloody perfect.

MORPH3US

bendix wrote: »

Awwwwwww .. isnt modern British society a wonderful thing. Hands out for benefits, no acceptance of personal responsibility, living with 'me mam and dad while knocking up me chick.'

We should be proud of ourselves. We really should.

Meanwhile I'll keep working hard and paying so that people can choose to live like this.

Perfect, just bloody perfect.

:rotfl::rotfl:

Gorgeous_George

Whether or not the OP lives with his GF or not shouldn't matter. He is responsible for the child and should provide a home for his family.

Why TF am I paying?

GG

bendix

MORPH3US wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:

Is it a sign of increasing old age (I'm 44) that I'm more charmed than appalled by the comparison?

:beer:

Batchy

I just dont understand why its right for the government to provide childcare but make it the cost to the parent of going to work in the first place, yet one carer can look after 6 children.

So instead of working and paying childcare, we just pay single mom to stay at home all the time on their own, looking after one child. when the cost is 3 times more? Do we have accountants deciding on this or politicians...

Strange... no?

so would be cheaper to just pay the child carer outright...

bendix

Wouldn't it be kinder to just have a system whereby we categorised people by certain standards - which newspaper they read, for example or whether they preferred spaghetti hoops or fresh vegetables - and then conducted compulsory sterilisation on the idiots?

Anyone found to read newspapers which features SuBo, Jade Goody or Big Brother's latest pair of nonentity breasts on the cover, would be subjected to the snip.

Harsh, perhaps, but some people shouldnt be allowed to breed, let alone vote.

sooz

If it's not true, why would you say the council had a 'tip off'? Surely you'd say it was a false allegation