Jsa and living seperatly

lataniakn

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Not when they are claiming state benefits it's not!

Don't worry. If its not legit, I'm not going there. I'm one of the few people that always get caught with their fingers in the biscuit tin. It was my whole reason for asking, to find out if it was ok, but obviously not. The whole financial and job situation is driving a huge wedge between us so it may not even be an issue much longer....

lataniakn

terryw wrote: »

The main criteria is if there is a financial relationship or not. If the OP's friend lives at a completely separate address to which he contibutes financially then it is most unlikely that the government departments involved in the administration of benefits would ever contend or prove that they were living together as husband and wife when they are obviously not.

I pay for absolutly everything.

alwaysonthego_2

terryw wrote: »

The main criteria is if there is a financial relationship or not. If the OP's friend lives at a completely separate address to which he contibutes financially then it is most unlikely that the government departments involved in the administration of benefits would ever contend or prove that they were living together as husband and wife when they are obviously not.

Actually yes they do look at a financial relationship but there is other criteria too! Many married couples have seperate finances.

Maybe governmental departments won't check the couple's situation, but if they are reported then what? As Nasa says it is morally wrong!

Bogof_Babe

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Not when they are claiming state benefits it's not!

This is one of the criteria that the DWP look at whether the couple have a sexual relationship.

I agree, where the couple are still living together - this prevents them pretending to be flat mates or a lodger. With separate addresses though, surely it's a different matter.

I'd be careful about the nights spent together all the same. Perhaps best to avoid having any at all for the time being. I can see how that would be interpreted as still being a couple LTAMAW. And rightly so, tbh.

Edit: The reason I'm being a bit more open minded about this than usual is I don't see how else they are meant to manage, given that he is looking unsuccessfully for work, and she already has a nearly full time job.

ceridwen

I would think its down basically to shared financial arrangements - whose name or names are down for paying the mortgage/rent/who pays the bills/etc.

Back - AGES ago - when I became unemployed (whilst having a steady boyfriend who often stayed over) - I just took the view that it was only my flat and my bills and we werent married/living together - and just took the precaution of him not staying more than a certain number of nights per week (back then - I think there was a criteria of not more than 4 nights per week - but I dont know if thats still used or no these days). I never had any problem - or worried about one.

When I had lodgers for a while - I wondered what would happen if either of us became unemployed for a while. I never did - one of them did for a while. But there wasnt a problem - as we both knew they were only sharing my house - not half a couple with me and I was just going to state "They have their own bedroom/the house and bills are mine alone and heres their rent book for you to see that they are just a lodger". No problems with that either - though admitted they had never been a boyfriend to me in the first place - they really WERE just lodgers.

I cant see how anyone could possibly "prove" that someone was your "partner" if you werent sharing the same roof. How could you possibly be "partners" in those circumstances anyway? There is a world of difference between staying the night a couple of times a week and being "partners" (ie husband and wife - apart from the lack of a marriage ceremony IYSWIM).

I can sympathise with worries about being made to financially support someone else - as far as I am concerned "I pay for me/they pay for themselves = end of story". On the low income I'm on its been a continual struggle to manage anyway - its just been a question of how much of a struggle at any given point in time. I certainly cant afford to support someone else and never could have (even at my highest-paid point - as that was still low). I must confess that the whole idea that the DWP would expect me either to support someone else (despite not being able to afford to) on the one hand or be supported by someone else (if I was the one who lost my job) on the other hand - has had a very offputting effect on whether I was prepared to even try living with someone. I simply couldnt afford to take the risk that I would be made to pay someone else's living expenses - just because I had a relationship with them.

I often think a lot of the country's housing problems would be solved overnight if:
a. the D.W.P. accepted that we are each financially responsible for ourselves and its not relevant to consider someone ELSE's financial circumstances before deciding whether we are entitled to our OWN benefit money if we need it.
b. pre-marital contracts were automatic before people started living together/got married and enforced by the Courts (so no-one could use the fact that they used to live with/be married to someone as an excuse to commit legally-sanctioned theft against them).

I am sure there would be a lot more people prepared to live together/get married if they werent worried that either the State or a (by now former) partner/spouse might have a go at their finances if they could because they shared/share a roof with someone else. I certainly wouldnt have been nearly so insistent that I HAVE to have a house of my own all to myself and stay single - as I wouldnt have needed to do that to protect my finances from anyone (but, as it is, I didnt dare take the risk of having no income if I became unemployed - or someone stealing half my house from me because they used to live with me).

lataniakn

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Edit: The reason I'm being a bit more open minded about this than usual is I don't see how else they are meant to manage, given that he is looking unsuccessfully for work, and she already has a nearly full time job.

Well, there is a slighly wider picture. I'm not making excuses for him he has very limited skills and has hardly worked other than that part time job which, at the time, paid the electric and phone. The fact that he has hardly worked and I work 40 hours has caused me a lot of resentment and has driven a massive wedge between us. The moving back to his mothers isn't only a suggestion to make things work financially but I'm hoping the break/seperation/living apart would maybe work for us in other ways (or not, who knows). So the suggestion wasn't only for financial purposes.

alwaysonthego_2

I suggest anyone who wants to know who is classed as a couple for benefit purposes should read the CPAG book found at your local library or CAB. I have read the paragraph where it describes couples living apart but still classed as a couple.

I am very surprised that posters are condoning a couple who live together wanting to live seperately so they can claim benefits.

pipkin71

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I agree, where the couple are still living together - this prevents them pretending to be flat mates or a lodger. With separate addresses though, surely it's a different matter.

I'd be careful about the nights spent together all the same. Perhaps best to avoid having any at all for the time being. I can see how that would be interpreted as still being a couple LTAMAW. And rightly so, tbh.

Edit: The reason I'm being a bit more open minded about this than usual is I don't see how else they are meant to manage, given that he is looking unsuccessfully for work, and she already has a nearly full time job.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you Bogof.

I could understand if the couple gave a seperate address for the boyfriend but he continued to live with the OP, but they are considering a change in their relationship, which I don't feel constitutes fraud.

OP, personally, I don't think you are committing a crime by no longer living together, and it may be the only way to save your relaionship.

Bogof_Babe

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Actually yes they do look at a financial relationship but there is other criteria too! Many married couples have seperate finances.

Maybe governmental departments won't check the couple's situation, but if they are reported then what? As Nasa says it is morally wrong!

But even if it's morally wrong, what other solution is there? As I've already said, I don't know what they are expected to do in this set of circs.

lataniakn

Maybe a trip to the local CAB is my best way forward. Many thanks to everyone.