What has my partner got to do with it?

kelloggs36

alwaysonthego wrote: »

Sexual relations do form part of the criteria for deciding whether someone is a couple for benefits purposes. Although you rightly say they are not allowed to ask if a couple is having a sexual relationship, it does form a small part of the criteria.

11045 All factors of their relationship have to be considered. The significance of each factor
can only be determined in the context of all of the factors with none being decisive.
There is more to the determination than the cold, observable facts. The
characteristics of the relationship of husband and wife may include

1

•

mutual love

•

faithfulness

•

public acknowledgement

•

sexual relations

•

shared surname

•

children

•

endurance

•

stability

•

interdependence

• devotion.

DMs should consider

1.

the sexual relationship of the two people1

2.

the relationship of the two people concerning money2

3. the general relationship of the two people3.

Sexual relationship

11049 A sexual relationship is an important part of a marriage and therefore of LTAHAW
and thus of LTACP. But evidence of a sexual relationship does not, on its own,
mean that two people should be thought of as LTAHAW or LTACP. Similarly two

people may be LTAHAW1 or LTACP without having a sexual relationship1.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ch11-23254.pdf

Thanks for that. When I worked there we were told that it was disregarded because they can't ask and also because many married couples don't actually have a sexual relationship, so it is an irrelevant question. So even if they don't have sex, it doesn't mean they aren't in a relationship.

kelloggs36

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

When does it become their responsibility? 3 months? 6 months? A year? 2 Years? 5 years etc? I think its unfair that if you start a relationship with someone you share a house with (amongst others) that they would be expected to support you. IMO as long as you have separate finances, pay for everything seperately, don't eat /shop together etc then why should you be counted?

AHAW should only really be implied if the couple are living like a married couple, i.e they (and only they) live in a house together, have one bedroom between the two and eat,shop,cook etc together.

I would hate for anyone else to have to be financially responsible for me. I have problems with money.As it is they'd have a hard enough time with the emotional support that i need constantly. I'm a burden enough as it is without adding financial woes on top.

At the point that you start to live in a house together is the time when you should be able to rely on another person financially if needs be and as such, when you should be sharing the costs of living in the same household.

Soubrette

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

When does it become their responsibility? 3 months? 6 months? A year? 2 Years? 5 years etc? I think its unfair that if you start a relationship with someone you share a house with (amongst others) that they would be expected to support you. IMO as long as you have separate finances, pay for everything seperately, don't eat /shop together etc then why should you be counted?

Could you really be a couple if you followed all the above though?

Sou

alwaysonthego_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Thanks for that. When I worked there we were told that it was disregarded because they can't ask and also because many married couples don't actually have a sexual relationship, so it is an irrelevant question. So even if they don't have sex, it doesn't mean they aren't in a relationship.

It's almost a contradiction, though I suppose they are covering every eventuality!

System

Soubrette wrote: »

Could you really be a couple if you followed all the above though?

Sou

I know people who follow it just fine.

Zara33

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

I know people who follow it just fine.

Just for the purpose of benefits i bet.

seven-day-weekend

kelloggs36 wrote: »

A sexual relationship does NOT form part of the criteria for deciding whether a person is living together as husband and wife for benefit purposes - they are not allowed to ask such questions, but other factors already described do form the criteria; whether you socialise together, whether you eat together, whether you cook for eachother etc.

....although my son and his (male) lodger do these things.....they were friends before the lodger moved in.

They are in no way a 'couple' (my son has a girlfriend) but I suspect they might have a bit of a hard time proving it for Benefits purposes if those are the criteria they go on.

Not simple is it?.

AsknAnswer

AHAW should only really be implied if the couple are living like a married couple, i.e they (and only they) live in a house together, have one bedroom between the two and eat,shop,cook etc together.

It is already, with the exception of them living alone in the house, and disregarding the number of bedrooms. A couple can be married and still have a lodger. A couple can live in a property and not share a bedroom. Sex is only one area of a partnership, it's not the be all and end all. When deciding if a couple are LTAHAW a whole host of factors is considered, which is exactly the point I was getting at.

It is unreasonable to live as a couple, with every (or almost every) aspect of married life yet not be willing to support each other financially.

bestpud

I think the answer to my question is:

I'm old fashioned!

People are happy to share a home, a bed, important decisions, food, holidays, leisure time, support each other through ups and downs in life...

but not part with any cash to help their loved one out when times are hard!?

What a great society we have! :eek:

Somerset

Soubrette wrote: »

Because heads they win, tails you lose

There are many examples of the government assessing people in different ways by different departments depending on how the government's income can be increased.

Sou

I know

Hence people work the system, whether it's benefits, tax or any other.