What has my partner got to do with it?

Angel89_2

dookar wrote: »

Angel, enjoying sex with another person does not make you a member of their household.

if you live together you will be classed as it though.

even if you are just a male and female flatmate the benefits service will try and class you as a couple unless you know how to fight your corner.

dookar

Angel89 wrote: »

if you live together you will be classed as it though.

even if you are just a male and female flatmate the benefits service will try and class you as a couple unless you know how to fight your corner.

Stop being ridiculous, it makes you look.. um.. ridiculous

sp1987

bestpud wrote: »

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:

I agree with you with regard to ''hard times'' and I would support my partner if he were in financial difficulties or expect him to support me in the same circumstance. However, during the ''good times'' I would not want to pool finances and I know he feels the same. I like knowing what is mine and what I can spend on items I choose without having to justify them. I know he likes having his own money too. We can, free of guilt, buy whatever we are able to personally afford. As far as our relationship is concerned, it is the best way for us as we never disagree about it. We only ''join'' financially to split bills 50/50. I would never want to have a joint bank account, for example. I think whatever works for a couple is best. We are all different. :T

With that said, I would have no interest in trying to claim we were not a couple for benefit purposes, so I guess how we choose to conduct our finances outside that is up to us, lol.

I think provided people do not wish to get the state to support them over a partner resident in their home then how people wish to manage their finances is entirely their own choice.

I think the OP was asking a question and some replies went a lot further than just telling her she could not claim. By the same token, I would hope that whichever of us stays home with our child would not be classed as a lazy gold digger lol.

Also, why can this angel not write fewer than 500 words per reply? Is he on a minimum word quota? :rotfl:

bestpud

sp1987 wrote: »

I think provided people do not wish to get the state to support them over a partner resident in their home then how people wish to manage their finances is entirely their own choice.

By the same token, I would hope that whichever of us stays home with our child would not be classed as a lazy gold digger lol.

Also, why can this angel not write fewer than 500 words per reply? Is he on a minimum word quota? :rotfl:

I think that's the crux of it really - a true partnership may work this way, but each person would be prepared to alter the arrangement if circumstances changed for one or both of them.

The problem comes when people think the state should step in instead of the partner.

As for the long posts by angel - they need to get in as many words as possible before they are banned!

Angel89_2

Why would i be banned?

The tips ive given will help ALOT of people, without breaking the law.

hippy-chicy

Yes yes ..... so you seem to think angel89, although i have to say your so called advice is more than likely to lead people right into the middle of a fraud investigation !!

Angel89_2

hippy-chicy wrote: »

Yes yes ..... so you seem to think angel89, although i have to say your so called advice is more than likely to lead people right into the middle of a fraud investigation !!

lol

They can be investigated as many times as the government wants to.

But they aren't committing any illegal acts though,
and so no matter how much the benefits office workers may hate to have to do it and may know inside that they person only put themself in that situation to enhance their benefits,
theres ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that they can do about it except pay the full amount which they are now entitled to. :rolleyes::A

dookar

Angel89 wrote: »

lol

They can be investigated as many times as the government wants to.

But they aren't committing any illegal acts though,
and so no matter how much the benefits office workers may hate to have to do it and may know inside that they person only put themself in that situation to enhance their benefits,
theres ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that they can do about it except pay the full amount which they are now entitled to. :rolleyes::A

Seriously, what?

Angel89_2

which part dont you understand?

sp1987

Angel89 wrote: »

lol

They can be investigated as many times as the government wants to.

But they aren't committing any illegal acts though,
and so no matter how much the benefits office workers may hate to have to do it and may know inside that they person only put themself in that situation to enhance their benefits,
theres ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that they can do about it except pay the full amount which they are now entitled to. :rolleyes::A

I did not know the Daily Mail had started giving out free law degrees along with all their usual hype and spin. How many tokens did you need?

If I was you I would be paying very close attention to the FA 2006. Alternatively you could claim it does not apply to you as you found x, y, z stranger to move into your house who is not sharing a room with you but is living in the same room as you on a camp bed next to your bed. You ''reckon'' you can sublet somebody elses property because you fancy it and everyone with a child is some sort of fancy free plonker with no idea how to support themselves. Pmsl, if you are being serious about all this you need to be getting some sort of medical help before you lose the plot.