Single parent benefit, can this be right?

nottslass_2

Breast_Cancer_Survivor wrote: »

in Just because you don't live with someone doesn't mean you are not a couple the eyes of the DWP.

If they spend time together as a family, eat together go shopping together or have a financial connection they can be deemed to be a couple regardless of whether you are married/have kids together.

It not just about being a couple the DWP needs to establish if you are actually "living together as man and wife". You could still be a "couple" but "maintaining separate households."

You could also be living with someone and not be classed as "living together as man and wife".

In other words you need to be having a relationship with someone and be living together.

Even the DWP knows that most people establish a relationship before deciding to set up home together.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

nottslass wrote: »

It not just about being a couple the DWP needs to establish if you are actually "living together as man and wife". You could still be a "couple" but "maintaining separate households."

You could also be living with someone and not be classed as "living together as man and wife".

In other words you need to be having a relationship with someone and be living together.

Even the DWP knows that most people establish a relationship before deciding to set up home together.

I know from personal experience as I was investigated for benefit fraud last year after I met my bf.

I was asked whether he ever stayed over, ate with us, went shopping with me, paid for anything as those are the criteria for living together as man & wife not whether you actually are.

The op's brother isn't actually living with his wife but I suspect that the DWP wouldn't care as he is still financially tied to his wife, the op even stated that they go on holiday together as a family.

It's murky water as the DWP will view each case individually but if the op's sister in law is reported she could well find herself in big trouble.

Killmark

felicity1 wrote: »

I agree with the post above, seems too easy to claim, surely families up and down the country would be doing this? Or maybe they are!

If you do some searches on this forum and the net you'll find a number of posts made by "single" parents who have come unstuck when people have reported them for having a partner who contributes to their household but lives apart.....

.....except for the 2-3 nights when they stay over, because thats ok right?

Um well no not if they are deemed by the DWP to be a couple.

But in this case I can give you a similar scenario to the origional post.

You have a couple whereby one of them is working for a company and has to relocate to another part of the UK for 6 months but might visit the family home once a month and continues to support the partner and children, whilst maintaining a temporary residence near new work place.

The parent who stays behind wouldn't be able to claim as a single parent because in this instance they are a couple living apart.

Killmark

nottslass wrote: »

It not just about being a couple the DWP needs to establish if you are actually "living together as man and wife". You could still be a "couple" but "maintaining separate households."

You could also be living with someone and not be classed as "living together as man and wife".

In other words you need to be having a relationship with someone and be living together.

I'ved bolded the important part.

If you part of a "couple" but but "maintaining separate households" then the key word would be separate.

If you partially maintain the other household then you've become a couple with two households.

divastrop

lovetowinacar wrote: »

He sounds like my brother - he still pays all the bills and she sits on her botty on IS and doesn't have to declare her maintenance - men are treated badly when children involved (financially) and she is out each weekend while he babysits - hope he meets someone nicer next time

I assume they are not his children then ?

divastrop

Back in 2001 when I split with the biological father of my 2 eldest, I was told I would have to declare ANY money I got from him as this could be deducted from my IS. I think it's wrong if the state are supporting children as well as the father, it should be one or the other IMO. Why should a woman who cannot get maintenance from, for example, an abusive ex partner who would pose a risk to the woman/children if he were forced to pay, live soley on IS when a woman who has split amicably with a decent man is allowed to get IS and a substantial amount of maintenance ( or everything paid for,as in the op's case ) as well? That is unfair.

gorgeousgeorge

von wrote: »

From April 2010 the Social Security Regulations were amended so that all child maintenance is fully disregarded when calculating entitlement to Income Support.
I know of someone who is claiming Income Support and her ex-husband is paying her £1,800.00 per month under the guise of child maintenance, this means it doesn't affect her entitlement to Income Support. She gets the full rate of IS at £65ish per week, child tax credits, plus her rent and council tax paid for her, free school meals and prescriptions, help with dental and optical treatment etc etc. If Mr Cameron wants to know how this country can save money he should have a look at the child maintenance disregard.

So is probably is getting at least another 15 grand a year in benefits minimum.... something definately needs to be sorted out with this ruling... tis disgusting :mad:

tts42010

If single mothers weren't able to claim benefits what would happen if her ex was a tight wad and din not pay the bills or maintenence?

I wish my ex was on 40k! Lol

tigtag02

tts42010 wrote: »

If single mothers weren't able to claim benefits what would happen if her ex was a tight wad and din not pay the bills or maintenence?

I wish my ex was on 40k! Lol

Have you even read this thread?!!

robpw2

tigtag02 wrote: »

Have you even read this thread?!!

yes but not everyone one is in the same lucky situation also what about a women who has escaped domestic violence she is not going to be getitng a penny of anyone else