Single parent benefit, can this be right?

emsywoo123

robpw2 wrote: »

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

I do not think the issue is single mothers claiming benefits, I think the problem lies with the benefits PLUS maintenance! :eek:
However, 2 sides of the coin: theoretically, I was entitled to CM, but it was paid hugely sporadically and therefore I could not rely on it, but it WAS taken into account for my benefits, so I lost out financially both ways

lovetowinacar

divastrop wrote: »

I assume they are not his children then ?

Of course they are his children (and hers) and that is why he is paying all the bills (but she is still claiming full benefits on top) so no matter how much he pays makes no difference to the benefits she gets.
He has lost his marriage, his children, his home and his car and lives on a sofa at a friends to enable her to live her life.. and find herself ....

He also has them every weekend (at my parents home) so she can go out and works shifts so either picks up from school or takes them dependant on his hours - he wants to see his children and happy to pay for them but seems odd that she can take take take and still claim claim claim - that is the point the country cannot afford individuals like this

It should go back to the old system where money from parents is deducted from benefits - imagine the number of households that are claiming benefits that have split up and ALSO get a full benefits package - very expensive to maintain

Killmark

robpw2 wrote: »

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

Nothing stops you registering a case with the CSA and then they will deal with the partner, recieve the maintenance and send it directly to the PWC.

lovetowinacar

divastrop wrote: »

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.

I totally agree - and when an ex partner is a good father (he didn't want to split but she wants a party single lifestyle) the state should not also pay - this keeps HER in clothing and pays for her lifestyle it doesn't pay for the children - it seems to positively encourage splitting up which is strange - she also stated how easy it is to get benefits and how much MORE money she has to spend now on benefits - a real crazy system where she has more money to blow now she is a single mum

Mojisola

felicity1 wrote: »

My brother pays EVERY outgoing, nothing has changed in their financial situation, only their living arrangments?

The ball is in his court - it's no good complaining that she is living the high life on his money and her benefits while still paying so much.

Jowo_2

My understanding is that a single parent of 2 children without savings above 16k (though elibility increases as it taps down to 6k savings) generally qualifies for full council tax rebate, Local Housing Allowance/Housing Benefit (if renting), sometimes free school meals/school travel/prescriptions, income support of £65 per week, tax credits of around £100, child benefit of approx £35. Contributions made by the Non resident parent (CSA) aren't counted.

Therefore a single parent with 2 children generally has the major bills taken care of (CT/LHA if renting) and an income of £200 per week in benefits, plus all the CSA that the NRP pays.

Jowo_2

lovetowinacar wrote: »

I totally agree - and when an ex partner is a good father (he didn't want to split but she wants a party single lifestyle) the state should not also pay - this keeps HER in clothing and pays for her lifestyle it doesn't pay for the children - it seems to positively encourage splitting up which is strange - she also stated how easy it is to get benefits and how much MORE money she has to spend now on benefits - a real crazy system where she has more money to blow now she is a single mum

Your friend should see a solicitor experienced in family law/divorce to understand the position on his wife's claim for maintenance and share in the house. He should post details of his income and arrangements on the Child Support board for advice on how to come to an arrangement that also suits him without depriving his kids.

How old is his youngest child? Originally there was no obligation for a single parent to seek work until their youngest reached 10, this autumn it was being reduced to 7 but the most recent budget said the parent would be required to transfer from IS to JSA when their youngest started school (5) but I don't know when this ruling takes effect.

felicity1

Originally Posted by felicity1
My brother pays EVERY outgoing, nothing has changed in their financial situation, only their living arrangments?

The ball is in his court - it's no good complaining that she is living the high life on his money and her benefits while still paying so much.
Who said he's complaining? He's just trying to do right by his children, whilst trying to ensure that he does not breach current government rules regarding claiming welfare.

But guess he's in a minority.

DX2

felicity1 wrote: »

Hi, just want some advice please, my brother has separated from his wife. He has moved out into temporary accommodation, but the financial position has not changed in that he still pays all mortgage/utilities/council tax/food, etc.

He tells me today that his wife is now claiming a 'single mother's' benefit and can get free prescriptions (she needs new crowns doing), free school meals etc. I am trying to advise him because I am worried they may have been awarded this benefit by mistake - nothing has changed in that he still pays all bills, they were not eligible for any benefits before the split except ctc. He earns around £32,000. Any advice gratefully received, I don't want him getting into trouble with the Revenue, etc!

Tia,

Why is he still paying all the bills? That is why she gets benefits! Not sure how things go regarding the mortgage but he needs to stop paying all these extras.

Maybe he needs to have a look at the CSA website to see what he is actually liable to pay.

divastrop

lovetowinacar wrote: »

Of course they are his children (and hers) and that is why he is paying all the bills (but she is still claiming full benefits on top) so no matter how much he pays makes no difference to the benefits she gets.
He has lost his marriage, his children, his home and his car and lives on a sofa at a friends to enable her to live her life.. and find herself ....

He also has them every weekend (at my parents home) so she can go out and works shifts so either picks up from school or takes them dependant on his hours - he wants to see his children and happy to pay for them but seems odd that she can take take take and still claim claim claim - that is the point the country cannot afford individuals like this

It should go back to the old system where money from parents is deducted from benefits - imagine the number of households that are claiming benefits that have split up and ALSO get a full benefits package - very expensive to maintain

you said he babysits so I assumed they weren't his children as usually it's only abusive,controlling men who claim they are 'babysitting' their own children. Apart from that I totally agree with you!