Living separately?

gemma1979

I have the names of the advisers date and time of call. There is no writing requirement at law.

I havent even decided what I am doing yet anyway so at the moment all this is moot.

If and when I do decide to choose this option when I go to fill all the forms in I will tell them then and make sure I get it evidenced in writing as although theres no requirement it covers my back in the event of any future dispute x

gemma1979

Shady_Lady wrote: »

In your opinion as I ACTUALLY live in the way this lady is talking about and the LA are more than happy with our living arrangements

And I know many that do!

terryw

Shady_Lady wrote: »

In your opinion as I ACTUALLY live in the way this lady is talking about and the LA are more than happy with our living arrangements

No. The LA are NOT "more than happy with (y)our living arrangements."

Your private affairs are your own - the LA could not care less.

They are very much concerned about people claiming benefit if they are LTAHAW. If your living arrangements do not infringe upon these rules then the LA will indeed pay benefits to one or both of you providing that you fulfil the criteria.

gemma1979

Consider the following scenarios:

1. If I ended the relationship, he moves out, he has his life I have mine - in 6 months time we start dating again but living at totally separate addresses, no joint financial matters, pay our own bills, don't move into one house - is this cohabiting again even though the relationship could end again at any time because the attempt at reconciliation fails?

2. Husband and wife split up divorce or whatever live apart move on with their lives. Few months/years later - same thing as above - begin dating from separate households and separate lives again - again could end again at any time - is this cohabiting?

3. I end relationship, he moves out I meet someone new he has his own house own life own bills own money etc - are we cohabiting if he spends a saturday night at my house? What difference does it make if it is someone I have only just met or someone I have known in the past?

Answer to all the above as per case law: no household community i.e, not cohabitation for benefit purposes

gemma1979

terryw wrote: »

No. The LA are NOT "more than happy with (y)our living arrangements."

Your private affairs are your own - the LA could not care less.

They are very much concerned about people claiming benefit if they are LTAHAW. If your living arrangements do not infringe upon these rules then the LA will indeed pay benefits to one or both of you providing that you fulfil the criteria.

These criteria have been developed by the State/law and there are policy reasons for them; e.g. they do not want to put people off reconciliation attempts to meet the aim of promoting marriage and one thing and another. Whether someone is LTAHAW is a subjective test taking into account many factors (some of which have been discussed above) and merely because you have known someone a certain period of time in a certain capacity and have sexual relations ON THEIR OWN do not constitute cohabitation. This is the law at the present time. There must be community of household (not necessarily under the same roof and taking into account financial matters and many other things) for their to be cohabitation as LTAHAW. There is a Government link posted at the top of this thread - why don't people take the time to read it before commenting because some of the posters obviously havent.

moomoomama27

gemma1979 wrote: »

These criteria have been developed by the State/law and there are policy reasons for them; e.g. they do not want to put people off reconciliation attempts to meet the aim of promoting marriage and one thing and another. Whether someone is LTAHAW is a subjective test taking into account many factors (some of which have been discussed above) and merely because you have known someone a certain period of time in a certain capacity and have sexual relations ON THEIR OWN do not constitute cohabitation. This is the law at the present time. There must be community of household (not necessarily under the same roof and taking into account financial matters and many other things) for their to be cohabitation as LTAHAW. There is a Government link posted at the top of this thread - why don't people take the time to read it before commenting because some of the posters obviously havent.

Then with respect, if you know so much about the different scenarios, why are you asking the question!? Sounds like justification to me.

I think if you are leaving your partner because you've had enough, then why would how many nights he stays even be an issue? Either you are with someone, or you're not!

terryw

gemma1979 wrote: »

Consider the following scenarios:

1. If I ended the relationship, he moves out, he has his life I have mine - in 6 months time we start dating again but living at totally separate addresses, no joint financial matters, pay our own bills, don't move into one house - is this cohabiting again even though the relationship could end again at any time because the attempt at reconciliation fails?

2. Husband and wife split up divorce or whatever live apart move on with their lives. Few months/years later - same thing as above - begin dating from separate households and separate lives again - again could end again at any time - is this cohabiting?

3. I end relationship, he moves out I meet someone new he has his own house own life own bills own money etc - are we cohabiting if he spends a saturday night at my house? What difference does it make if it is someone I have only just met or someone I have known in the past?

Answer to all the above as per case law: no household community i.e, not cohabitation for benefit purposes

I really have to agree with the points that you make. The problem is that there are many many "sham" separations contrived merely to take advantage of the current rules. Consider the number of dwellings which are used merely as "giro drops" (do I need to explain this term?).

From time to time, fraudulent benefit claimants hit the headlines for LTAHAW but many others go undetected or continue because the claimants have the sense not to become financially linked. Think of the kids who do not know if daddy lives there or not?

I honestly wish that there was an easy answer. Many claimants prefer the government to be a more reliable partner than the boy/girlfriend but still wish to have the relationship. Couple this with the financial benefits of "living apart" and it easy to understand the temptation of such a life.

The current benefits system is a stumbling block for many but an attractive life for others. Where do we draw the line? I wish that I knew.

None of my comments above relate to any posters on this thread.

alwaysonthego_2

gemma1979 wrote: »

I have the names of the advisers date and time of call. There is no writing requirement at law.

I havent even decided what I am doing yet anyway so at the moment all this is moot.

If and when I do decide to choose this option when I go to fill all the forms in I will tell them then and make sure I get it evidenced in writing as although theres no requirement it covers my back in the event of any future dispute x

No there is no law that states you have to get it in writing, though unless the call was recorded or case notes were written then it is your word against theirs, this is why I suggest you get it in writing.

gemma1979

moomoomama27 wrote: »

Then with respect, if you know so much about the different scenarios, why are you asking the question!? Sounds like justification to me.

I think if you are leaving your partner because you've had enough, then why would how many nights he stays even be an issue? Either you are with someone, or you're not!

I am merely making the point that you can DATE someone without there being cohabitation. DATING someone is rather different than living together as husband and wife is it not?

You can be 'with' someone in different ways.

And I do not have to justify myself to anyone, except the DWP/LA.

If I am honest with them about the facts then how does this amount to fraud exactly?

And as mentioned above, at present the point is MOOT; this does not mean I am not allowed to find out the facts though does it?

gemma1979

terryw wrote: »

I really have to agree with the points that you make. The problem is that there are many many "sham" separations contrived merely to take advantage of the current rules. Consider the number of dwellings which are used merely as "giro drops" (do I need to explain this term?).

From time to time, fraudulent benefit claimants hit the headlines for LTAHAW but many others go undetected or continue because the claimants have the sense not to become financially linked. Think of the kids who do not know if daddy lives there or not?

I honestly wish that there was an easy answer. Many claimants prefer the government to be a more reliable partner than the boy/girlfriend but still wish to have the relationship. Couple this with the financial benefits of "living apart" and it easy to understand the temptation of such a life.

The current benefits system is a stumbling block for many but an attractive life for others. Where do we draw the line? I wish that I knew.

None of my comments above relate to any posters on this thread.

I completely agree Terry which is why life for the rest of us who are honest with the system is so hard. The problem is, I guess, that on top of many benefit claimants lying to maximise their benefits it is also difficult to prove and also difficult to know where to draw the cut off line - exactly when does dating become cohabitation/ltahaw, at what point? The state finds the answer to this difficult as there are many types of family situations. Maybe they should consider reforming the law - setting down clear rules and cut off points and instead of penalising cohabitation/marriage put some incentives in place??