What am I missing?

Soubrette

beanjay1 wrote: »

Soubrette. Which of your questions makes this “wheeze” illegal? Is it against the law to do any of those things with anyone, a lodger or a girlfriend?
By the way, what is a “wheeze” and how did the people who “thought it up” get on?
bean

From the benefits point of view if you do all/most of these things with your lodger then they would define that lodger as your partner, add to that list, taking holidays with them .

I think you are confusing the Law with the definitions and guidelines used by the benefits office. The law has no interest in what you call the person who lives with you - the benefits people do.

I had a friend who lived with an ex partner - she could not claim housing or certain other benefits because as far as the benefits people were concerned she could not prove he was an ex partner (it was only a one bedroomed place and he was on the sofa) and so they would only assume he was a partner. This was about 20 years ago.

Jowo_2

Don't conflate the tax system with the benefits system. That's where you are going wrong.

The Rent a room scheme gives a landlord a tax free income of up to £4250. If you had a non-close relative move in, you could charge them rent but this would affect your means tested benefits despite this tax free threshold because you are obliged to declare all income from any sources.

As the person moving in is your partner, under the benefits system, her income is used when calculating your means tested benefits - the rent a room scheme is a completely separate scheme. If she was on benefits instead of earning, you could not apply for housing benefit because she is living in the same property as her partner and HB isn't payable under those circumstances.

beanjay1

Thanks for the responses. I will look a bit closer at this. I said in my opening post that I must be missing something.

bean

healy

beanjay1 wrote: »

Thanks for the responses. I will look a bit closer at this. I said in my opening post that I must be missing something.

bean

What you are missing is as said, to rent a room to your girlfriend and to claim that you were not a couple would be fraud.

AnxiousMum

You're missing the fact that you have been given the answers above, you just don't like them!

themonkeybutler

Compliance officers must love bread and butter cases of fraud like this. Makes their day a lot easier!

Hammyman

themonkeybutler wrote: »

Compliance officers must love bread and butter cases of fraud like this. Makes their day a lot easier!

Indeed. My brother spends a good portion of his working week doing just that. The thing is though that once he's finished with them, all the information is forwarded on to DWP so they can have a go as well. Likewise, if DWP find someone screwing them, they pass the info onto my brothers department.

gambler00

themonkeybutler wrote: »

Compliance officers must love bread and butter cases of fraud like this.

Erm, who exactly has committed a fraud here?

As far as I can tell he was simply asking a hypothetical question.

themonkeybutler

gambler00 wrote: »

Erm, who exactly has committed a fraud here?

As far as I can tell he was simply asking a hypothetical question.

Which if he carried out would be fraud. Jesus, does every post on here have to be twelve paragraphs long explaining the various connotations of each post, or can we just assume the obvious meaning from now on please? When cases like this DO arise, they are bread and butter for compliance officers. Is that better?

gambler00

themonkeybutler wrote: »

Which if he carried out would be fraud. Jesus, does every post on here have to be twelve paragraphs long explaining the various connotations of each post, or can we just assume the obvious meaning from now on please? When cases like this DO arise, they are bread and butter for compliance officers. Is that better?

Yes, because now it is an accurate, rather than a potentially libellous/offensive, statement.