Surely she can't actually do this?

Ancilla

I have mentioned this site - I think it was really helpful to me when Ex left and I didn't really know what to do.

We haven't talked about it since so I'm hoping she isn't going to ask again! Although I find it really unbelieveable she could actually carry it all out and get the money she's after. Absolutely terriffying that it's actually possible. :eek::eek::eek:

Indie_Kid

But 2 living apart (regardless of living on benefits or working) is more expensive.

Ancilla

SandC wrote: »

Yeah just let her get on with it. His bills will swamp debt repayment and probably wouldn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

What she hasn't considered is that either one of them might like the arrangement after all and the split becomes permanent. If it's because she likes her new lifestyle so much he could become difficult in paying maintenance and helping towards the debt. You said 'she' is in debt to £15,000 - if they are not married then he isn't liable for that debt so that would be down to her if he scarpers. He could meet another woman, set up home with her.

Whatever happens it would never be as straight forward as she thinks.

I think the debt is a joint thing really. They are the kind of people who buy new cars on finance of hundreds per month, both have platinum gym membership, lots of holidays, really nice stuff in their house etc. I think it's just from overspending a bit each month. No idea who has it in what name etc but I don't think he'd run off - she very much runs it all herself if you get my meaning. She's the boss! I do think it's mean to send him off though. I always say they are like Richard and Hyacinth Bucket/Bouquet!

PasturesNew

You should have just said in a sultry voice " oooh ... you must let me have his address .... I can pop over and make sure he's OK for you".

That'd stop her.

sassyblue

PasturesNew wrote: »

You should have just said in a sultry voice " oooh ... you must let me have his address .... I can pop over and make sure he's OK for you".

That'd stop her.

excellent! :rotfl:

MERFE

I know we would also be financially better off living separately, only from working out if I would be ok when it was a real possibility that we would split. I would have the same coming into the house as currently does then OH would have his whole wage minus maintenance and so long as he wasn't trying to rent a 3 bed semi like we currently live in he would be better off too. I was actually really surprised by how low the maintenance payments are, leaves OH with plenty and means I'll get more in housing benefit tax credits etc, I think the maintenance should be higher personally, it might leave OH a tight budget but then he would be supporting his kids more rather than the tax payer. Not really relevant to us anymore as we sorted ourselves out.

vaio

sh1305 wrote: »

But 2 living apart (regardless of living on benefits or working) is more expensive.

It’s really only housing costs they will gain if you think about it…

High earning husband, non earning wife, couple of kids and a mortgage of £1k or £2k per month.

If he leaves she will get enough benefit money to live on and to pay the bulk of the mortgage. He will have to pay rent on the cheapest grotty bed-sit he can find and can pop home regularly to [STRIKE]eat and get his washing done[/STRIKE] see the children.

It gets even more profitable if he can go somewhere where he doesn’t need to pay rent/council tax i.e. parents or mates

joeblack066

A couple of years ago I was doing a sales job that involved going to peoples houses. I found many young couples living this way, and was appalled. Mum and a couple of kids in the house on full benefits, partner 'lives' at his Mums earning a decent wage. CSA had been told that the Mum was 'too scared' to involve them, and said families had all the trappings of a good lifestyle!
I remember being so proud of my DS2 and his partner and child, who both work full time and have bought a house at 21, all done the legal, ethical and moral way.

nottslass_2

joeblack066 wrote: »

A couple of years ago I was doing a sales job that involved going to peoples houses. I found many young couples living this way, and was appalled. Mum and a couple of kids in the house on full benefits, partner 'lives' at his Mums earning a decent wage. CSA had been told that the Mum was 'too scared' to involve them, and said families had all the trappings of a good lifestyle!
I remember being so proud of my DS2 and his partner and child, who both work full time and have bought a house at 21, all done the legal, ethical and moral way.

Did complete strangers really tell you all their personal details and how they managed to evade CSA involvement ?

Benefits_Bod

If a partner is absent on a temporary basis only (a period of one year may still be temporary) and intends to resume living with the "stay-at-home" claimant, HB/CTB legislation contains a provision that may well have the effect of meaning the absent partner still forms part of the household. That would mean his income would still be taken fully into account.

For the techies, regulation 21 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 potentially applies (there is a parallel provision for CTB).