Horrible experience "customer compliance officer"

RAS

dave

As per usual, the benefit bashers are out in force on MSE.

Unfortunately the benefits system does not understand the concept of financial independence when there is a relationship between two people sharing a house, particularly not if you are not charging full market rent, as this is considered a "contrived" tenanacy.

Oldernotwiser

davejuk wrote: »

Correct.

I thought the fact that we are financially independent would mean she was eligible. Obviously not.

If it was one of my other house mates (a guy) then he would be eligible.

Not if he was your boyfriend and you were letting him live there at a reduced rent.

Vader123

iamana1ias wrote: »

So after 3 years together you're sharing a house, but still have separate rooms? Pull the other one!

I echo this comment.

She got busted. I hope her jobs make it easier to pay back the monies.

Vader

davejuk_2

ceecee1 wrote: »

Out of curiosity - I take it that she has told the jobcentre that she has been working for 10 hours a week? Any earnings over £5 a week should be deducted from her benefit.

Every time she signs on she would have signed a declaration that she has done no work, paid or unpaid - unless she has told them otherwise.

Yes they're aware of her part time job. As previously stated, she only claimed for a matter of weeks and only had the first payment through shortly before the letter from the compliance officer appeared. She's only been paid about £500 for a ~2 month period.

Vader123 wrote: »

I echo this comment.

She got busted. I hope her jobs make it easier to pay back the monies.

Vader

She's only just received the money anyway.

Jowo_2

davejuk wrote: »

I thought the fact that we are financially independent would mean she was eligible. Obviously not.

If it was one of my other house mates (a guy) then he would be eligible.

Yes, the other lodgers (of any sex) are eligible for the shared accommodation rate of LHA, because the social security system does not have any requirement for a landlord to subsidise someone whom they do not have a relationship with.

Jowo_2

RAS wrote: »

...
Unfortunately the benefits system does not understand the concept of financial independence when there is a relationship between two people sharing a house, particularly not if you are not charging full market rent, as this is considered a "contrived" tenanacy.

To be specific, contrived tenancies relate to landlords and tenants, not landlords and lodgers who live in the same property and share amenities.

It's an important distinction because landlords and tenants that are related or in a relationship and live together can never claim housing benefit/LHA. Therefore there is no question of the OPs arrangement being considered a contrived tenancy because LHA is simply not payable and because the OPs partner is a lodger (not a tenant).

Contrived tenancies, from a DWP perspective, is when the tenancy between the landlord and their tenant to whom they are related/in a relationship with (in a property they do not share) is considered to have been set up to exploit the housing benefit system. For example, charging the tenant rent when they are entitled to benefits but not when they are working. It's supposed to be a proper commercial arrangement, so this is why verbal or informal tenancy agreements are not accepted.

The OP's partner is not a tenant in the legal sense. In fact, from the DWP perspective, their lodgers agreement is a complete irrelevance. The regulations that govern HB/LHA make clear that partners who live together are supposed to financially support each other.

Oldernotwiser

davejuk wrote: »

Yes they're aware of her part time job. As previously stated, she only claimed for a matter of weeks and only had the first payment through shortly before the letter from the compliance officer appeared. She's only been paid about £500 for a ~2 month period.



She's only just received the money anyway.

Then she'll have no problems repaying it.

davejuk_2

Yes, thank you for pointing that out.

afc80

you live with your partner, you charge your partner an artificially low rent, she claims Housing Benefit and does not declare that you are her partner.

You do not share a bed she claims state benefits for herself and also gets Housing Benefit.

There is only one outcome, she will have to repay all benefits paid to her and rightly so imo.

When Housing Benefit goes and is replaced by Universal Credit, fraud is going to go through the roof.

The level of checks on rent agreements is non-existent under the current proposals and Universal Credit will make Tax Credits look like an efficiently run benefit.