Second baby on way, what will benefits be?

welshcakes

I can say that from personal experience, Kellog's statement regarding the rules on having someone over to say just one night a week was certainly in force years ago.

I only know because many yrs ago when my ex husband decided to potter off to be with mistress I rang up benefits in a panic to tentatively ask them what I could do as he had cleaned out bank account and I had been left with 3 little children. He had been threatening me and had moved literally two streets away. I enquired that if I was to temporarily claim until I could arrange a childminder and get a job, would it be ok if my brother who lived about 10 miles away came over once a week to stay on the night that my ex didn't work. I was told it would affect any benefit claim if I did as once a week was a pattern of having another adult in the household.

Obviously there are likely to have been regulation reviews and possibly changes in the interim. Like may rules, if I hadn't happened to ask the question, I would never have known and it isn't an obvious pitfall one would think of. I suspect there are many fine print regulations that we aren't made aware of but as the current fraud advert says, no ifs, no buts ... which is particularly harsh when it comes to these finer points.

black-saturn

Now to constitute as living there the partner has to be sleeping there for 3 nights or more, having all his/her belongings there, be contributing to houshold finances and have all his/her post delivered there.

Zziggi

black-saturn wrote:

Now to constitute as living there the partner has to be sleeping there for 3 nights or more, having all his/her belongings there, be contributing to houshold finances and have all his/her post delivered there.

care to tell us which in which regulation we would find that it is 3 nights or more please?

black-saturn

Zziggi wrote:

care to tell us which in which regulation we would find that it is 3 nights or more please?

It's if they spend more propertion of the time in one place than another. You will find the info on Google.

Zziggi

black-saturn wrote:

It's if they spend more propertion of the time in one place than another. You will find the info on Google.

Anyone can post !!!!!! on the internet and then a google search can find it.

I meant a regulation number or info on a DWP site that states what you are saying to the info can be verified and checked - not just 'common sense' answers (since when has the DWP used common sense?). This issue comes up AGAIN and AGAIN. Some spout it's 3 nights a week, some spout it is any nights that form a pattern over a number of weeks. A former DWP investigator has stated it is one night so i am interested to know where you get reliable info that it is 3 nights?

jo_b_2

black-saturn wrote:

Now to constitute as living there the partner has to be sleeping there for 3 nights or more, having all his/her belongings there, be contributing to houshold finances and have all his/her post delivered there.

Sorry black-saturn, this is another 'urban myth'. There is not, and never has been, a '3 night rule'. It is still widely believed but there is no reference to this rule in any benefit legislation or policies.

(If I am proved wrong, I would be delighted to see a link for any policy/guidance/regulation which states this as it would be very useful in terms of advice for some of the people I work with.)

welshcakes

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/ccm15150.htm

"CCM15150 - Undisclosed Partners: Reasons for Failure To Report A Partner
Claimants may offer a range of reasons or excuses for their failure to report the existence of a partner. These may include:
S/he does not stay here all of the time – see CCM15073.
S/he lives at another address but uses my address as a post box – see CCM15075.
I thought s/he could stay 3 nights a week without it affecting my entitlement.
S/he does not give me any money, or payments are not regular – see CCM15090.
S/he is not the mother/father of my child (ren).
S/he is a lodger – see CCM15070.
S/he is just a friend.
It is hard being a single parent.
The Government does not pay people like me enough.
The rules on income are not fair.
We do not have a sexual relationship – see CCM15120.
The 3 nights rule is a popular misconception. No such legal loophole exists. If a suspected partner spends 3 nights with the claimant on a regular basis, s/he may be a member of an established couple. Also, the children’s parentage is not, in isolation, reliable evidence.

You will need to explain to the claimant the criteria which we use to determine whether they are living together as husband and wife or living together as civil partners – see CCM15040. You will then need to establish the facts by considering all the evidence from all legally available sources, including the claimant.

Zziggi

welshcakes wrote:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/ccm15150.htm

"CCM15150 - Undisclosed Partners: Reasons for Failure To Report A Partner
Claimants may offer a range of reasons or excuses for their failure to report the existence of a partner. These may include:
S/he does not stay here all of the time – see CCM15073.
S/he lives at another address but uses my address as a post box – see CCM15075.
I thought s/he could stay 3 nights a week without it affecting my entitlement.
S/he does not give me any money, or payments are not regular – see CCM15090.
S/he is not the mother/father of my child (ren).
S/he is a lodger – see CCM15070.
S/he is just a friend.
It is hard being a single parent.
The Government does not pay people like me enough.
The rules on income are not fair.
We do not have a sexual relationship – see CCM15120.
The 3 nights rule is a popular misconception. No such legal loophole exists. If a suspected partner spends 3 nights with the claimant on a regular basis, s/he may be a member of an established couple. Also, the children’s parentage is not, in isolation, reliable evidence.

You will need to explain to the claimant the criteria which we use to determine whether they are living together as husband and wife or living together as civil partners – see CCM15040. You will then need to establish the facts by considering all the evidence from all legally available sources, including the claimant.

The above quote is interesting as you can see where the urban myth has come from. See:"If a suspected partner spends 3 nights with the claimant on a regular basis, s/he may be a member of an established couple." So this quote does not fully dismiss the 3-nights arguement. as the word "may" si used. I guess it depends ona numebr of factors and, like black-saturn said, includes whether any belongings are kept at the house or they pay any money to stay there, have post delivered there or the couple are in a sexual relationship (which i understand they are not allowed to ask you directly but evidence you are pregnant and state the person is the father i would guess is pretty strong evidence!)

Graham_Devon

kelloggs36 wrote:

I'm afraid that just because you don't want to give up some of your benefits doesn't meant that the state should provide for you! You say you are in a stable relationship with a man who works and pays a mortgage and he is the father of your unborn child. Is this fact not enough to pursuade you to take the risk? Just because you had a bad experience before, doesn't mean you will again. I believe it is a moral obligation for him to support you properly and by that I mean become a single unit. You don't know until you try. If you did this, you would still get your child benefit and will still qualify for Child Tax credits (unless he earns over 64k per year) so you will still have some money for yourself if you have it paid into your own bank account.

Convo may have moved on since here, but that's the most sensible piece of text I read on here.

Why should they have 2 seperate houses, why should the father be working and paying a mortgage while we, the tax payer looks after the OP's babies?

kelloggs36

[
6) there is no LAW that states that if you have a person of the opposite sex staying over then you are no longer single !!! how silly would that be please ?
Zoe[/QUOTE]

If you are claiming Income support then there is. It is complicated, but they have grounds to investigate and remove a person's benefits IF THE DECICION MAKER decides that certain conditions apply. clearly there are exemptions to this, but you cannot have a g/f or b/f and stay with them and expect the taxpayer to look after the other, which is DEFINATELY the case going on here. And that is the main point.