Someone living with me - Can they stop my money?

Anubis_2

I would imagine your partner is also going to have to prove he did not work too, I am sure they will question on how he has been sustaining himself.

HappyMJ

NASA wrote: »

Was sure I had posted in this thread already saying that for the last 1 year and 8 months the OP has been defrauding the system and will have to pay back the overpayment. Seems to have disappeared though.

I was wondering how much that would be. 2 bed LHA, council tax, JSA or IS, tax credits so I added it up. 2 bed LHA is let's say £104 per week, council tax about £23 per week, IS is £67.50 per week, tax credits about £59.60 per week. Over 1 year and 8 months that's £22,022. Quite a lot to pay back.

Morglin

If the OP was actually due more money, which she hasn't had because of not changing the claim, then the DWP will probably set up what the claim should have been, and pay her the difference, after deducting any monies she shouldn't have had.

They tend to just offset one thing against the other in cases like this.

If there has been no financial advantage to not advising the change of circumstances, they certainly wouldn't class it as 'fraud' - although ANY change of circumstances should always be notified.

Obviously, if the claimant owes the DWP money, it will have to be repaid.

Lin

gnasher18us

If the partner does not work, and is not in receipt of benefits, this implies that they have savings and are not eligible for any assistance?

I wonder why your friend didn't consider the possible consequences of not declaring this situation, and if the non-declaration was intentional?

Anyway, if the above assumption is correct (that the partner does not require State assistance) the overpayment will need to be paid back. All changes of circumstances must be declared to the the Department For Work and Pensions as soon as they happen.

Lady_gaga

Morglin wrote: »

If the OP was actually due more money, which she hasn't had because of not changing the claim, then the DWP will probably set up what the claim should have been, and pay her the difference, after deducting any monies she shouldn't have had.

They tend to just offset one thing against the other in cases like this.

If there has been no financial advantage to not advising the change of circumstances, they certainly wouldn't class it as 'fraud' - although ANY change of circumstances should always be notified.

Obviously, if the claimant owes the DWP money, it will have to be repaid.

Lin

I doubt this would happen, if the OP had her partner living with her then she wasn't a single parent and if he wasn't working then he could have been looking after the child while she was, however he must have been doing something to support himself so it was either earnings or savings, but they probably have no way to prove what he's been living off so I doubt very much they would just off set it and not take any kind of action against her...

Macro_3

Morglin wrote: »

If the OP was actually due more money, which she hasn't had because of not changing the claim, then the DWP will probably set up what the claim should have been, and pay her the difference, after deducting any monies she shouldn't have had.

They tend to just offset one thing against the other in cases like this.

If there has been no financial advantage to not advising the change of circumstances, they certainly wouldn't class it as 'fraud' - although ANY change of circumstances should always be notified.

Obviously, if the claimant owes the DWP money, it will have to be repaid.

Lin

Housing and Council Tax Benefits would certainly do this, so as long as the partner had no income, and capital below the prescribed limit then they would not be affected (that is, the underlying entitlement would offset any overpayment).

Not sure how this would work for IS though. The OP would not meet the conditions of entitlement for income support as she was not a single parent. If she had declared the partner her entitlement to IS would have been nil, not more. One of the couple would have been expected to seek work and claim JSA. As they have not been looking for work, though, they don't meet the conditions for JSA either. I think the IS will have been overpaid to be honest.

Ditto the tax credits. As far as I am aware they have no concept of underlying entitlement in situations like these.

It would be surprising if the partner had genuinely had no income for 18 months.

Arg

NASA wrote: »

Was sure I had posted in this thread already saying that for the last 1 year and 8 months the OP has been defrauding the system and will have to pay back the overpayment. Seems to have disappeared though.

Probably because it was a moronic comment. Infact it probably costs more to enforce unnecessary rules like this than it saves and promotes splitting up couples at the same time.

Cornish_piskie

Morglin wrote: »

If the OP was actually due more money, which she hasn't had because of not changing the claim, then the DWP will probably set up what the claim should have been, and pay her the difference, after deducting any monies she shouldn't have had.

They tend to just offset one thing against the other in cases like this.

If there has been no financial advantage to not advising the change of circumstances, they certainly wouldn't class it as 'fraud' - although ANY change of circumstances should always be notified.

Obviously, if the claimant owes the DWP money, it will have to be repaid.

Lin

This makes me so cross - the other day there was a thread here where someone got to keep well in excess of £1000 of overpaid money due to a clerical error by Tax Credits and then someone who blatantly witheld information might have no action at all taken against them and could possibly be paid even more if it turns out they would have got more money by claiming correctly :mad:

Bakes my noodles that does

Lady_gaga

Arg wrote: »

Probably because it was a moronic comment. Infact it probably costs more to enforce unnecessary rules like this than it saves and promotes splitting up couples at the same time.

Can you clarify what you mean by your comment, what is an unnecessary rule?

peainapod

When you go to your interview, tell the absolute truth and nothing else. Explain exactly what has happened, tell them everything they want to know, and be honest, this is your best option right now, if you feed them more lies and they find out down the line then you'll really be in a pickle. Did it not occur to you that moving someone into your home when you claim as a SINGLE parent was wrong ? Gather any evidence you have (paperwork, tenancy agreement etc) and you're new partner will also have to prove that he hasn't been working. If he hasn't been working how did he feed himself ??? He was living off you, off the money that was meant for you and your children. Anyways good luck with it all