We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Living together but not a couple

1235»

Comments

  • FBaby
    FBaby Posts: 18,374 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I think YOU missed the point. Of course she can be the one moving, him moving, her moving, who cares, the point is that if they move, then it can be accepted they are not a couple any longer (unless again, the move is purely for the purpose of claiming benefits, it's been suggested here before).

    As for the issue of the bed, are you implying that because of potential health issues with one of them not sleeping in the marital bed, tax payers should fork out hundred of pounds to support them? You are kidding.... they decide to continue to live under the same roof together but don't want to share a bed, they get to Ikea and buy a futon bed, price and comfort to be determined in line with health requirement.
  • Ste_C
    Ste_C Posts: 676 Forumite
    SIMPLES wrote: »
    Like I said. I'm paying for everything for myself. Everything for my kids and their mum. Be it food clothes toys make up etc.

    If she had her own claim atleast she could afford her own ways. I earn too much for her to get anything as a joint claim and just cos I can afford to, doesn't mean I should have to just pay and be taken for a mug.

    Yea, why should you be the mug when the tax payer can be the one paying for your offspring instead?
  • epitome
    epitome Posts: 3,199 Forumite
    FBaby wrote: »
    I think YOU missed the point. Of course she can be the one moving, him moving, her moving, who cares, the point is that if they move, then it can be accepted they are not a couple any longer (unless again, the move is purely for the purpose of claiming benefits, it's been suggested here before).
    They can no longer be a couple and still live under the same roof - fact. You miss the point, read #20. I'm not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of the situation I am only here to tell people what they can and can't claim for. If you want a discussion go to the board called Discussion Time.
    As for the issue of the bed, are you implying that because of potential health issues with one of them not sleeping in the marital bed, tax payers should fork out hundred of pounds to support them? You are kidding.... they decide to continue to live under the same roof together but don't want to share a bed, they get to Ikea and buy a futon bed, price and comfort to be determined in line with health requirement.

    You now appear to be saying that the issue is relevant....make your mind up
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.5K Life & Family
  • 261.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.