Who is considered a partner?

Oldernotwiser

BigAunty wrote: »

Are you sure it wasn't a legal loophole, that since they had virtually no legal rights, they weren't classed as a couple for benefit purposes, their relationship simply not recognised by so many institutions?

I recall a same sex couple in the 90s with a joint social housing tenancy getting HB for the unemployed one despite one working and they did not strike me as someone who would have concealed employment income or been shy to declare their relationship. Perhaps the other persons income was too low to make much of an impact.

Unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples not in a civil partnership still have virtually no legal rights but are considered a couple for benefits purposes.

I think that there were many changes around this sort of issue in 1999/2000 so you may well be right about homosexual couples before this period.

dookar

It's only since the introduction of civil partnerships (2004) that same sex couples have been recognised by the benefit system, prior to this they could happily admit to being a couple and still receive benefits as two single people

OP - siblings are a prohibited degree of relationship, simplist way to look at it is could you legally marry or enter into a civil partnership if you so chose? The answer is no, so you can't be LTAHAW/CP

Oldernotwiser

dookar wrote: »

It's only since the introduction of civil partnerships (2004) that same sex couples have been recognised by the benefit system, prior to this they could happily admit to being a couple and still receive benefits as two single people

OP - siblings are a prohibited degree of relationship, simplist way to look at it is could you legally marry or enter into a civil partnership if you so chose? The answer is no, so you can't be LTAHAW/CP

Do you have a link to your first point?

Your second point is a bit misleading because if you were already married or in a civil partnership with someone else you couldn't contract a new legal partnership but you could certainly be considered to be LTAHAW.

ETA

Re your first point, it seems that the law changed in 2005 so I'll edit my earlier post to reflect this. Thanks.

dookar

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Do you have a link to your first point?

ONly from a google search, I posted from my own experience/knowledge, this one seems to be a reasonable explanation

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1370

Just seen your edit - you're right it was enacted in 2005, my memeory ain't that good

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Your second point is a bit misleading because if you were already married or in a civil partnership with someone else you couldn't contract a new legal partnership but you could certainly be considered to be LTAHAW.

This is very true, I was trying to make it as simple as I could whilst being relevant to the question of the nature of the relationship which is key to this thread - but I agree it could easily have been taken to mean what you suggest and that was not my intention Apologies for any misunderstanding

suelees1

The Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005. It allowed same sex couples to obtain legal recognition for their relationship by registering as civil partners. Civil partners were then treated the same as married couples for a wide range of legal matters, including social security benefits and Tax Credits. However if a same-sex couple were living together as a couple and had not entered into a civil partnership, they were still classed as a couple for means-tested benefits and Tax Credits. They would no longer be treated as single individuals for the purpose of benefit and Tax Credit claims. If they were claiming as single individuals they had to lodge new claims from 5th December 2005, assuming they were still entitled.

zagfles

suelees1 wrote: »

The Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005. It allowed same sex couples to obtain legal recognition for their relationship by registering as civil partners. Civil partners were then treated the same as married couples for a wide range of legal matters, including social security benefits and Tax Credits. However if a same-sex couple were living together as a couple and had not entered into a civil partnership, they were still classed as a couple for means-tested benefits and Tax Credits. They would no longer be treated as single individuals for the purpose of benefit and Tax Credit claims. If they were claiming as single individuals they had to lodge new claims from 5th December 2005, assuming they were still entitled.

Yeah I remember all the publicity as the time, that gay people would be able to get all the (relatively trivial) advantages of marriage.

None of the clueless media picked up on the fact that they'd all lose the MUCH bigger advantage of independant benefits, whether or not they choose to enter a civil partnership