Advice please - divorce, partners 'right to money' and Legal Aid fraud

blue_monkey_2

I have a question please, am seeking advice for a friend.

Husband and wife own a house, we'll call his address B.

Earlier this year in June her family 'persueded' her to get a divorce so she applied for Legal Aid and used Address A as if she was a single person with a low paid job so she would have been entitled.

She continued to live at Address B as a couple and lived on husbands money - which is too much to claim LA, even more if you combine her money into the combined family income.

She has massive mental health issues and is very unstable and has absconded with the children, attacked them and her husband many times. He applied for a Residence Order, which he got, she told the court she had left the home because she would never go back to the house as she felt 'unsafe' as he was abusive (he is not BTW, long story but he has police evidence showing he is the abused one and relevant authorities know this).

Yesterday she rolled up with a solicitor letter saying she was entitled to live at address B (he never kicked her out!!) as she owned half the house.

They are now getting a divorce because he has realised that has been abusing him and it is not normal to live the way he has been. However, he has been told he still has to give her money 'to live on' until they are actually separated, he obviously covers all bills, mortgage, etc.. as before. He pays her mobile, car insurance, running costs - basically everything goes through the account which she still has full access to.

However, we are wondering where she stands on getting Legal Aid. Because they are not actually divorced and as she is living there and still has access to his money as they have a joint account. She is claiming she lives at address A on a low income - which is she is not. Rather strangely, the solicitor must know this as well because he has told her to live at address B - but everything is still going through address A.

There is also equity in the house and her husband does not want her to have it as it is not all of hers to use. The LA would apply a charge against the house and this is now building up.

Other things aside, surely claiming LA this way is fraud? Can anyone please advise further. Thank you.

doodoot

Perhaps your friend should seek the advice of a solicitor...advice from here, good as it is, won't be as in-depth and 100% pertinent to your friend.

A lot of solicitors offer the first hour for free, and the CAB can be helpful too.

BitterAndTwisted

Has she ever lived in House A?

While she lives in the family home and they are not formally separated she does have the right to expect to be supported by her spouse, I think. However, I'd be withdrawing access to anything that's not absolutely necessary. She'll be out and having to support herself ere long, so she really should get used to it now. I cannot understand why he hasn't sought legal advice as to how he could have her excluded from the family home if she's an abuser. If your friend was a woman and you'd mentioned the abuse the consensus would have been "Get him out!"

Any equity she might be entitled to is the subject of negotiation as part of the divorce settlement. Presumably she won't be staying in the family home and raising their children with her history of abuse. The equity could be tied up until the last child ceases to be a dependent. A lot depends on each party's resources and needs.

Can't advise on the Legal Aid fraud but I'd be down to the solicitor's for advice before you could say "knife".

zzzLazyDaisy

To answer the question about her living in the house - under the general law, she is joint owner and entitled to live there.

He needs to see a solicitor. He got the residence order for the children for a reason. He probably had a solicitor for that (it isn't a requirement but it is more likely than not). He needs to get the divorce sorted so he can provide a stable home for his children. In the context of divorce, the courts can order a spouse to leave the matrimonial home in appropriate circumstances. You mention 'her money' - if she has an income he can make a claim for maintenance from her through CSA for the children.

TBH I can't see what relevance her getting legal aid has to his situation? He needs to sort things out for himself and the children, and that means seeing a solicitor.

Marisco

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

If your friend was a woman and you'd mentioned the abuse the consensus would have been "Get him out!"

Exactly! There seems to be a spot of double standards here! I'd just kick her out, and stay in the house with the kids. I'd certainly not let have access to bank accounts or pay anything for her, let her sort herself out!

RAS

Oh dear

She has the right to enter a joint property unless he has a restraining order. Has his solicitor not told him to sort that out?

He needs to open a new bank account in his own name and transfer his income and his DDs, household expenses to that. Then close the joint banck account if possible, or write to the bank advising that all further debits have be signed by both parties.

A woman who was living in the house and could afford the mortgage after ex left would probably be allowed to live there until the youngest left full-time secondary education or aged 18. I would expect him to get the same consideration.

She can apply for benefits to support herself if they are not living together as man and wife.

He needs to cancel her insurance, mobile etc and tell her this personally and in writing to her solicitor. Give her a month to sort herself out.

BitterAndTwisted

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

TBH I can't see what relevance her getting legal aid has to his situation? He needs to sort things out for himself and the children, and that means seeing a solicitor.

I believe that the relevance of her claiming Legal Aid is that it's not free. It might be free at the point of use but the costs can, and often are, imposed as a charge on the property. A property which the friend will need to house their children. For legal advice in order to fight him tooth-and-nail which he has not sought or agreed to pay for.

I completely understand his dismay about this.

Errata

BM - This family's affairs, relationships, mental health status are so convoluted any advice anyone can give would be meaningless without knowing all the details. Both parties need legal representation, if they have mental capacity to understand and make decisions.

Caroline_a

Why on earth has he not sorted this out sooner? Did he think it would just go away? OP I know you have your friend's interests at heart, but I'm not sure that you can do anything - he needs to get a solicitor now and take the legal advice that I'm sure he's been given.

blue_monkey_2

Some answers. Sorry, I thought I would make it simple but this is a long answer.

Yes, he has a solicitor but cannot see him today - doubtful this is now going to get back into court before Xmas though.

I am trying to help him go armed with things to mention to solicitor when he goes. He is frightened of her and what she might do to him and the children because he has finally stood up to her instead of being a doormat.

Yes, he can call the police but that does not help him sleep at night. The police have removed her from address B a good number of times and told her not to come back.

When he went for the RO she told the judge she 'would never step foot in the house as she was scared for her life' so there was no clause entered and the solicitor she saw yesterday, picked up on this told her to go back to the house and gave her a letter to say she could go back in. We was wondering if the judge did this on purpose as, if she went back to the house, it would expose lots of other things she said in court, as lies. The judge brushed the comment aside.

While she is there he has a legal duty to support her - this has already been gone through with his solicitor. he is doing this to the bare minimum as he has no choice.

She has BS her way through everything so her solicitor obviously has no idea what is going on. However, he MUST know she is claiming LA while living at Address A when he is telling her to live at Address B.

No, she has never 'lived' at address A.

Also forgot to add, the children have to be at that address between certain times so he cannot move out and take them with him, he has to stay there to ensure the children are kept safe.

Yes, he got residency for a reason so we do try to hold onto that fact.

However, she is fighting everything he does because she is claiming LA. It would obviously be much more difficult to fight him if she did not have LA - she cannot have her cake and eat it in IMO. She either lives on her own and claims, or she lives with him and has the benefits of his income and is not entitled. She has, however, been claiming she lives alone for the last 6 months using address A but she has been living with the family at address B.

Nightmare!!

blue_monkey_2

Caroline_a wrote: »

Why on earth has he not sorted this out sooner? Did he think it would just go away? OP I know you have your friend's interests at heart, but I'm not sure that you can do anything - he needs to get a solicitor now and take the legal advice that I'm sure he's been given.

He has. I am trying to give him more advice to take with him as I know what she has been doing - she has told me - he does no.

I know she has claimed the LA as being a single person at Address A.

I want to ensure that what I am thinking is right before I mention this. That she cannot claim as a single person at address A when she is living as a family at address B.

This is the only bit I want to know I guess. I know everything else is down to solicitors and he has one - a very good one by all accounts - but if she is committing fraud, why should she get away with that? She has done enough lying already.