Accused of benefit fraud!!

uganda

FBaby wrote: »

Can i ask why you are so adament to help the op win her appeal? Does this mean you are already convinced from what has been written that the decision was wrong or will it be a case of helping with semantics so that she will have decision reversed because she will have worded things in a way that can only leave doubts. surely all she needs to do is say the truth and doesnt need any help with that!

What she may not be fully conversant with is the law and the way it is and can be interpreted. I can help with that. Presumably if you were accused of a crime you didn't do, you would want someone fighting on your behalf to clear your name, or would you just leave it to chance that you could just go into the court and tell the truth and that would do the job?

And I am not adamant that she wins her appeal - I am adamant that the correct thing happens within the law, and that is best achieved by her having as much help and advice from people that know what they are talking about, as possible.

uganda

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But the whole point is that he does not "live" in another household. He sleeps somewhere else five times a week but he obviously lives with the OP.

It is obvious to you, but not to me. So you are entitled to your opinion, but my professional opinion is that she has a very strong case to appeal, because maintaining another household means that he is not part of her one (see the guidance that I quoted and you quoted back).

He lives in his own flat, sleeps there 5 'nights' a week, pays rent, bills and council tax there - I don't understand why you think it is 'obvious' that he doesn't live in his own property and simply spends a lot of time at his girlfriend's place, just like a lot of people do. But if you are determined to be of that opinion, I cannot stop you, I would just like to help the OP know more about the law as regards her case, and that is because I know the law as regards her case and these forums are for giving people advice on benefits, and that is what I am doing.

uganda

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Apart from the BF sleeping there another 5 mornings, how would it be different for anyone (particularly the children) if he were to move in officially?

The OP has been given constructive advice - would it be constructive to tell her they can carry on like this so that she gets a criminal record?

It would be different because he would then be living there and not somewhere else.

And her best chance of getting a criminal record (not likely in any case) is to admit directly or implicitly (by not appealing) that he has been living with her all this time, whether he has or not. That is a destructive thing to advise her to do, not a constructive thing.

Oldernotwiser

uganda wrote: »

It would be different because he would then be living there and not somewhere else.

And her best chance of getting a criminal record (not likely in any case) is to admit directly or implicitly (by not appealing) that he has been living with her all this time, whether he has or not. That is a destructive thing to advise her to do, not a constructive thing.

I'm afraid that I disagree totally with your definition of "living" somewhere, which you seem to think is the same thing as sleeping.

I also think that, although she obviously has the right to appeal, given the information so far she hasn't much chance of success and co-operating with the authorities, even if claiming misunderstanding/ignorance/naivety as her reasons for this situation, will go in her favour when/if a prosecution arises.

Oldernotwiser

uganda wrote: »

It is obvious to you, but not to me. So you are entitled to your opinion, but my professional opinion is that she has a very strong case to appeal, because maintaining another household means that he is not part of her one (see the guidance that I quoted and you quoted back).
.

If you're going to say things like this, I think that you should be prepared to explain what your profession actually is.

FBaby

uganda wrote: »

He lives in his own flat, sleeps there 5 'nights' a week, pays rent, bills and council tax there - I don't understand why you think it is 'obvious' that he doesn't live in his own property and simply spends a lot of time at his girlfriend's place, just like a lot of people do.

The information above is very much black and white, not open to interpretation, yet they still decided that he was living with her.... which clearly stipulates that using another address for mail, CT purposes is not enough to consider that someone is living there. That probably because it would be such an easy thing for anyone to do just so that any couple could still cash benefits.

FBaby

Like everything, it is all about how you say things... When you know that referring to the person in your life as 'boyfriend' rather than 'partner' will alone make a difference, you quickly learn how to speak 'benefit language'...

krisskross

Renting a single room in a shared house to provide an accommodation address whilst spending all free time, no doubt eating etc in the OP's quite expensive rented house is not acceptable.

If the OP asks for tax payer funded intervention in her life then she must also accept the obligations that go with the money.

Mara69

uganda wrote: »

So? I wasn't saying otherwise. Try not to trip me up on semantics and concentrate on trying to help the OP, ok?

You did say otherwise - and not, it is not semantics.

uganda wrote: »

All that is a given, if her IS stops and if there is someone else moving in. Which I don't think they have, but that's a separate issue.

The opening post clearly states that that OP has had her benefit stopped. The decision has been taken she is not a single parents any longer.

mich2201 wrote: »

...today I discovered my income support had not been paid into my bank as expected and rang DWP. I was told that my claim had ended as I was no longer seen as a single parent.

This will have a knock on effect vis a vis her HB & CTB. She needs to deal with this.

Personally I think you are giving the OP false hope and are skating dangerously close to advocating benefit fraud.

Cherry_Bomb

clearingout wrote: »

I don't sign up to the state interfering in my relationships as a single parent who claims tax credits or any other benefit, no. Nor do I believe that being a lone parent on benefits or tax credits takes away the free choice that I have in relationships. I sign up as an adult who is capable of managing her own affairs and her own family. I expect to be treated the same as a couple - that I can declare my income and it be assumed I am declaring correctly, that it be assumed I am single when I say I am. Should my name be pulled out of the hat for 'investigation', either because someone has decided they don't like me, doesn't understand my family situation or because I lost the 'lottery' of random investigation, I will of course be happy to answer questions on my situation. Being a lone parent on benefits or being reliant on tax credit, however, does not give the state the right to intervene in my relationships, or tell me what is best for my family any more than it does a couple claiming benefit or tax credit.

I agree, a few spoil it for the majority which is why so many people are such cynics when it comes to the 'single mum' and benefits. Doesn't stop me being fed up with being tarred and feathered with the negative 'single mum' brush and wanting to shout about it!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I believe everyone being supported by benefits should expect a degree of interference from time to time. Me included! I'm a student and I claim TC.

It would be wrong to just let people get on with it without sometimes 'checking up'