Accused of benefit fraud!!

Linz4383

drwho2011 wrote: »

No one is saying lone parents should have their partners move in before they are ready.

The issue is that her partner has moved in but rents a room elsewhere which he uses for sleeping some of the time (5 mornings a week), the rest of the time he is at hers during the daytime as he works nights.

Most people would find it hard to argue that they are living apart and she openly admits he can't afford financially to move in with her.

So it is left to the taxpayer to support her, she can maximises her benefits entitlements whilst he is able to enjoy a family life but not contribute to her household financially.

so basically wot your sayin is, is that if im seein someone and spend alot of time with them but they dnt live with me that i would too b comittin benefit fraud?! all because i would be seein someone whilst we were livin apart! and i believe she has clearly stated that they ARE NOT livin together several times!

uganda

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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.

OK. By all means disagree with me.

Meanwhile I shall continue to try to help the OP the best I can, which is all any of us should be doing on here.

If her boyfriend turns out to live with her (and you don't know one way or the other any more than I do) then she will lose her appeal and that's fine. But until that is finally decided, even on appeal, I shall continue to give the OP the benefit of my professional knowledge (and I have worked in housing and council tax benefits for two decades, would you now like to tell me what you do?) so that she has the maximum chance of winning any appeal.

That is because I am only interested in using these forums for what they were set up for, viz. to give benefits advice to people, not make judgments about their situations or make political comments about the way the benefits system works, both of which are specifically forbidden.

seven-day-weekend

So when, in your professional opinion, WOULD somebody be classed as living together, if him spending all his time at her house and them being in a relationship doesn't count?

I was accused once (not to do with Benefits) of' living together' with my lodger. We did live in the same house and my husband was away studying and only came home at weekends. But myself and my lodger were not in a relationship. Maybe this is the difference?

drwho2011

uganda wrote: »

I shall continue to give the OP the benefit of my professional knowledge (and I have worked in housing and council tax benefits for two decades, would you now like to tell me what you do?) so that she has the maximum chance of winning any appeal.

I guess this is why we differ in opinion as my professional knowledge is based on the DWP side (majority of my career), such as IS/JSA/IB etc entitlements and conditionality.

Although I have also worked in housing/council tax so I am knowledgeable about the legislation here as well.

But the OP had her IS stopped, not her HB or LHA.

Oldernotwiser

uganda wrote: »

But until that is finally decided, even on appeal, I shall continue to give the OP the benefit of my professional knowledge (and I have worked in housing and council tax benefits for two decades, would you now like to tell me what you do?) so that she has the maximum chance of winning any appeal.

Strange, I never knew you could work in housing and council tax benefits from your attic as you seem to do, but you learn something every day;)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/38387190#Comment_38387190

My experience is mainly in regarding advising students, many of whom were lone parents, so reasonably relevant to this.

FBaby

Arg wrote: »

On the other hand it seems the benefits system is aimed at breaking up families.

How is that? I too believe that the moment you receive an income from someone, you are accountable to them. If you get a salary, you owe your organisation to do the job as they see fit for you to do. You can't tell your boss that you expect him to pay you, but you organise your working day as you wish. No boss will pay an employee a full-time salary on the basis of them doing a 37.5 hours a week, but then have to continue to pay the same if the employee decides to do some work at home cutting their time in the office to 30 hours???

What should it be different when you receive benefits on the account of you being single. It is the condition for these benefits and it is right that you should show evidence, if requested, that the conditions still apply.

My personal view is that there shouldn't be any single parent benefits. Their single parent status doesn't stop them working. It might make it more difficult, but not impossible and I would expect that any parent of children over the age of 1, should be expected to look for a job to support themselves as it is in most countries.

drwho2011

FBaby wrote: »

My personal view is that there shouldn't be any single parent benefits. Their single parent status doesn't stop them working. It might make it more difficult, but not impossible and I would expect that any parent of children over the age of 1, should be expected to look for a job to support themselves as it is in most countries.

Legally a woman can return to work 2 weeks after childbirth (6 weeks if working in a factory).

The Child Tax Credit system makes working as a parent a lot easier and helps parents (and lone parents to the greatest extent) to overcome the primary reason for not working (financial cost of childcare).

If anything though I agree with Arg, if you make a system that has a fiancial incentives to live apart or claim that you do then it is inevitable that people will do so, rather than put their children first.

clearingout

drwho2011 wrote: »

If anything though I agree with Arg, if you make a system that has a fiancial incentives to live apart or claim that you do then it is inevitable that people will do so, rather than put their children first.

how often have you come across this, as a professional? how often do you see families living apart for the sake of the money they can claim in benefits? what percentage of total benefit claims does this represent?

I accept it happens. But the very idea that the system encourages people to separate is beyond my comprehension. I wouldn't be a single parent by choice, believe me, and I know no other people in my situation who relish the situation they are in. With the exception of people who have been in genuinely abusive relationships, I struggle how having people think they can ask you how many times you sleep with a person and then make a judgement about whether that person is your 'partner', is somehow worth the money we apparently have thrown at us as lone parents.

Oldernotwiser

clearingout wrote: »

how often have you come across this, as a professional? how often do you see families living apart for the sake of the money they can claim in benefits? what percentage of total benefit claims does this represent?

I accept it happens. But the very idea that the system encourages people to separate is beyond my comprehension. I wouldn't be a single parent by choice, believe me, and I know no other people in my situation who relish the situation they are in. With the exception of people who have been in genuinely abusive relationships, I struggle how having people think they can ask you how many times you sleep with a person and then make a judgement about whether that person is your 'partner', is somehow worth the money we apparently have thrown at us as lone parents.

It's not necessarily the case that the system encourages people to separate (although that happens) but it certainly encourages many "semi detached" relationships like the OP's, which wouldn't be financially viable unless subsidised by the state.

mr2gti

OP sounds busted!