Accused of benefit fraud!!

clearingout

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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.

OK. I accept that. I guess I had a 'semi detatched' relationship with my now ex husband for a couple of years. I rented a room in a house at the time, slept at my work 2 out of 7 (part of the job, no choice in it) and stayed at my boyfriend's (as he was then) at least 3 nights a week. I think what we did was pretty normal for working adults (we were in our late 20s at the time) and eventually committed to living together after 2 years (ie. me moving into his house and paying bills, buying food etc.). I probably bought food when we were 'semi detatched', I am certain we did food shopping together and he ran me around in his car so I also used to put petrol in his car sometimes so in some way, he benefitted from a relationship with me but I paid rent elsewhere and he paid all his bills and his mortgage. I might be wrong, but I think this is a pretty normal set up for adults who aren't living at their parents houses and have a level of independence? I considered myself to be 'in a relationship' and that the relationship was 'serious' but until we moved in together it was not 'committed'. My boyfriend only became my partner when we moved in together and then a year later, he became my husband.

If we change that situation to him having a couple of children, dependent on tax credits to help him with childcare costs, he would most likely run the risk of being accused of benefit fraud during those first two years of our relationship, wouldn't he? Yet I am pretty sure that the scenario I describe above is something a lot of people will have experienced prior to 'committing' to a relationship with someone, yes?

I guess this is my point about being allowed to define your own relationship and not have the bureaucrat with the clipboard do it for you? Our society is such that we readily accept sex out of marriage and we readily accept that people have sex early on in a relationship. Sex is not necessarily a sign of a committed relationship but very often involves staying together over night. Putting petrol in the car of someone who has saved you a fortune in bus fare is what adults in a half decent relationship do. Putting a bag of shopping in the cupboards when you regularly eat at someone's house is also what half decent adults do. But I'm not sure it necessarily makes a relationship long-term committed?

Linz4383

FBaby wrote: »

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.

they make it very hard for single parents to go to work... do you no how much nursery costs?!?! oh and just for the record im a single parent and i do work, only part time, and so i claim benefits too, as nursery costs would be far too expensive for me to go full time! (which id also like to add that i would like to work more hours than i am it simply doesnt pay to!) which my views on how the system works are that they should perhaps make it pay for people to go to work rather than them bein sat on there backside all the time!

Oldernotwiser

linz4383 wrote: »

they make it very hard for single parents to go to work... do you no how much nursery costs?!?! oh and just for the record im a single parent and i do work, only part time, and so i claim benefits too, as nursery costs would be far too expensive for me to go full time! (which id also like to add that i would like to work more hours than i am it simply doesnt pay to!) which my views on how the system works are that they should perhaps make it pay for people to go to work rather than them bein sat on there backside all the time!

I know that lone parents (and couples) can claim a considerable percentage of their childcare fees, which used not to be the case!

Oldernotwiser

clearingout wrote: »

OK. I accept that. I guess I had a 'semi detatched' relationship with my now ex husband for a couple of years. I rented a room in a house at the time, slept at my work 2 out of 7 (part of the job, no choice in it) and stayed at my boyfriend's (as he was then) at least 3 nights a week. I think what we did was pretty normal for working adults (we were in our late 20s at the time)

Although I take some of your points, I don't think it's that normal for someone to pay separate rent for accommodation they only sleep in for one or two nights a week.

For the rest, without wanting to be cliched, "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and if people want to claim money from the public purse they need to conform to the rules laid down for doing so.

Pay your own way and you can choose whatever living arrangements you like, as long as you don't scare the horses!

clearingout

linz4383 wrote: »

they make it very hard for single parents to go to work... do you no how much nursery costs?!?! oh and just for the record im a single parent and i do work, only part time, and so i claim benefits too, as nursery costs would be far too expensive for me to go full time! (which id also like to add that i would like to work more hours than i am it simply doesnt pay to!) which my views on how the system works are that they should perhaps make it pay for people to go to work rather than them bein sat on there backside all the time!

the difficulty I have found is the fact I have three children who all need childcare. As it stands, for me to work, it costs me £55 a day for childcare - tax credits pick up 70% of that (£38.50) so I am left to find the rest. If you're on minimum wage, that's a huge portion of what you earn in a day. I am about to swap to an au pair but can only do that because I have the room - it will cost me £70 a week plus I'll have to feed them and it will take, I am guessing, at least 3 months before we'll get the necessary paperwork together for them to do what is needed with Ofstead so I can claim tax credits back on that.

Of course, there will be those who now scream I shouldn't have had three children if I couldn't afford them. But I had my children, like most single mothers I personally know, within marriage where they were much wanted pregnancies and much wanted children which were very much affordable! Single mums are also supposed to be clairvoyant :rotfl:

clearingout

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Although I take some of your points, I don't think it's that normal for someone to pay separate rent for accommodation they only sleep in for one or two nights a week.

For the rest, without wanting to be cliched, "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and if people want to claim money from the public purse they need to conform to the rules laid down for doing so.

Pay your own way and you can choose whatever living arrangements you like, as long as you don't scare the horses!

It will be interesting to see other view points. I lived elsewhere because I wasn't in a committed relationship as far as I was concerned. I needed a home on that basis. Yes?

Then we come full circle to my earlier point! I agree, you have to conform and I can see why it looks like a 'committed' relationship. I also stand fast when I say that it wasn't. And yes, it was OK 'cos there were no benefits involved. But why on earth should my right to define my relationships be taken away because I found myself a single parent reliant on tax credits? I said earlier that if couples are forced to commit too early, women run the risk of multiple pregnancies by multiple men and thus run the risk of a deeper reliance on benefits. Allowing people to take their time and define their relationships in their own way will help prevent this. I get that people will abuse the system. But I think our society is such that eventually, there is pressure to commit as a family or leave it. I don't think live-out, serious relationships last forever.

It's very hard to find the balance with this but I struggle with the idea that I could be considered to be committing fraud because I sleep with someone twice a week when if I weren't claiming benefits, I could sleep with them 7 nights a week and still not be in a relationship!

FBaby

linz4383 wrote: »

they make it very hard for single parents to go to work... do you no how much nursery costs?!?! oh and just for the record im a single parent and i do work, only part time, and so i claim benefits too, as nursery costs would be far too expensive for me to go full time! (which id also like to add that i would like to work more hours than i am it simply doesnt pay to!) which my views on how the system works are that they should perhaps make it pay for people to go to work rather than them bein sat on there backside all the time!

Oh I know very well.... I had two at nursery and worked full-time, and tax credits paid for most of it, I had £150 left to pay which I managed by cutting down other cost. As a matter of fact, it is when my kids started school, and I still had to pay for after school/breakfast/holiday club that I found it hardest because that's when I lost most of my tax credits, yet I still had to pay £300 a month for that. I really can't see how with 70% of nursery fees paid, unless you have 3 or 4 in nursery - whch is not the majority of cases - you would be worse off than working more hours.

FBaby

clearingout, I think we are back to the debate as to whether you should be accountable to the benefits you receive or not. On one hand, you say that benefits shouldn't impose rules as to how you manage your relationship and you should be entitled to remain 'single' as long as you wish as those not on benefits are entitled to, yet don't see that the only reason why those people get the benefits they receive IS because they are single. You can't have it both ways. Either everyone gets the same benefits, single parent or not, or if you get more because you are a single parent, you accept that your relationship will be examined.

Oldernotwiser

clearingout wrote: »

Then we come full circle to my earlier point! I agree, you have to conform and I can see why it looks like a 'committed' relationship. I also stand fast when I say that it wasn't. And yes, it was OK 'cos there were no benefits involved. But why on earth should my right to define my relationships be taken away because I found myself a single parent reliant on tax credits? !

Apologies for repeating myself but if you want someone or something to pay you money then you have to conform to their rules and if they define your relationship in a certain way then that's the relevant definition and not yours.

Sixer

uganda wrote: »

You know what, OP, I am very sorry about the advice you are receiving here, much of it seems to centre on what people believe is right or what fits will their world view, but very little of what people are saying tallies with the actual rules.

It is obvious you are a couple, and if you were living together then you would be treated as LTAHAW (living together as husband and wife) and assessed accordingly. But this is not the question, the seriousness or otherwise of your relationship is not in question here. There is only one question which applies - does your boyfriend actually live with you? That is all.

Now, I don't know the answer to that, but what you have told me suggests that he does not. I quote this:

To be members of the same household means that

1. they live in the same house, flat, apartment, caravan or other dwelling place and neither normally lives in another household

1. [FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica][FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica]and [/FONT][/FONT]
2. they both live there regularly, apart from absences necessary for employment, to visit relatives, etc.

This comes from this document - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch11.pdf - and can be found on page 7.

My feeling from this is that, as he does normally live in another household, he doesn't live in yours. I may be wrong, depending on other stuff I may not know about your personal circumstances, but I suggest you quote this document if you are making an appeal.

By all means PM me if you have any questions.

Apologies for quoting a really early post in this thread, but I have a question for Uganda.

My understanding of the regulations - and the entirety of the document that you cite - is that a couple can maintain two residences but *still* be regarded as living together in the same household. So when you say does your boyfriend actually live with you? and there are two residences to consider, as there are here, the subsequent indications of LTAHAW will come into play.

Are you saying this is incorrect and grounds for an appeal if a decision is made on this basis? It's what you seem to be saying to me.

I'm not commenting on this OP's specific situation; just asking you to clarify the position you're taking. Cheers.