Accused of benefit fraud!!

uganda

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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.

I have quite often worked from home doing what I do, as I am a private consultant. It's a bit pathetic that you had to trawl through all my posts just to try and trip me up just because you're losing the argument.

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

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.

If you really are telling the truth, then you must have lost a lot of appeals. I shall continue to advise her on the actual legislation if you don't mind.

uganda

Sixer wrote: »

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'll happily answer this question if you will tell me the specific part of that document that you believe might contradict my point.

drwho2011

Corrected for you.

uganda wrote: »

If you really are telling the truth, then you must have lost a lot of appeals. I shall continue to advise her on my interpretation of the legislation if you don't mind.

The problem is you are oversimplifying this case and are arguing that renting a room constitutes the existence of a second household, irrespective that the partner is only resident there for 35 hrs of the week.

I'd stand corrected if you can point to an example in case law?

Oldernotwiser

Sixer wrote: »

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.

Uganda seems to have been quoting selectively as the document quoted goes on to say,

" Even if one or both of the two people own or rent other accommodation, they can still be thought of as members of the same household, particularly where the other accommodation is seldom used. "


.

Oldernotwiser

clearingout wrote: »

I accept the relationship can be examined. What I don't accept is that someone is necessarily 'wrong' for maintaining their own property/home whilst spending perhaps the majority of their time in another home prior to making a commitment to that person. What I don't accept is that someone who doesn't know me is allowed to tell me that my relationship is committed when the person I am in a relationship with and myself have not yet decided we are committed, despite the fact that we are spending a lot of time together. I maintained a home for a long time whilst sleeping very regularly with my boyfriend (later my husband) because as far as I was concerned, I was not in a committed relationship. If asked during those years, I'd have probably told you that I believed the relationship a long-term one to which I wanted to commit but we were still some time off making that commitment.
(!!!!!)

sooooo many things could have happened to split us up during that time. Had we been forced to live together before we were ready, who knows what would have happened? I'm a cynic, I've had a 'perfect' relationship go horribly, horribly wrong. I am now going to be very cautious about future relationships. I struggle to understand why I should be pressured into making an early commitment in a future relationship based on the fact I claim tax credit to help support children which are 100% my responsibility 'cos my ex makes no contribution. I am not entering a new relationship lightly. I am mindful of the impact multiple relationships could have on my children. Why should I also be forced to worry about how many nights I sneak a boyfriend past my children (LOL!) because it may also be construed as fraud?!!

I know, I know...'cos I signed up for tax credits. Ho hum....

Sorry, I think you're confusing things by concentrating on the idea of a committed relationship being important to this discussion. A couple of young people could shack up together after a one night stand, purely for convenience and they might still be considered to be LTAHAW, with no commitment whatsoever.

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

Corrected for you.



The problem is you are oversimplifying this case

We are both over-simplifying the case. But there are plenty of people telling her she has no chance on appeal. I believe she does have a chance, based on what she has said, and I have said why. It doesn't mean that I am saying she is definitely right and they are definitely wrong. And yes, my interpretation of the legislation comes into play, but so does the legislation itself, and I have quoted some of it.

FBaby

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

" Even if one or both of the two people own or rent other accommodation, they can still be thought of as members of the same household, particularly where the other accommodation is seldom used. "
.

Well here we go....that makes a lot more sense, both in terms of rationale of policy and why the OP didn't manage to convince the investigators.

Oldernotwiser

uganda wrote: »

I have quite often worked from home doing what I do, as I am a private consultant. It's a bit pathetic that you had to trawl through all my posts just to try and trip me up just because you're losing the argument.

If you think in terms of "winning the argument" (which I don't) you might want to reconsider who is actually doing so!;)

FBaby

This is what you wrote previously Uganda

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).

This certainly goes against the part of the legislation ONW quoted.