Accused of benefit fraud!!

drwho2011

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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. "


.

That was my core reasoning for why an appeal is likely to fail (and I suggested why early on in the thread). Appealing the decision is unlikely to have any negative effects, however basing financial planning on the belief that an appeal is guaranteed to succeed is incredibly foolish.

But who knows, maybe her HB/LHA will end up being recalculated if the investigators dig deeper.

My personal belief is the OP's better off not pushing her luck further.

uganda

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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. "


.

That is a perfectly valid point, but you really ought not to be so gleeful when you produce counter-arguments.

But what you are quoting is that they can be considered members of the same household, not that they must be. Plenty of people having given the OP reasons why she has no chance of an appeal, I am trying to show that she does have a chance, provided she is telling us the truth.

Her boyfriend sleeps 5 'nights' at his property, hardly seldom, and he pays rent, bills and council tax there, I believe. So she has a case, and that is all I am saying.

And yes, I am selectively quoting, and so are you. That paragraph you quote continues:


DMs should consider

1. the nature and ownership or tenancy of the accommodation they are living together in [FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica][FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica]and[/FONT][/FONT]
2. the extent to which rooms and facilities are shared [FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica][FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica]and[/FONT][/FONT]
3. the ownership of furniture.

A person cannot be a member of more than one household at the same time. So a person cannot be a member of more than one couple at the same time1.

So there are plenty of other things to consider. She has a case - I don't know whether or not it is strong enough to win, but I am showing reasons why it might be. What gets me is that you and others have already made your minds up that the DWP must have got it right, even though they so often get it wrong (hence the number of successful appeals against their decisions).

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

That was my core reasoning for why an appeal is likely to fail (and I suggested why early on in the thread). Appealing the decision is unlikely to have any negative effects, however basing financial planning on the belief that an appeal is guaranteed to succeed is incredibly foolish.

But who knows, maybe her HB/LHA will end up being recalculated if the investigators dig deeper.

My personal belief is the OP's better off not pushing her luck further.

Her HB/LHA must be recalculated if her IS has stopped.

I am not advising her to plan financially on winning an appeal.

Appealing a decision, even if you end up losing, is not 'pushing your luck'.

uganda

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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

You tried to trip me up and you failed. By all means disagree with me, I'm happy to debate anything and cede ground, but it is you that wants to be insulting and sarcastic when people disagree with you. Produce an argument - that is predicated on a desire to give benefit advice to the OP - and I will engage with it. I'm not interested in scoring cheap points. OK?

drwho2011

uganda wrote: »

Her boyfriend sleeps 5 'nights' at his property, hardly seldom, and he pays rent, bills and council tax there, I believe. So she has a case, and that is all I am saying.

Most people who rent rooms aren't on joint bills because of the risk of being chased when a bill goes unpaid plus all the associated hassles when people move in/out. Same with council tax, people generally prefer not to be listed because of the possible consequences if the bill goes unpaid.

As a result rooms often include "all bills". This isn't of course always the situation but as someone who has rented rooms over the years it is an observation.

The OP never said whether her partner is paying council tax and bills at his "home", but then again as its not serious or committed maybe she doesn't know, if he isn't paying electricity/gas/council tax etc then they will have a harder time.

drwho2011

mich2201 wrote: »

I know it does seem daft but he has just got divorced and doesnt want to get back into the whole domesticated situation just yet. He is also about to buy his own place instead of renting. The way things have been suited us both . Also I private rent which is very expensive and I worry that even if i found part time work we would not be able to make ends meet.

This appears to be the real reason for the setup, his income would stop her IS and his income and capital would likely stop/reduce her LHA.

Adereterial

The difficulty the OP finds herself in is that her partner seems to use her property as his main residence, only returning to his own property to sleep and pick up mail. His social life revolves around her, and her property - and hers revolves around him coming to her house to spend time there. She doesn't do the same in return (at least not that's been revealed) - she doesn't go there to stay ever, doesn't spend the day there - it's all very much him coming to her house but returning to another property to sleep the majority of the week. It would be a very different matter if the spread were more even - there would be considerably less doubt as to which was her partner's main residence if he spent more time there actually doing the things that normal people do in their homes, rather than doing them all at her house.

From DWPs perspective (I've checked with a Decision Maker on this) - it looks very much like an attempt to maximise benefits. It may not be deliberate, but nonetheless, that is what it looks like. Whether the OP intended this relationship to tip over into something that is clearly not casual is beside the point - the fact is it's not casual, he spends all his free time in her property, probably contributes financially (I cannot believe he's never brought round a pint of milk, chipped in for a takeaway, bought something for the house etc). DWP may well accept that it's not intentional, but nonetheless it is what it is - the OP cannot be considered a single parent and is thus no longer entitled to benefits as such.

OP - you may appeal, but I do not think you'll be successful. You need to decide whether you wish to remain in this relationship or not, but if you do so, you should not expect the state to pay for your choices.

drwho2011

uganda wrote: »

Her HB/LHA must be recalculated if her IS has stopped.

I already said that earlier in the thread, I was suggesting the recalculation may work out worse if there is greater scrutiny

sigh

Oldernotwiser

uganda wrote: »

That is a perfectly valid point, but you really ought not to be so gleeful when you produce counter-arguments.

But what you are quoting is that they can be considered members of the same household, not that they must be. Plenty of people having given the OP reasons why she has no chance of an appeal, I am trying to show that she does have a chance, provided she is telling us the truth.

Her boyfriend sleeps 5 'nights' at his property, hardly seldom, and he pays rent, bills and council tax there, I believe. So she has a case, and that is all I am saying.

And yes, I am selectively quoting, and so are you. That paragraph you quote continues:


DMs should consider

1. the nature and ownership or tenancy of the accommodation they are living together in [FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica][FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica]and[/FONT][/FONT]
2. the extent to which rooms and facilities are shared [FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica][FONT=MPIAC O+ Helvetica,Helvetica]and[/FONT][/FONT]
3. the ownership of furniture.

A person cannot be a member of more than one household at the same time. So a person cannot be a member of more than one couple at the same time1.

So there are plenty of other things to consider. She has a case - I don't know whether or not it is strong enough to win, but I am showing reasons why it might be. What gets me is that you and others have already made your minds up that the DWP must have got it right, even though they so often get it wrong (hence the number of successful appeals against their decisions).

There was nothing "gleeful" in my post but I hate to see people who describe themselves as professionals selecting information to prove their case and deliberately leaving out something that proves the opposite.

People who post on here for advice should be given the full picture so that they can decide for themselves whether they want to appeal, after listening to the varied opinions of others.

uganda

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

There was nothing "gleeful" in my post but I hate to see people who describe themselves as professionals selecting information to prove their case and deliberately leaving out something that proves the opposite.

People who post on here for advice should be given the full picture so that they can decide for themselves whether they want to appeal, after listening to the varied opinions of others.

I am a professional, whether I describe myself as one or not. I am in a position to help the OP, so I am informing her of the rules. And I didn't deliberately leave anything out, I was simply showing how the people who tell her it's not worth appealing shouldn't be taken as gospel-writers, because there is more to the legislation than they will concede.

I'm only too happy for people to tell her why she might not succeed, but just to tell her she has no chance when for all they know she might, is irresponsible. I am not telling her she is right and they are wrong, I am telling her she has a case based on what I know, and I have told her why. I just don't understand why you and others have made up your mind already.