Accused of benefit fraud!!

uganda

Adereterial wrote: »

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.

I disagree with a lot of this, but thank you for being rational about it and directing your advice directly to the OP, which is what we are all supposed to be doing.

I see what you are saying about him always going to hers and not the reverse, but it would seem perfectly logical that if either was going to the other's house, he would go to hers, as he has no children. Her going to his would either involve taking any children with her or finding a babysitter, which adds complications.

I don't think him sleeping at his own home and having all his mail there is a trivial consideration, I would say that they are pretty strong indicators that that is his main residence.

Bringing round a pint of milk or a takeaway are normal things for a boyfriend to do when going round his girlfriend's. It may be that he makes more of a financial contribution than is being admitted, but I am just going on what she has told us. But in any case financial contributions, while obviously a massive indicator in LTAHAW cases, are not always as crucial in deciding which household someone is in.

The state may be paying benefits to her, but they are not additionally 'paying for her choices' with regard to this relationship unless she is actually deceiving them in some way. Of course, she may be, but if so then she's also deceiving us, which means this whole thread is a waste of time anyway. As things stand, I believe she has a strong case on appeal - you believe not, which is fine, and perhaps you are right and not me - but she certainly should appeal if what she is saying is true.

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

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

sigh

Never mind 'sigh' - I was making an observation based on that post, not scrolling back through every post on here.

I don't see how a recalculation would work out worse with greater scrutiny, perhaps that's just because I don't understand the point you are making. If she lost her appeal, they would simply use their joint income to assess their claim and there could possibly be a large overpayment - what other horrors are you expecting them to turn up with greater scrutiny?

drwho2011

uganda wrote: »

Never mind 'sigh' - I was making an observation based on that post, not scrolling back through every post on here.

I don't see how a recalculation would work out worse with greater scrutiny, perhaps that's just because I don't understand the point you are making. If she lost her appeal, they would simply use their joint income to assess their claim and there could possibly be a large overpayment - what other horrors are you expecting them to turn up with greater scrutiny?

Undeclared capital for a start.

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

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.

I will happily concede that I had forgotten he was in a room, not a flat. He'll not be liable for council tax in that case, which does deprive him of a rather nice piece of evidence, but I still maintain that she has a strong case on appeal for the same reasons as before.

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

Undeclared capital for a start.

Well, that would be fraudulent. Why are you assuming he wouldn't declare his capital if they were being assessed jointly? You could come up with a long list of things they might fraudulently do if they were being assessed as a couple, but there is no reason to make such assumptions as far as I can see.

pmlindyloo

Whilst this thread was interesting to begin with I do feel it is time to 'let it go'.

All we have is 'those for her appealing and those against'.

Lots of valid points have been raised for and against but in the end the OP does have the right to appeal.

I am constantly amazed with the fine detail involved in claiming benefits and there are lots of case studies, which I am sure, will support her winning the appeal and equally lots of cases which will do the opposite.

In the end it is not for us to decide or judge.

uganda

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Whilst this thread was interesting to begin with I do feel it is time to 'let it go'.

All we have is 'those for her appealing and those against'.

Lots of valid points have been raised for and against but in the end the OP does have the right to appeal.

I am constantly amazed with the fine detail involved in claiming benefits and there are lots of case studies, which I am sure, will support her winning the appeal and equally lots of cases which will do the opposite.

In the end it is not for us to decide or judge.

You're probably right. I think the OP has had as much advice as she needs at this stage. I have offered her private advice in PM and she has indicated she may well take advantage of that in the near future. If I'm right, she'll win, if I'm wrong, she'll lose. That's all.

Adereterial

uganda wrote: »

I don't think him sleeping at his own home and having all his mail there is a trivial consideration, I would say that they are pretty strong indicators that that is his main residence.

---

The state may be paying benefits to her, but they are not additionally 'paying for her choices' with regard to this relationship unless she is actually deceiving them in some way. Of course, she may be, but if so then she's also deceiving us, which means this whole thread is a waste of time anyway. As things stand, I believe she has a strong case on appeal - you believe not, which is fine, and perhaps you are right and not me - but she certainly should appeal if what she is saying is true.

Edited the quote as I'm not commenting on all of it.

I'd have less of a problem with his address if he appeared to do all of the normal things most people do at home - lounge about watching the TV, cooking, etc etc. By the OPs account he does all of those things at her house - in my view he's treating her house as his 'home' (though he may not call it or think of it as such). He seems to spend all of his free time with her and just returns home to sleep. I accept the difficulties of her going round there overnight as she has children but I see no reason why she (and her children) cannot visit him at his home, they don't need to stay over - why does he always need to visit her house? It very much seems like the partner's home is nothing more than a PO box and a place to sleep. His 'life' is conducted elsewhere. I think a key question would be where would his family expect to find him if they needed him in an emergency - at his listed address, or at her house?

I do believe that this is a choice though - unless there's more information we don't know about the OP has probably unknowingly crossed a line (given that there's no mention of a potential prosecution I suspect the DWP have accepted it was unintentional) but if she continues to choose to live in such a manner then she shouldn't expect the state to fund that lifestyle choice for her, now she's aware that it's not acceptable.

DWP may have been heavy handed - though I don't believe this is the case - but have no problem with her appealing. She'll either win or not, my suspicion is she won't. Nonetheless, she has the right to but I do think that before she does that she needs to re-examine her choices.

Eeyore2009

i think the DWP made the right decision,

in their eyes you are in a relationship with someone who works so he can support you

sundays

What a lot of judgemental replies, i will give you the facts.

1. your claim def appears to have ended based on assumption by the dwp.
2 You had a compliance interview and were not interviewed under caution.
3. Appeal, and make a claim for benefits on hardship .
4. Mke claims for housing and council tax benefit based on nil income, pending DWP appeal.
5. Beleive me the DWP are often incompentent and from what you have said your claim would prob be reinstated and backdated.
6. Seek legal advise , they havent done you for fraud, because they would have had to caution you first, do not have any further interviews unless you have legal representation.
7. The living together as man and wife test, is often based on when a couple claim to be estranged but live in the same property, this doesnt apply as you have had the claim cancelled on a change of cirs ie you have a working partner.
8. Ask for a subject access request re the anon referall.
9. Demonstrate to the DWP, his address.

When investigating for a undeclared living check the following are common checks.

1. Royal mail over a period of time notify them of mail and names that post has been delviered for.
2 Credit Ref check for financial association or links to property.
3. Checks to banks etc for statements to see if any extra money going through the account, have to demonstrate strong amount of suspision to the bank to do this.
4. Surveillance- but again have to show its warranted and over a long period of time.
5. May check his utility usage ie check meter if outside to see roughly his usage per week and can gadge a idea if he is really living there or not.

Most benefit fraud in the UK is undeclared living together, but often very hard to prove, and a adjucation officer often will not stop a claim u nless there is a ton of evidence, but they may chance their luck to see if you will bother appealing. .