Accused of benefit fraud!!

drwho2011

paddedjohn wrote: »

Whats this mean???????

2 nights a week + time not spent at work or sleeping would be greater than 28% of his time.

marywooyeah

drwho2011 wrote: »

2 nights a week + time not spent at work or sleeping would be greater than 28% of his time.

I think the question was aimed at the "28%" part of your post - what is the significance of this number? would op not have had her benefits stopped if he stayed there for 27% of the time for example?

paddedjohn

marywooyeah wrote: »

I think the question was aimed at the "28%" part of your post - what is the significance of this number? would op not have had her benefits stopped if he stayed there for 27% of the time for example?

Exactly what i was trying to get at.

GiveMeCake

I'm not really surprised by the decision of the DWP, by all means appeal it but you've admitted to them in an interview he has keys to your flat and you are seen to others as partners. Even though you deny it to people on the outside your circumstances does appear to scream 'Couple running two houses to continue claiming benefits.'

Perhaps be grateful that they're just stopping your claim from now and not proceeding with doing you for benefit fraud? I'm baffled that over 18 months your boyfriend never once bought food or household items for your place, or contributed anything to any bills seeing as he was there for the majority of his time outside work and sleeping. What a pig.

If your appeal fails then I guess your options would be to either move in with your boyfriend (or family) or end the relationship altogether and get your benefits back. Although I would steer well clear of thinking about doing that AND still seeing your boyfriend as chances are they will keep an eye on you as it would flag up as rather suspicious.

mich2201

It is starting to sound like he just gets up in the morning, drives to my place and uses all my facilites, eats all my food, etc etc and contributes nothing. That is not the case. We do spend time together outside of my flat. Oh and he's not a pig!

Cherry_Bomb

mich2201 wrote: »

It is starting to sound like he just gets up in the morning, drives to my place and uses all my facilites, eats all my food, etc etc and contributes nothing. That is not the case. We do spend time together outside of my flat. Oh and he's not a pig!

Mich I actually feel quite sorry for you now and I don't know why!

As someone else pointed out you've have been incredibly naive and it's landed you in the situation you're in now.

You've only really got 3 options. Well 4, appealing but it's pointless as from what you've told us its blatantly obvious you're not a single parent.
You can either call it off and apply for benefits again, move in together and be treated as an official couple or look for some pt work

Evil_Olive

I'm not going to say that the DWP have not made the correct decision according to whatever procedures they use, or suggest that there's necessarily anything she can do about it but I think some of you are being a bit hard on the OP. It sounds to me as though she's just been naive and possibly not fully understood the exact import of questions she was asked, thereby giving the DWP a slightly skewed idea of the actual status of her relationship.

Unfortunately I don't know enough to give advice on the actual problem but felt I had to post because I'm horrified that people are advising her to either start co-habiting whether they're ready or not, or callously break off a nascent relationship which sounds happy and may go somewhere in the future.

I'm not the DWP but, assuming she has told the absolute truth on this forum then I, personally, I wouldn't consider them 'partners' in the the very narrow sense that it's used on various benefit forms (which I've always understood to be a person you are married to (or civil partnership etc) or live with as if you are married to them). Generally, most people use the word 'partner' far more broadly to mean anything from dating to married. My own family looked on my current boyfriend as my 'partner' after only 3 months - from the point that the 'dating' appeared to them to have become 'exclusive' or 'monogamous', but they wouldn't have suggested we get married or start co-habiting at that stage and would have thought us reckless if we had. It's very possible that the OP probably answered the 'partner' question not realising that the DWP applies such a narrow meaning to the word.

I know many couples who don't co-habit but have keys to each others flats 'for emergencies', who stay over a few nights a week and no-one who knows them thinks of them as 'living together'. 2 nights is actually pretty low. The couples I know probably spend a more equal amount of time at both flats but it's easy to understand that with children it would seem more convenient for him to visit her.

I'm not sure it's a good idea for people to be forced to co-habit after 18 months - especially when there are children involved. It's a massive decision to enmesh all the threads of your life together - personal, material, financial, giving up your home and independence, introducing your kids to a new 'stepdad' and, if it doesn't work out in 6 months time (more likely if it's forced on you), you're risking all the miserable practical and emotional hassles of having to re-separate everything, at least one partner having to find a new home and buy everything to go in it, and having to explain to your kids that the nice man they bonded with is never going to see them again.

Different individuals have different ideas about how long is long enough to spend getting to know each other as boyfriend/girlfriend before it's time to think about getting married/moving in together (both the same thing on a practical level at least). My personal opinion is that 18 months is not that long, I know loads of couples who've waited up to 5 years or longer before doing so and I can't imagine anyone I know thinking it odd if a couple haven't 'nested' already after 18 months.

I do understand the points that have been made and the logic behind them, also that the DWP have to make an arbitrary cut-off point somewhere, but I also understand the OP's position and I don't think people would be saying that her situation is that of co-habiting partners or advising her to take a step which equates to marriage with such abandon if she wasn't on benefits. She's got nothing to lose by *trying* an appeal, so how about some practical advice on how best to do so from those kind souls who have more knowledge than me in this area?...

uganda

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 [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.

Evil_Olive

At last!!!
The voice of reason! :T
I so wanted to say something similar but wasn't sure enough of my facts to post it. (and didn't want to bring a torrent of vitriol on my head from the previous posters)

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.

I'm getting heartily sick of ploughing through nasty, personal, judgemental and above all UNHELPFUL posts on this forum.
I think people should start reporting them as they go completely against the guidelines posted in the sticky at the top. :mad:

Uganda, you're an Angel :A

seven-day-weekend

Badger_Lady wrote: »

He doesn't have to move in but yeah, they're saying he should help you out with your expenses. Which is clearly not a step you would have naturally made The only other option now, if you're not serious about him, is to break it off completely.

Or just 'court' like people did in the 'olden days', i.e go out to dinner or a pub or the cinema,or watch tv or a dvd, coffee etc afterwards and then he goes home and stays home until your next 'date'. It is not compulsory for him to stay overnight or live there all the time!

You say all you want is a casual relationship, but tbh, if he spends all his time at yours that does not sound casual to me.

Right decision by the DWP, imho.