Accused of benefit fraud!!

krisskross

mich2201 wrote: »

I meant he would help me by providing proof of his circumstances.
Also, he rents a room which he is in around 5 nights a week , you cant really say he doesnt stay there much. And he does not live at mine .

I thought he worked nights?

drwho2011

krisskross wrote: »

I thought he worked nights?

According to the OP

"He works till about 5am then goes back to his to sleep. gets up about lunchtime then usually comes to mine."

So 7hrs a day sleeping in his room (or 35 hrs a week) before heading over to hers.

But he sleeps at her place 2 nights of the week (I'm guessing the weekend).

marleyboy

Theres an easy way to determine whether you live together or not. Is their an extra toothbrush, shaving foam\razor in your bathroom that he uses?

Does he have clothes\underwear in drawers\cupboards?

Does he have any mail coming to your address?

Does he pay any of your bills?

If the answer to these is NO, then you have nothing to hide, as these are the signs the benefits agency would look for in your home.

It would be down to them to prove without doubt that you both live together as a couple, but don't let that put you into a false sense of security, as if you do they WILL find out and you WILL be made to pay any benefits you were not entitled to back.

krisskross

mich2201 wrote: »

I know I have been naive and maybe just too honest. But you are right, there are far too many people out there who do so much more than just spend a bit too much time with their boyfriend!
I did make a point of asking the interviewer if it was ok for us to be together during the day, she said it was fine and the main concern was the evenings/nights he spend at mine.
I just pray that they will not accuse me of fraud or ask for money back

Did you tell the interviewer he worked nights? I am sure she would have assumed he worked during the day and thus was free during the evening and nights.

mich2201

debrag wrote: »

hours in a week = 168
working hours = 37.5
traveling to work = 5
sleeping hours @ own place = 30 (6 hours a night - 6am to 12pm)
sleeping hours @ your place = 12 (6 hours a night)

So out of 168 hrs he spends 30 of those at his own place, 37.5 at work + traveling of 5, which means 95.5 hours with you., which is over 50%. This of course depends on his hours of work and how long he sleeps etc.

he basically only spends his sleeping hours at his.

Sorry I was bored.

Im not sure where you get the 37.5 hours working from, or the 5 hrs travelling? . ive already said he works nights so he's not on a 9-5 job. he normally works around 12 hours a night, with only one night off a week. I dont really see what you are getting at, bored or not. I dont really think it matters how much time we spend together, surely its what happens in that time that matters. If we spent it at his place, or out and about would the view be different?

mich2201

krisskross wrote: »

Did you tell the interviewer he worked nights? I am sure she would have assumed he worked during the day and thus was free during the evening and nights.

Yes, I told her

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

It wouldn't matter if he never stayed the night, you could still be considered partners.

They can only be considered partners if he actually lives there - if he lives there, which he might, then they are obviously LTAHAW, but if he doesn't, which he might not, then LTAHAW doesn't come into it.

The only question that is relevant is 'does her boyfriend, in the eyes of the law, live in her property?' At the moment, the law says he does. I happen to believe that if she is telling the whole truth here, then she has a good chance of winning an appeal. I have 20 years of experience backing that opinion up.

You disagree, and perhaps you are right and I am wrong, but she loses nothing by appealing and I believe she should, for the simple reason that I don't believe her boyfriend has actually moved in with her and that he maintains a home elsewhere. I have dealt with many of these cases over the years, but I am aware I may not hold the full facts in this one.

gem4

marleyboy wrote: »

Theres an easy way to determine whether you live together or not. Is their an extra toothbrush, shaving foam\razor in your bathroom that he uses?

these are the signs the benefits agency would look for in your home.

Is this crazy?? I cant believe that having a toothbrush, shaving foam etc would mean you are living with someone.
I have toothbrushes for everyone, my grandkids, daughter's bf, and even spare's for any other visitors who might need one at any time.
I also have lynx shower gel, shave gel, male razor (mine), male razor (daughter's), disposables for her bf or my son when he visits. I call it a personal touch, a courtesy, a convenience...
I dont have a boyfriend but I like mens toiletries more than womens. If I did have a bf he would have a toothbrush at mine and be allowed to use my mens toiletries. That shouldnt mean I'm living with him or that he would be moved in. Why cant a woman have a normal bf who she just spends time with doing what gf/bf do....?
They will want a record of sexual intimacy provided next!! Its enough to make you scared of seeing too much of a bf/gf incase someone already has you married off and cohabiting. If the OP's bf works nights she can only see him during the day. If I were to see a bf in the day, or I fancied cooking him a meal one night, I wouldnt want to be told I'm seeing too much of him so he has to either live with me or I have to end the relationship. Absolutely crazy!

krisskross

gem4 wrote: »

Is this crazy?? I cant believe that having a toothbrush, shaving foam etc would mean you are living with someone.
I have toothbrushes for everyone, my grandkids, daughter's bf, and even spare's for any other visitors who might need one at any time.
I also have lynx shower gel, shave gel, male razor (mine), male razor (daughter's), disposables for her bf or my son when he visits. I call it a personal touch, a courtesy, a convenience...
I dont have a boyfriend but I like mens toiletries more than womens. If I did have a bf he would have a toothbrush at mine and be allowed to use my mens toiletries. That shouldnt mean I'm living with him or that he would be moved in. Why cant a woman have a normal bf who she just spends time with doing what gf/bf do....?
They will want a record of sexual intimacy provided next!! Its enough to make you scared of seeing too much of a bf/gf incase someone already has you married off and cohabiting. If the OP's bf works nights she can only see him during the day. If I were to see a bf in the day, or I fancied cooking him a meal one night, I wouldnt want to be told I'm seeing too much of him so he has to either live with me or I have to end the relationship. Absolutely crazy!

To a degree I agree but if you want the tax payer to pay all your living costs then there are rules attached to the generosity.

If as the OP says the bloke makes no contribution to household finances at all does he bring a packed lunch or eat the food bought with money provided by the taxpayer? Does he ever shower using extra electricity etc? Where is his washing done?

Perhaps all the lone parents looking for ways to keep the benefits but still to have the boyfriend living with them in all but name should suggest the bloke rents the cheapest room he can find and enables the 'lone parent' to keep benefits worth a couple of thousand a month.

drwho2011

uganda wrote: »

They can only be considered partners if he actually lives there - if he lives there, which he might, then they are obviously LTAHAW, but if he doesn't, which he might not, then LTAHAW doesn't come into it.

The only question that is relevant is 'does her boyfriend, in the eyes of the law, live in her property?' At the moment, the law says he does. I happen to believe that if she is telling the whole truth here, then she has a good chance of winning an appeal. I have 20 years of experience backing that opinion up.

You disagree, and perhaps you are right and I am wrong, but she loses nothing by appealing and I believe she should, for the simple reason that I don't believe her boyfriend has actually moved in with her and that he maintains a home elsewhere. I have dealt with many of these cases over the years, but I am aware I may not hold the full facts in this one.

I didn't say she shouldn't appeal and as no one holds the full facts apart from the OP no one can knows her chances and can only guess based on evidence provided.

However my point was it would be foolish not to sort something out in the meantime as an appeal is not guaranteed to succeed.