Accused of benefit fraud!!

FBaby

Surely the investigation is not purely a case of looking at evidence whether someone lives with someome claiming to be single but also about INTENT so that if the investigator is convinced that the purpose of keeping another place to stay is purely so that the benefit recipient continues to recieve benefits it does constitute fraud?

debrag

mich2201 wrote: »

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?

Doesn't matter his hours of work, I just picked a general full time figure, he still spends most of his time with you when not working.

debrag

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.

So 2 people can spend every minute of every day together at one address but as long as one doesn't 'live' there they are ok?

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

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.

You said her appeal wouldn't stand much chance, which is your opinion which is fine, but if it had that stood unchallenged it might have left her with the impression that it wasn't worth doing. Which, presuming she is being 100% truthful, it is.


I'm not sure what she has to sort out in terms of benefits except in so far as she should appeal. If she doesn't do it, I don't believe there are any benefits to sort out, are there? I must confess I haven't scrolled back through everything so I may well have missed something. Whether the decision makes them more 'mutually supportive' or not is a separate matter - he is either living there or not, and that is the only question, and all she would be trying to prove in any appeal is that he doesn't.


And if she wants help with that, she will get it from me because I only come onto these boards to try and ensure people get what they are entitled to within the law, as my extensive experience tells me many people don't. It is the only purpose of this forum, it is not for any other purpose.

uganda

debrag wrote: »

So 2 people can spend every minute of every day together at one address but as long as one doesn't 'live' there they are ok?

Thank you for your question.

The law doesn't determine who are members of the same household in such terms.

The DWP definition of being members of the same household is 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.

So the question is 'does he live there?' Well, he spends a fair bit of time there, so that will be considered, but ask yourself 'does he normally live in another household?' I think a very strong case, based on the little information that we have, can be made that he normally does live in another household. He pays rent and bills for another flat, and sleeps there 5 nights a week (not strictly nights in his case as he does nightshifts), which is a pretty strong indicator that he maintains a separate home, and is part of a household there.

Cherry_Bomb

uganda wrote: »

Thank you for your question.

The law doesn't determine who are members of the same household in such terms.

The DWP definition of being members of the same household is 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.

So the question is 'does he live there?' Well, he spends a fair bit of time there, so that will be considered, but ask yourself 'does he normally live in another household?' I think a very strong case, based on the little information that we have, can be made that he normally does live in another household. He pays rent and bills for another flat, and sleeps there 5 nights a week (not strictly nights in his case as he does nightshifts), which is a pretty strong indicator that he maintains a separate home, and is part of a household there.

If the DWP definition of a couple is as black and white as you are arguing it is, then why have the very people who decided on that definition agreed the OP can no longer be classed as a single parent?

drwho2011

uganda wrote: »

I'm not sure what she has to sort out in terms of benefits except in so far as she should appeal. If she doesn't do it, I don't believe there are any benefits to sort out, are there? I must confess I haven't scrolled back through everything so I may well have missed something. Whether the decision makes them more 'mutually supportive' or not is a separate matter - he is either living there or not, and that is the only question, and all she would be trying to prove in any appeal is that he doesn't.

Normally the DWP will notify the LA in regards to her housing benefit claim.

This could end up suspended, she may lose her CT discount and her CTB.

eskimo26

Cherry_Bomb wrote: »

If the DWP definition of a couple is as black and white as you are arguing it is, then why have the very people who decided on that definition agreed the OP can no longer be classed as a single parent?

You could just as easily ask why do appeals exist, could it be because these people are not infallible?

This is not a clear cut case, sometimes with black and white legislation you just have to make a decision to the best of your (fallible) ability. That doesn't mean it couldn't have gone either way their seems to be a million and one ways to use the information gathered.

Judging by similar threads i've read this one seems to be split right down the middle with regards to the evidence.

stargazer59

mich2201 wrote: »

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?

Op i am confused, can you confirm that your partner stays 2 nights a week at your house?

If that is the case how can he only have 1 night a week off?

Also it sounds as if the Benefits people are classing the times he isnt working as his "free time" which he spends with you , if he worked days then he would be spending his evenings and nights with you, as he works nights he is spending daytime with you. I think that is how they have made their decision.If that makes any sense to anyone else!!

mich2201

Just to clear this up. He is actually a taxi driver so chooses his own hours, so this can vary a lot depending on busy times etc. For example, on a monday, tues or wednesday theres not too much demand for a taxi at 3am, so he'll start a bit earlier in the day and finish earlier, say 2pm till 2am. Then on Friday/sat nights he will work from say 6pm till 6am. On average he is working 12 hours a night.
There are times when he will finish at 9/10 pm due to lack of customers. If he does that he'll quite often pop round with a bottle of wine or some food and have a night in. He also usually has sunday night off as weekend work is so exhausting.
Hope this makes sense!