Accused of benefit fraud!!

FBaby

Why does he have a key to your house? Does it mean that he is sometimes there when you are not?

clearingout

drwho2011 wrote: »

18 months is a long time tbh, maybe its time to clearly define the relationship because right now the DWP has defined it for you.

who says? I didn't live with my now ex husband until we had been together for almost 2 years. It was another year before we married. I think this is a pretty normal lifespan of a relationship moving towards being a serious, live-in partnership/relationship. We did sleep together regularly, however, and as he had his own home, we probably spent 3 or 4 nights a week together more or less from day one. But we weren't in a committed relationship from day one.

What so many seem to have issue with is the fact that a 'single mum' maybe claiming benefits/tax credits whilst conducting a relationship somewhere in the background. It's fine if she doesn't claim any kind of benefit, but if she does, she gets hounded on a forum like this and people make value judgements about the 'true' nature of the relationship. How many would judge if she were to move her boyfriend in immediately, have the relationship go pear-shaped after 2 months and then present a series of men in the same vain until she 'gets lucky' and manages to find someone she can genuinely commit to. Then she'd be a 'bad mother' who doesn't put her children first, running the risk of multiple pregnancies by multiple men which would tie her even more strongly to the benefit system and allow people to call her every name under the sun without actually considering all the facts.

I think it's rarely as black and white as so many would like to believe and I sincerely hope that the cynics amongst you never find yourself in this kind of situation. It's only then that you would begin to understand...!

mich2201

FBaby wrote: »

Why does he have a key to your house? Does it mean that he is sometimes there when you are not?

No, not at all. Its just for emergencies really. Ive locked myself out a couple of times!

Cornish_piskie

:beer:That's a very good post clearingout.

OP you are in a tricky position and I do feel for you. I think you should appeal but be ready for that to possibly fail. I can see why you are seen as a couple but I can also very much sympathise with your position. My ex and I moved in together after 14 months -we had talked about it but it was sooner than we wanted, I had become paranoid about being accused of fraud when he stayed over around twice a week and because we took the kids out on trips at the weekend - I was claiming CTC and WTC. Unfortunately, living together didn't turn out too well as it was just too soon so we separated. Back to claiming for me Some time later we decided to rekindle the relationship but to remain in our separate properties. Again, because of my paranoia, we spent few nights together and every time he suggested going out on a trip I found some excuse not to go together but took the kids out alone. Needless to say the relationship failed again because we weren't spending enough time together :rotfl:I can look back and laugh at the irony now but at the time it felt rubbish!

Clearingout is right - if you weren't claiming benefits no one would bat an eyelash. However, because you are you have to abide by the rules of receiving that money. I wish you well with whatever you and your boyfriend/partner decide in future. And hope you don't make a right dog's dinner of it like I did;)

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

I think this is a pretty normal lifespan of a relationship moving towards being a serious, live-in partnership/relationship!

But what would be acceptable then? At which point would it be obvious that the only reason the couple have different addresses is because they are better off financially this way?

That's the problem. I totally agree with you. I moved in with my partner after meeting him for 18 months, although initially it should have been closer to 12, and that seemed right for us, but I can see how some would need to longer. The problem is that many would see this as an open invit to cash in benefits that as couple would make them much better off than if they lived together, so I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere, if not on a black and white cut off timescale, on the proportion of probability.

We don't know all the details here. We don't know how young the OP kids are, what discussion they have had about moving together. For all we know, OP's partner could have said to her that he would love for them to move in together, but she would then need to get a job to help financially and OP decided receiving benefits while she could was a better alternative. Or on the opposite, she offered to get a job if he could look after one child in the morning, and he clearly told her that he would not help her with any childcare in any circumstances because it is not his role.

missmontana

drwho2011 wrote: »

My calculation assumed he spent 1/2 his free time with his own kids, who I assume live with a mother being supported by the state as well.

How can you make that assumption about his ex wife? none of her circumstances have been mentioned!!

RAS

mich2201 wrote: »

No, not at all. Its just for emergencies really. Ive locked myself out a couple of times!

Anothe naive answer to a question designed to prove guilt.

It would have been so much easier if someone else held the spare key.

uganda

drwho2011 wrote: »

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.

Thank you, I am aware of internal procedures, many of them have been set at meetings I've sat in over the years.

All that is a given, if her IS stops and if there is someone else moving in. Which I don't think they have, but that's a separate issue.

missmontana

I'm beginning to think maybe the DWP should have very clear rules about what is classed as being partners/living together entails, with so many nights a week or percentages of time when not at work blah blah blah...

My best friend, who I refer to as my wife has a spare key to my house, and I have one to hers, lord know what they'd make of that

uganda

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?

I'm not arguing it's black and white, I am simply showing their guidance as it suggests that if the OP is telling the truth, then she has a strong case to appeal.

There may well be more to the case than I know, but I am making assumptions that the OP is telling the whole truth.

And the DWP often make decisions based on assumptions, it is unavoidable because it is all an inexact science. Hence decisions very often get overturned on appeal, which is why I am advising an appeal.