benefit fraud?

mazza111

Most likely but there are some gullible people out there

I have total brain drain, I just had to google how to spell gullible :wall:

FBaby

It doesn't really matter what is said here. There most likely had been a thorough investigation taking place for weeks if not months. Whatever we say won't table away that she hadn't made any attempt for her 'ex' to pay maintenance -so it can be assumed- or pay rent as a lodger our provide a good reason why he moved back in. most likely they have been filmed coming out/in together and they will struggle to come up with any evidence that they are not a couple. I'm still very curious to know where the children are sleeping...

SandraScarlett

Oh what a lovely, warm and cosy feeling I have reading this thread! They have children, go on holiday, then separate. She claims x, y and z. Then he moves back in to "help" with the children, though she doesn't see much of him as he is working full time.

No mention is made of Child Support, so I assume he doesn't pay any, and they don't cohabit and he sleeps in a tent in the garden, or somewhere else, and just pays a bit for food.

He pays "loads" of NI and Tax, but can't pay any more money towards the family upkeep cos, he doesn't earn much (???) and ..................... he is saving up for his own place! :rotfl:

Personally I reckon they should be given a blank cheque for creativity!

xx

JuneBow

I have heard that the most persuasive and conclusive evidence that you are separated is "How do you present yourself to the outside world".
I know two separate couples and I have tried to think of how the DWP would interpret their situation if they were claiming beneifts.
Couple no 1.
H & W have one child (17 now) Wife does not work. She has a portfolio of BTL properties and he is a lawyer. He lives in a big city in a one bedroom flat in a city for most of the week. He comes home at the weekend but they do not share a room because of medical issues.
They have separate bank accounts. They socialise together and are regarded as a couple.
Couple number 2
Both work. They separated some years ago. Both have separate properties. They have two teenage children and because they have no other family spend Christmas together.
They go to the same pub and if neither of them are in a current relationship they end up back at one or other of their separate properties and sleep together.
They do not hold themselves out to be a couple.
Benefits are not in point here, but I wonder, if it was what would be the conclusion of the DWP.
I think that couple numer one are not separated, even though nearly all of the evidence points to that, but couple number two are separated.
I would be interested in Roger Black's conclusion and whether he thinks the DWP would agree.
Excellent post by RB by the way.

rogerblack

JuneBow wrote: »

I think that couple numer one are not separated, even though nearly all of the evidence points to that, but couple number two are separated.
I would be interested in Roger Black's conclusion and whether he thinks the DWP would agree.
Excellent post by RB by the way.

How you present yourself is indeed key, in principle.
Another question is if they are going to - for example - ask friends, or just take shopping together without any significant interaction as 'social activity'.

Technically, your assessment of the couples probably would be the way the DWP views it, on the basis of the above descriptions, as I understand it.
Working away does _not_ seperate you for benefits purposes, generally.

chris1973

Am I the only person who is glad the government investigate these "arrangements"?

Not at all. I imagine these have to be investigated on a case by case basis, otherwise anybody genuinely living as a couple could just say that they weren't in a relationship and were sleeping in separate rooms and reap the benefits....literally.

At the end of the day, if I have a burst pipe, I seek the services of a plumber, if my lights don't work I engage an Electrician, however if I need legal advice or representation, an internet forum isn't perhaps the first (and best) choice!.

Shelldean

well I guess I must be an idiot then!!!

I did actually end up in this situation. Although my youngest was under a yr. And I was suffering from really bad PND.
I was in such a bad place depression wise, i was a danger to myself and my four children. The father of my 3 boys moved in to help/support us. And teh last thing on my mind was telling the benefits people about a change of circs, it was as much as I could do some days to get my a*se out of bed and wash my face.
Although no one was saving for a house, there was no flash holidays, and he was giving me money for maintenance plus a bit extra to cover food he ate.
He moved in to simply save my sanity.

OldMotherTucker

Shelldean wrote: »

well I guess I must be an idiot then!!!

I did actually end up in this situation. Although my youngest was under a yr. And I was suffering from really bad PND.
I was in such a bad place depression wise, i was a danger to myself and my four children. The father of my 3 boys moved in to help/support us. And teh last thing on my mind was telling the benefits people about a change of circs, it was as much as I could do some days to get my a*se out of bed and wash my face.
Although no one was saving for a house, there was no flash holidays, and he was giving me money for maintenance plus a bit extra to cover food he ate.
He moved in to simply save my sanity.

Not an idiot at all - just another benefit fraudster with more kids that they can look after by themselves:(

marybelle01

Shelldean wrote: »

well I guess I must be an idiot then!!!

I did actually end up in this situation. Although my youngest was under a yr. And I was suffering from really bad PND.
I was in such a bad place depression wise, i was a danger to myself and my four children. The father of my 3 boys moved in to help/support us. And teh last thing on my mind was telling the benefits people about a change of circs, it was as much as I could do some days to get my a*se out of bed and wash my face.
Although no one was saving for a house, there was no flash holidays, and he was giving me money for maintenance plus a bit extra to cover food he ate.
He moved in to simply save my sanity.

Your situation isn't comparable at all. You had bad PND with the youngest being under a year old. The OP has really bad PND which she didn't have 18 months ago when she already had her two children. One assumes your OH did help and support you - she has hardly ever seen hers and has said he does very little. You were receiving maintenance - she doesn't seem to be receiving anything. And as you said, you OH wasn't saving his money to buy himself a house, etc.

Nobody here has said that ones OH couldn't move back to help out in such circumstances, and it's easy to get why someone might forget to tell the benefits office. But forgetting to get maintenenance? Subsidising his living expenses so that he can buy a house? And getting little or no help at all? That is what is incredible.

CKhalvashi

midnight_express wrote: »

He is living in a place where the rent is paid for by the state. He is working and his income hasn't been declared. I'm glad you find it so amusing but maybe you won't be so amused when your benefits stop and you end up in court. People do go to prison for benefit fraud and the fact that you don't sleep together is irrelevant.

This is the point that I make to anyone I'm sorting HB out for.

We don't sleep together 7 nights a week; we both run large companies and work completely different hours, but in the eyes of the government we do things as a family, we live together and we are a couple.

Legally in your case, you've gone nothing wrong, however you should have declared his income as h/h income.

Tell the DWP the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the first instance and you're going to be viewed with a lot less suspicion later down the line.

FCS, please don't tell me you're 'married' on Facebook or the like. That will play into their hands!

CK