Interview under caution twice?

benefitbaby

tomtom256 wrote: »

Sorry but it did hurt someone. Those that genuinely needed the benefit and the tax payers who funded her during the period of living together.

No other person was deprived of benefits as a result of this person's action, the welfare state does not work that way for income support.

Times are hard for all but I haven't split from my wife on paper so she can claim benefits to support our lifestyle.

Nor have I, but that was not the point I was making, I was referring to fear not finance as the motivator.

Relationships either do or don't last. So what we should be doing then is letting people continue to claim as single person for months/years on end on the off chance it could end, but if they don't have the benefit in continuous payment it could cause a little hardship should it end.

What we should be doing is ensuring that reclaims are quickly processed to remove the weeks of no income which leads people to make decisions like this person did.

My heart bleeds and I am glad my taxes are used to fund these lifestyles.

Glad to hear it.

FBaby

benefitbaby wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that judging by the relationship history she was fearful she would be on her own again soon and struggling. Stopping and starting benefit claims takes weeks and weeks and in the meantime what do people live on?
This is a real fear that I see regularly and this is a powerful reason for making poor choices, should we condemn or criminalise her for that?
I appreciate that you feel we should but I don't think anyone should be condemned for making a rash decision (that didn't hurt anyone) that she will pay for financially as the money will be reclaimed from her at source by the DWP.

That's ridiculous! Why consider marriage if you are filled with such doubts about the relationship? Do people really get married thinking that most likely one of them will up and go days/weeks afterwards?

In any case, I suspect the '4 months' matter is only part of the investigation. Clearly the matter is whether the husband had actually left the household to go and live with the neighbour below. It sounds incredibly convenient that after not declaring getting married for 4 months, he would happen to move with someone so close and conveniently, that someone has now moved too and won't talk to the DPW... No wonder they are suspicious...and still no clue where the husband is...somehow, I suspect back to wife, but not officially of course...

benefitbaby

FBaby wrote: »

That's ridiculous! Why consider marriage if you are filled with such doubts about the relationship? Do people really get married thinking that most likely one of them will up and go days/weeks afterwards?

Having taken a few days off work and seen the Jeremy Kyle show I am of the opinion that daft people do daft things all the time. You or I may not contemplate marrying with doubts but many people do.

In any case, I suspect the '4 months' matter is only part of the investigation. Clearly the matter is whether the husband had actually left the household to go and live with the neighbour below. It sounds incredibly convenient that after not declaring getting married for 4 months, he would happen to move with someone so close and conveniently, that someone has now moved too and won't talk to the DPW... No wonder they are suspicious...and still no clue where the husband is...somehow, I suspect back to wife, but not officially of course...

It sounds like some guests on the JK show, getting into bed with the neighbour downstairs! However as the OP noticed the DWP are seeking a further IUC this tells me they are still investigating and I don't like to jump to judgmental conclusions.