Compliance Visit from DWP

Fluffybug

FBaby wrote: »

But it isn't exceptional. Extreme stress can hit you at anytime and most families will be affected more than once in their lives. Thankfully, it doesn't result in SS needed to be involved.

I have no intention of going into detail on here, but there were extremely horrific and complicated events surrounding a close family member's death. My entire family suffered greatly and it had a profound effect on us all. It's the kind of stress above and beyond what any person should have to go through, and I highly doubt, and wholeheartedly hope, that this will never occur again as it was a one in a trillion type event

I can totally understand how you might feel the whole thing has just turned into a total nightmare, and that it is all a big mistake, but sometimes, events that feel were just a one-off and therefore should be ignored are actually the start of worse to come.

Can you really say that you are confident enough that faced with another event leading to extreme stress, you would be able to cope and not react as you did last time? I assume that's what SS need reassurance on and why you need to work with them rather than try to do things your way within the boundaries.

Back to the benefit issue, the thing is, claiming benefits as a single person is purely a way of gaining additional finances on the basis that you do not have a partner willing to support his family any longer (on the basis of separation). The fact that you are forced to live separately doesn't change in any way the fact that your husband still wants to support you and his children, and nothing is stopping him from doing so financially. So why should you receive extra money from tax payers?

Unfortunately, my husband is not able to support his family because CS have put him in a position where he is forced to pay for alternate lodgings, lots of travel, extra food, etc.
And his expenses will go up even more if/when he gets a property of his own. As it is, instead of putting his £150 a week earnings from his self-employment into the family home, he will be forced to pay almost all of that out on expenses that would not exist if he were allowed to live here.

It's not similar to someone who has a husband who works away. In that case, the husband will have sat down, and chosen said job as it was financially viable with the end result being a higher income than they were previously earning.
For us, as an example, when we were apart and my husband was made redundant, I had all my rent & CT paid, full CTC and full CB. I get £71 a week in IS, hubby gets £55 in JSA, so between us, £126. If he lived with me we'd have had £111 (or £55.50 each).
When separated he has to pay out of his benefit £15 a week travel, £20-30 a week food, and he accrued a debt with his friend (he should have been paying his friend £50 a week to stay there for bills etc, but could only afford £10-£20. His friend agreed to allow hubby to pay him at a later date). So after all that he now owes his friend a few hundred pounds of arrears, and had to pay for food etc.
Had we lived together, that would have been a chunk of debt and £55 a week he would have saved.

iluvmarmite

I have not read the entire thread as I would take an age, but from what I have read there seems to be a mighty hatred towards CS.

Some things dont seem real IN MY OPINION, it's stated the arguments never took place in front of the kids but while they were in bed, well if the arguments were that bad on at least 2 occasions,as the police were called, they would have woken the kids, also the OP was very lucky that a row brewed just when the kids were in bed, or if it was earlier in the day did they both say, oh let's wait to shout and scream untill the kids are in bed! Don't think so as by that time the moment would have passed, again in my opinion.

It's been said CS are basically forcing the OP to take a powerful medication, they don't have the authority to do that, yes they can advice such a thing but they can't enforce it, not even a GP can do that, if they have said it then how do they know the OP isn't just getting the script from the GP then chucking the pills away? I don't believe for a second they would send a SW round 2 or 3 times a day to stand over the OP while she took medication.

Also the stuff about them turning up at all hours to peer through windows, they just don't do that, they haven't got either the man power or funds to do that and it's just something they don't do IMHO.

CS will do anything they can to keep families together, they hate taking kids into care not only for the money side of things but it's always better to leave kids with their own families and they will try everything else first before going down the care route, seeing if other family members will take them in for a while like grandparents or aunts and uncles. If parents have split up and want to get back together CS usually mediate, talk to the parents, in extreme cases they will do supervised visits with both parents and kids, they will give support once the parents are back together, they don't usually do everything in their power to keep parents apart UNLESS there is a real danger to the kids.

On this thread I have seen numerous times the name calling of CS, how horrible they are etc but what if the kids are in danger, and I'm not saying this is the case for the OP, but think about baby Peter and the other kids who have been battered to death by parents because CS didn't do a proper job, after all that bad publicity they have to make sure, have to do regular visits and have to, above all else, make sure the kids are safe, if they didn't and god forbid, something terrible happened to the kids, then it would be CS who would get the blame for not doing a good enough job.

This is just my take on things and my opinion.

jetplane

I saw this thread a couple of days ago and thought then that it need not go further than HappyMJ post #2. This site is just a free for all, is it really helpful to attack someone with mental health problems? Never mind the she asked for advice so she can take it brigade.

OP do what HappyMJ said, explain your circumstances, you are not living as a couple, social services forbidding it, should be a good starting point. It is possible that CS have notified DWP as it is not their role to be au fait with social security law and they often get that side woefully wrong so may want to check that you are receiving your correct entitlement. The DWP may simply confirm that you are and if you receive a negative decision then get help from CAB, some mental health charities have welfare rights officers also. The DWP do get it wrong and you can appeal.

As both you and your partner have severe? mental health issues it may well be appropriate that your children are on the at risk register, you may not see the danger. The high level of intervention from CS may be what is needed to move forward. They usually only have the manpower to deal with the most severe / crisis situations and are frequently criticised for not responding earlier or to lower levels of need.

However for all of you doubters out there about manpower etc, speaking from professional experience I have been stunned by the level of intervention some social workers will go to once the child is on the at risk register. CS really can take over your life, ok so they can not force you to take meds etc but they can coerce you with the threat of taking your children into care. They can give you a list of things you simply must comply with, eg; they can require that you see a psychiatrist, they can require that you comply with treatment, they can question you on hearsay evidence, they can allow unsupervised access, they can call whenever they want to and parents have to explain every incident no matter how small. Families are warned that the protection order can be escalated at any time if they do not comply.

This is not a criticism of CS, personally I think they have an extremely stressful job which is undermined by lack of resources and are condemned if they do and condemned if they don't.

FBaby

Fluffybug wrote: »

Unfortunately, my husband is not able to support his family because CS have put him in a position where he is forced to pay for alternate lodgings, lots of travel, extra food, etc.
And his expenses will go up even more if/when he gets a property of his own. As it is, instead of putting his £150 a week earnings from his self-employment into the family home, he will be forced to pay almost all of that out on expenses that would not exist if he were allowed to live here.

It's not similar to someone who has a husband who works away. In that case, the husband will have sat down, and chosen said job as it was financially viable with the end result being a higher income than they were previously earning.
For us, as an example, when we were apart and my husband was made redundant, I had all my rent & CT paid, full CTC and full CB. I get £71 a week in IS, hubby gets £55 in JSA, so between us, £126. If he lived with me we'd have had £111 (or £55.50 each).
When separated he has to pay out of his benefit £15 a week travel, £20-30 a week food, and he accrued a debt with his friend (he should have been paying his friend £50 a week to stay there for bills etc, but could only afford £10-£20. His friend agreed to allow hubby to pay him at a later date). So after all that he now owes his friend a few hundred pounds of arrears, and had to pay for food etc.
Had we lived together, that would have been a chunk of debt and £55 a week he would have saved.

I'm not responding to be difficult or challenging, but because I think if this is the approach you intend to take to explain your situation during the interview, you might want to reconsider as it doesn't hold up.

The fact that SS has said he can't live with you doesn't make your case exceptional or different to someone who has to work away. The difference is that your husband has decided to go self-employed and so isn't earning much. If he had decided to go for a salaried job, then he would be in the exact same situation than someone working away. If you are currently no better off separately than you would be together, again, it is because of his choice to go self-employed.

Take a family where the husband has been made redundant. He has been offered an opportunity with a family member at the opposite side of the country, where both register self-employed. He is told that it will take a couple of months before he can earn dividends, so in the meantime, he only has to pay £50 a week for his living (as family member also is not making any money during that time). He comes home to his family every weekend, arriving Saturday lunchtime, returning Sunday afternoon. He's taken the job because he thinks the business has a great chance of doing well once going and he hasn't been able to find anything locally for many months. Do you think that this classify them as single and able to claim separately? Yet it is exactly the same situation than yours.

Again, I am not accusing, but giving you perspective so you can prepare your argument for your interview.

jetplane

FBaby wrote: »

The fact that SS has said he can't live with you doesn't make your case exceptional or different to someone who has to work away.

I think it does both emotionally & financially there is a difference between a couple making a joint informed decision on where they/he will live or work and an authority demanding that he live elsewhere otherwise they will take the children.

Furthermore social security law is not concerned with his outgoings, her outgoings or comparing them to any other couple. It is a decision based on fact without reference to morals, hearsay, could have or should have. Whether any one else would claim in these circumstances is irrelevant to the DWP decision. He has not left the family home to work therefore it is not comparable. If the DWP decide that it is then the OP should appeal.

At this point in time the OP is separated from her partner, there is no exact test, they have basic questions which does not include your sex life. The balance of proof is balance of probability and is usually applied when a couple live in the same house but claim separately. The OP has clear evidence than if she lives with him the CS will take her children into care.

edit; they can still have a relationship, still work at getting back together but still be living separately.

FBaby

jetplane wrote: »

edit; they can still have a relationship, still work at getting back together but still be living separately.

Similarly, you can stay away from home 6 days a week, forced -for various reasons- and still be considered a couple living together.

jetplane

FBaby wrote: »

Similarly, you can stay away from home 6 days a week, forced -for various reasons- and still be considered a couple living together.

Yes you can, it depends on your forced reasons, eg if you are in hospital, I don't know what other forced reasons you refer to. Some couples live virtually separate lives, working in another part of the country or even abroad, but are still a couple, look at forces couples, they don't routinely claim separately.

However I am referring to the question asked by the OP in her own circumstances. She has made a separate claim, therefore her circumstances are what the DWP have to consider.

princessdon

jetplane wrote: »

Yes you can, it depends on your forced reasons, eg if you are in hospital, I don't know what other forced reasons you refer to. Some couples live virtually separate lives, working in another part of the country or even abroad, but are still a couple, look at forces couples, they don't routinely claim separately.

However I am referring to the question asked by the OP in her own circumstances. She has made a separate claim, therefore her circumstances are what the DWP have to consider.

But op is the same as any family who cant be together every night, bar the vs social services order. The key is if ss agree they do this or not if this is all they have to rely on. They do more couple things than I get to do, they are more of a couple family than I get to be etc. dwp don't do emotions just facts. Her husband stays over 3 nights a week, they do things AS A FAMILY during the time he is there, go out, shop, eat etc. they talk about their day, hospital appts, kids day, how they feel etc daily. There is an emotional bond

If they were separated the father would pick kids up for the day or the mum would go out etc. everything op says screams they are still very much a family, just not everyday and not at their order, same as many others really - and temporary. He wouldn't be their support if separated.

Ok so lets see my thoughts based on the thread.

IUC TO OP - I have to live separate I don't want to. It's temporary. Answers questions

DWP TO SS - Are they living apart? SS No we are fairly convinced they are still a couple, although dad removed names from bills they are not on new ones and he pays cash to a friend. We went over during holidays and dad was there on a none dedicated day, neighbours say dad spent all holidays (Xmas new year etc there too).

DWP - ok we will now make our decision

Then add why the dad can't get DP letters sent to his care odd address - I can see why for one reason only -ops stress is about to get worse.

My concern is how SS would use the DWP decision. The strong bond between them leaves op very open to saying the wrong things to Dwp.

princessdon

Eek my phone skills are rubbish - that doesn't make sense to me lol

jetplane

princessdon wrote: »

But op is the same as any family who cant be together every night, bar the vs social services order.

The key is if ss agree they do this or not if this is all they have to rely on. They do more couple things than I get to do, they are more of a couple family than I get to be etc. dwp don't do emotions just facts. Her husband stays over 3 nights a week, they do things AS A FAMILY during the time he is there, go out, shop, eat etc. they talk about their day, hospital appts, kids day, how they feel etc daily. There is an emotional bond

If they were separated the father would pick kids up for the day or the mum would go out etc. everything op says screams they are still very much a family, just not everyday and not at their order, same as many others really - and temporary. He wouldn't be their support if separated.

Ok so lets see my thoughts based on the thread.

IUC TO OP - I have to live separate I don't want to. It's temporary. Answers questions

DWP TO SS - Are they living apart? SS No we are fairly convinced they are still a couple, although dad removed names from bills they are not on new ones and he pays cash to a friend. We went over during holidays and dad was there on a none dedicated day, neighbours say dad spent all holidays (Xmas new year etc there too).

DWP - ok we will now make our decision

Then add why the dad can't get DP letters sent to his care odd address - I can see why for one reason only -ops stress is about to get worse.

My concern is how SS would use the DWP decision. The strong bond between them leaves op very open to saying the wrong things to Dwp.

It's nice for you to be concerned but my concern could be that SS would say they were not taking their separation seriously because they WERE claiming as a couple. I would also be concerned about the health & welfare on a family already struggling without putting financial pressure on them. How else could SS use this information? They want to spend as little as possible so it is in their best interests that the family have enough income otherwise OP may turn to them for handouts.

Sorry if I seem to be playing devils advocate but really social security law determines benefits and I was attempting to answer the original question. Yes couples effectively live apart and claim together and couples live together and claim separately, the OP decision to claim separately might not be popular or reasonable with some people but we are not walking in her shoes. As for the benefits system? Well the law really is an a$$ and if I was the OP I would be taking a solicitor who specialises in social security law..