Married couple living apart but wife claiming IS?!?!

ladyrider260

I hope someone here can clarify this as I'm sure this isn't right!
One single mum with a child has a boyfriend who lives a couple of hundred miles away, never lived together. Boyfriend isn't father of child. He works, she doesn't.
Said couple are talking of marriage in 3 months time but boyfriend is waiting to transfer to "future wife" through work. No time limit, its whenever a post comes up!
Now, they are both convinced that despite getting married in her home town, she can continue to claim benefits as a single person (although the little girl turns 5 very soon, so I suppose it'll be jsa). Their case being "we don't live together".

Surely this is incorrect, legally as well as morally?!? Won't he have a financial obligation to her as her husband?

SuziQ

Until they get married I don't think they will have a problem if he has a separate address and all post etc goes there. I think many people keep things separate until it is a 'done deal' so to speak. Once they are married however i would think it changes because they are most definitely a couple and their income should be considered as a couple- in the same way that if he were to die after they are married, she would have rights to his property- but not before.

An example would be a married couple where one spouse is away with the armed forces for a year at a time- the parent at home cannot be classed as single if they are still a couple, the income of the forces employee is taken into consideration.

ETA having re-read, I am not sure whether this is two couples, or whether if it is one , they are already married or not. In any case my answer stands.

I know many young engaged couples who don't live together and keep finances separate until they marry and see nothing wrong as long as they are honestly not living together. There are no rules re how many nights they can spend together either, the test is whether their lives and finances are truly joined.

missapril75

These things are not always as obvious as people think.

For benefit purposes (means tested ones) there is a definition of a couple. It includes reference to living in the same household.

Then there is a definition of a household.

For two people to be assessed as a couple - whether married or not - they have to be sharing the same household OR not in the same household currently but that they have been sharing and will be again.

eg they are temporarily out of their home, say, at their respective parents' homes waiting to move back in after repairs or they are between homes - not having moved into a new one yet.

If they marry but they are not yet living in the same household and have not lived in the same household, they are not a couple (in the same household) for benefit purposes.

For benefit purposes, the idea has always been that couples - whether married or not - are treated the same. If two people in a long term relationship decide to move in together, they are not a couple for benefit purposes until they physically share a household.

So as not to discriminate, the same applies to a married couple for benefit purposes.

It's much more likely that a couple will marry and take it upon themselves to "be a couple" so the issue seldom arises.

ladyrider260

SuzieQ, in a nutshell its one couple who plan to get married but aren't going to live together until he gets a job here, so the woman is going to carry on with her single parent claim.
Missapril75, they have nothing to tie them together at all. Their finances are kept separately, post is kept to their own households & they have never lived together.

I can understand them getting married before living together, they seem in no hurry for the man to move down and he is going to wait until his company have a vacant post near his partner. During this time, the woman intends to claim benefits to support herself.
I think you have answered my question though, because they don't live in he same household then she can still claim as a single parent despite being married.

Icequeen99

missapril75 wrote: »

These things are not always as obvious as people think.

For benefit purposes (means tested ones) there is a definition of a couple. It includes reference to living in the same household.

Then there is a definition of a household.

For two people to be assessed as a couple - whether married or not - they have to be sharing the same household OR not in the same household currently but that they have been sharing and will be again.

eg they are temporarily out of their home, say, at their respective parents' homes waiting to move back in after repairs or they are between homes - not having moved into a new one yet.

If they marry but they are not yet living in the same household and have not lived in the same household, they are not a couple (in the same household) for benefit purposes.

For benefit purposes, the idea has always been that couples - whether married or not - are treated the same. If two people in a long term relationship decide to move in together, they are not a couple for benefit purposes until they physically share a household.

So as not to discriminate, the same applies to a married couple for benefit purposes.

It's much more likely that a couple will marry and take it upon themselves to "be a couple" so the issue seldom arises.

Tax credits don't have a same household requirement as DWP benefits do.

For tax credits they will be a couple from the date they get married, whether they are living together or not. She may well be claiming CTC (unless she has been on IS for a long time and still gets child payments from them).

IQ