marriage breakup/mortgage/housing benefit NI

snapplejacks

princessdon wrote: »

You do know that legally she has an interest, which MAY affect benefits even if renting elsewhere. If it is deemed she owns half, this can prevent access to other benefits. Perhaps it's best to get some legal advice?

yes i appreciate that legally she has an interest and i would never assume otherwise, this part, surprisingly doesnt really bother me.

all i want is for her to be able to live ok after our marriage and also i am able to continue on and not end up totally broke so that i can have some quality of life moving on also

yes, i will look for some legal advice now also, thanks

princessdon

snapplejacks wrote: »

yes i appreciate that legally she has an interest and i would never assume otherwise, this part, surprisingly doesnt really bother me.

all i want is for her to be able to live ok after our marriage and also i am able to continue on and not end up totally broke so that i can have some quality of life moving on also

yes, i will look for some legal advice now also, thanks

It's just that some benefits use capital / equity as savings. Eg if she say has £20,000 equity this can prevent benefits, there is a disregard for 6 months during a breakup, but after that it would affect her. Also under universal credit, even tax credits will use this.

zzzLazyDaisy

snapplejacks wrote: »

this is what i hoped not would happen.
i know they could move out and get all her beneifts/entitlements, it could then be up to me to rent it out to someone else which is unfortunate, just for the sole reason, i would prefer no major shifting about if only for the kids

Again with the disclaimer that this is the law in England so you would have to check that it is the case in NI...

Any child maintenance paid by the NRP (non-resident parent) to the PWC (parent with care) is ignored for benefits purposes. If you go to the CSA website you can work out how much child maintenance she is entitled to receive from you.

At the moment and until the divorce is sorted out, she has a right of occupation and is entitled to continue living there with the children. As her name is not on the deeds she has no obligation at all to pay the mortgage, which remains your responsibility. It is not in your interests to allow the mortgage to fall into arrears, so you may wish to speak to your lender to see if they will agree to going interest only, or a payment holiday until the financial aspects are resolved.

It may be possible to agree with your wife that you will continue to pay the mortgage in lieu of child maintenance until a more formal arrangement is put in place, but be aware that if she goes to the CSA she will be entitled to maintenance from you for the children, and the mortgage payments will still be your sole legal liability.

jacques_chirac

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I don't know the rules in NI, but in England:

SMI would not be available in this case as your wife is working - and even if she was not working AFAIK she would not be eligible as she has no legal liability for the mortgage (SMI = help with the interest on the mortgage)

princessdon wrote: »

Sorry (am lazy when on my phone). SMI is support for mortgage ie benefits for home owners. It is paid 13 weeks after benefit claim begins, to lender at 3.49% (I think that is current rate) on an interest only basis - not repayment.

Paid only to names on mortgage.

SMI is payable to those that have an established liability for mortgage payments. There is no need for their name to be on the mortgage.

SMI may be claimed by lone parents working up to sixteen hours, so the OP's wife would be eligible if she dropped quarter of an hour (depending on her earnings) - she may well be better off doing this.

I am surprised that, given the amount the OP stands to lose, neither of you have bothered to check your facts first

(There is a basic guide to SMI here. The page relates to Pension Credit, but the same applies to working age claimants.)

princessdon

jacques_chirac wrote: »

SMI is payable to those that have an established liability for mortgage payments. There is no need for their name to be on the mortgage.

SMI may be claimed by lone parents working up to sixteen hours, so the OP's wife would be eligible if she dropped quarter of an hour (depending on her earnings) - she may well be better off doing this.

I am surprised that, given the amount the OP stands to lose, neither of you have bothered to check your facts first

(There is a basic guide to SMI here. The page relates to Pension Credit, but the same applies to working age claimants.)

Simply because his wife at present has no liability - the criteria is that you need to be liable for oayments (that is why I asked why she wasn't named), house purchased pre marriage, she has no liability. If OP defaulted they wouldn't come after her, if/when she proves beneficial interest this is possible. I would love for you to be right, but I don't see how she has financial liability given what OP posted at this time.

snapplejacks

jacques_chirac wrote: »

SMI is payable to those that have an established liability for mortgage payments. There is no need for their name to be on the mortgage.

SMI may be claimed by lone parents working up to sixteen hours, so the OP's wife would be eligible if she dropped quarter of an hour (depending on her earnings) - she may well be better off doing this.

I am surprised that, given the amount the OP stands to lose, neither of you have bothered to check your facts first

(There is a basic guide to SMI. The page relates to Pension Credit, but the same applies to working age claimants.)

its ok JC, maybe there is confusion with this case also being in NI.

my wife and kids are obviously first concern. its just then i worry that i might not have any sort of quality of life after as currently i have very little left at the end of a month in my pay after bills are paid. so i have a lot to think about.

thanks for all help to you all

jacques_chirac

princessdon wrote: »

Simply because his wife at present has no liability - the criteria is that you need to be liable for oayments (that is why I asked why she wasn't named), house purchased pre marriage, she has no liability. If OP defaulted they wouldn't come after her, if/when she proves beneficial interest this is possible. I would love for you to be right, but I don't see how she has financial liability given what OP posted at this time.

Still wrong - I have seen several claims accepted on these grounds. Look at the document I linked to, it explains that a claimant will be eligible if they or their partner (or ex partner) are legally liable for payments.

princessdon

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Still wrong - I have seen several claims accepted on these grounds. Look at the document I linked to, it explains that a claimant will be eligible if they or their partner (or ex partner) are legally liable for payments.

The wording is their partner now has to, the wording is HAS, they don't have to. That is precisely why I stated to get legal advice - I'm not a solicitor BUT I do know that his wife has an interest, if that interest can be documented in some way then the wife could have financial liability. You used to get 30 mins free advice, personally I'd take it if available.

lld01

This is copied straight from the Decision Makers Guide

Liability for housing costs

78215 A person is liable to meet housing costs where the

1. liability falls on them or their partner, except where the liability is to another member of the same household1 or
2. person liable for those costs is not meeting them and

2.1 the claimant has to meet the costs to keep on living in the home and
2.2 it is reasonable in all the circumstances to treat the claimant as liable for the costs




See section 2, even if the person is not named in the mortgage they are still "liable" for the purpose of housing costs regulations if no-one else is meeting the payments and they must pay to stay in the property.

Obviously they would need to be in receipt of the relevant income based benefit before any of this is considered

princessdon

Also even if they could get SMI, then shed lose her 16 hour entitlement to WTC and childcare, they could also only pay half (his share being met), which could work out less than the interest only part of the SMI. There is a lot to consider.